Turbulence From Spain, joined Nov 1999, 963 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (15 years 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 1089 times:
Neither do I.
I must say I flown in it (BCN-ATL and back) and I found it comfortable, quite silent, and, despite my height (1m92) quite spacious in the tourist seats. But the truth is taht the only "different" thing I can see on it is quite a nice optical effect (to me...) by the fact, basically, of having the nose gear so back. By the rest, I only keep from it a nice souvenir because of having been my first transatlantic flight and having lived "together", on the way back, somewhere about south Greenland, the hardest turbulences ever.
Delta737 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 516 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (15 years 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1063 times:
Well I've never flown the L1011, but I have ridden the jumpseat on the aircraft and know many fellow pilots that do fly the "Tritannic"
Actually, the L1011 was years ahead of it's time and had a lot of systems that were very advanced. It's highly reliable, when used appropriately and didn't have any of the quirks of the DC-10.
The cockpit is as big as an office, has plenty of space -- in fact, on the jumpseat behind the captain's seat, you actually sit behind and to the left of the captain.
Probably one of the most interesting systems on the aircraft is that it had a "DLC" Computer. "DLC" stands for "Direct Lift Control" so after the aircraft has intercepted the ILS, it will maintain a constant angle of attack and it will use flight spoliers on the wings (instead of the elevator) to maintain the glideslope. It means a much more comfortable ride for the passengers in back during final approach configuration changes and a stable visual on the runway environment.
BryanG From United States of America, joined May 1999, 438 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (15 years 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1030 times:
For those of us who know about its history, the L-1011 is a bit romantic. It was a great plane: solidly built and packed with features, its design had all the promise of success. However, it ended up being a failure doomed by circumstances beyond its control. Now there are a lot of people praising the design and reminiscing about "what might have been" for both the Tristar and Lockheed if things had been different.
Certainly it's the fastest airliner in the skies now, and maybe the safest. Lockheed offered so many variants that they were all nearly built by hand, which is probably why they were so safe. And no true Tristar fan doesn't think about the legendary lower deck lounge now and then.
Anyway, at least that explains my fondness for the plane. I'm grateful for the time that I was able to spend working on them at Tradewinds the year I worked for them.
Dl_mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2053 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (15 years 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1022 times:
From a maintenance standpoint, the L-1011 is much easier to work on than the MD-11. The manuals used in maintaining this aircraft are STILL vastly superior to other airplanes out there (incl. 777). The MD-11 manuals have " To Be Determined " written throughout them to this day. The autopilot is still one of the most advanced; I have had pilots tell me that L10s could land at LGW when other planes had to divert. Doug pointed out that DLC makes this plane extremely smooth on approach; The L10 does not make pitch changes while the MD-11 seems to use its strong overabundance of power to correct itself. Both planes are fine aircraft, but the L10 is the "lovable loser" in the tri-jet race.
This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2111 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (15 years 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1020 times:
I loved the L-1011 from the first time I saw it as a little kid, long before I knew anything of, nor could I appreciate anything of, what makes it such a marvel, even today. So what was it? I think it was that N#2 engine. Those long, sinuous, elegant, very feminine s-shaped curves, from the air intake right down to the exhaust. Seductive. Sensous. Okay, I'll say it. Sexy. You broke me down. It's so damn sexy. You should have to be 18 to ride on it.
Actually, I'm not seeing anyone right now. Know of any single L-1011s you could set me up with? Around my age would be good. Thirty-ish. Skin colour not important. I don't have room enough in my place for the both of us, so she should have her own hangar. I don't believe in moving in together right away anyway. That's one of things I love about L-1011s. That they're so independent. She can land in zero visibility all by herself with no help from anyone. I appreciate that in a mate. I can't afford to pay a lot, but I can offer the right L-1011 a good, loving, committed, serious relationship.
If you're an L-1011 and this sounds like you, give me a ring. We can meet for coffee at the airport and take it from there.
This is a picture of an old girlfriend I dated once. She's the one standing behind the four flight attendants.
Sleepless in Toronto
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
Jr From United States of America, joined May 1999, 970 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (15 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 999 times:
That was funny. Seriously. Its certainly the best looking triget out there and I don't blame you for your fond description of it. But really, I wouldn't mind one of those 4 standing in front of your fifth
747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2804 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (15 years 1 week 2 days ago) and read 985 times:
It's kind of like the Titanic, except that it didn't sink (though it never really got off the ground). Everyone loves it even if they don't know why.
On the other hand, I do know why:
Just from a layman's stand point, that #2 looks a hell of a lot more secure than a DC-10's suspended up in the tail.
It's got the largest windsheild out there, and the view is delicious - and the cockpit is huge. It's technology, by virtue of excellent design alone or in combination with the fact that it was designed by a company not inclined to build commercial jets, was so advanced that it was too much for Lockheed to handle. In the end, it cost more to build than they could sell it for.
Ah yes - the lounge below decks, well, you won't see that anymore (argh!), and the DLC (I had a pilot of one of Delta's explain that to me on a tour!) is a magnificent concept, even for today. The engines, I hear, were very advanced for their time, which made them hard to handle both in terms of production and maintenence.
The big kicker with the L-1011 is that it was made at almost exactly the same time as the DC-10, and if it hadn't been for a lot of random factors, American would probably have ordered it instead of a half a fleet of -10s. But the -10 got there first (in my opinion, unfortunately).
Ultimately, it's the perfect aircraft. If you want it - it's got it. Range, capacity, comfort, quietness, technology, autopilot, luxury, hell - it apparently even has sex appeal.
I think to an airliner fan, the L-1011 is the goddess, distant, removed, hard to understand - but beautiful and powerful and good.
MD80DRVR From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (15 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 988 times:
THe L1011 was the first airplane built with a fully integrated flight guidance system. The airplane was built in conjunction with and around the avionics and autopilot systems. This was a revoulutionary design at the time.The autoflight systems were equal to or better than anything built today. It was the only aircraft ever certified to CAT III D approach minimums. This is 100 meters forward visibility.Heathrow and De Gaulle were the only airports to ever be certified for CAT III D landing minimums.This is largely due to the direct lift control system. It enabled the airplane to retract the the spoilers and begin climbing with almost no altitude loss during a missed approach.
The fuselage skin thickness is .125 inches.This is the thickest of any commercial aircraft. This in why they had such a good suvivability record in accidents.
Visibility out of the cckpit is exellent because the window sills are at waist level and the windshield base is well below eye level. This is necessary because the deck angle during final approach is 7 degrees nose up due to the direct lift control.
One of the reasons the L-1011 was not as sucessful as it might have been is that billionaire Howard Hughes tied up the first 100 delivery slots for a short time during the initial production run. This kept other airlines from being able to get delivery slots for the plane. Hence they did not order them. Hughes was never really capable of paying for or operating these aircraft because the Civil Aerounutics Board would not allow him to own an airline any larger than Hughes Airwest which he owned at the time. This was due to the economic damage he did to TWA during his tenure there.
You will never anything but praise for the L1011 from anyone who has ever flown one that is properly maintained.
Seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 12023 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (15 years 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 970 times:
Everyone has their opinion. I happen to thing the best looking plane is... Well, modesty forbids. As for this topic, when I used to spot at PDX, Delta had flights from Asia going to CVG and ATL and vice-versa. I think it was 3 MD-11s and one 1011. TWA had one, too. It was so cool to hear and see those things land!! They were so sure of what to do and yes, that number 2 engine made it stand out from everything else.
N4KHGirl From United States of America, joined May 1999, 297 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (15 years 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 961 times:
I personally love the L1011. I was in ATL on thrusday for 9 hrs *long story behind that* but after 3 hours of sleeping in the corner of the C concourse, i decided to get up and go to the International terminal to go and take a look around. I got there and at the end of the terminal it was so awesome!!! Like every two seconds there was either a big plane landing or taking off, i got to see like 5 L10's landing and taking off!! It's a shame i didn't have my camer w/me. Well the point is, I got to see sooooo many L1011's!! it was soo cool! i had never seen one that close before... I'm gonna be in ATL tomorrow again.. hopefully not for 9 hrs, maybe i'll get to ride on one..
SunCountry From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (15 years 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 956 times:
Well, I am a long time L-1011 fan, and being that I am based in STL gave me years of good L10 time. The L-1011 is by far one of the most advanced planes built, and still lives up to today's standards. When the L-1011 was first used on the market, its standards were far above the aircraft that were used at the time. When the 767-200 first came to skies, even it only surpassed the L-1011 by a minimal margin of technology. The L10s Stadium View cockpit was a favorite among pilots, not to mention a favorite among jumpseaters. Some of the neat technological advances and aspects of the L10 is the Flying Stabilizer, Direct Lift Control, and a state of the art Active Control System/Autoland that was unsurpassed for its time. If there were no delays with Rolls Royce, the L-1011 would of surely prospered more than it did, and we would see more in the skies today. Anytime I get a chance to fly on one, I do, and I will be very sad to see the day they leave us. Long live the L-1011...
Twotter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (15 years 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 949 times:
As an engineer with Air Transat I get to be around them a lot. The crews love them, the passengers love them, and us maintenance guys love them.
Sure beats the crap that comes out of Airbus's factory!!!