Deltadude8 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 569 posts, RR: 4 Posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8523 times:
I was reading this book on Tri-Jets by Robbie Shaw and in the back of the book i found these stats, which kinda startled me, I want to know what you would take if you were the CEO of an airline now and had to pick a new L1011, or a new DC10?
Anyway here are the stats to help you come up with your answer:
Wing Span 155ft 4in Same
Lenth 181ft 5in 117ft 8in
Height 58ft 1in 55ft 4in
Max. Pass. 380 400
Max TOW 410,000lbs 430,000lbs
Cruise 577mph 599mph
Max. Range 2350nm 2870nm
FlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8498 times:
Decisions. Decisions. Decisions. IMO, they're both excellant aircrafts for their time. The DC-10 Series 10 is one of my all-time favorite bird to fly on. I was totally comfortable in it as a passenger. And even tho, I've never flew on any L-1011s, it is a very elegant aircraft. No mistaking that low growl once the RR engines spools up. And the DC-10's GE chainsaw roar on take-off gave me goosebumps everytime. So, as CEO of an fantasy carrier, I'll take the DC-10-10 for the domestic routes, and the L-1011-500 for the international routes. What the hell...the original Pan Am flew both too. Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 8381 times:
I will fly on the L-1011-500 model overseas anyday! I like the powerful quiet Rolls Royce RB211 series engines and the control surfaces on the wings that come up all the time during turbulence to stabilize the aircraft.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8319 times:
Those crash statistics mean zip because there were allot more DC-10's made than L1011'S.
Just from what i've heard, the L1011's avionics were way ahead of their time. L1011 economic and payload/range performance were also generally better, or so Ive heard.
But Lockheed was marketing an orphan - they did not have any narrowbody or any other A/C type to complement it. And they were a newcomer to the commercial jet business. There were allot of delays/overruns with development of both the airframe and the engine. McDonald-Douglas planes had a much better maintenance and customer support/sales infrastructure behind them.
SAS23 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8308 times:
The L1011, of course! It beats the DC10 wings-down ... cheaper to operate; more fuel efficient, the RB211-524B4 is marginally Stage IV compliant whereas the CF6 only just scrapes into Stage III; the aircraft is considerably more advanced than the DC10 (especially the -500 with its AFCS and Active Wing); it's probably the best designed and built widebodied aircraft ever.
On the other hand, the MD11 was an awful aircraft. Badly designed, it has very poor handling characteristics which have led to a significantly high number of crashes for identical reasons (think FedEx, China Airlines etc). SQ dropped it when it didn't measure up to its design performance.
KHI747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 1618 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8308 times:
I read a book some time ago....do not remember the name.It talked how Douglas and Lockheed went into develop aircrafts for the same purpose......it was a great coincidence that when the two designs were revealed...the planes were almost identical....it talked how during the 1970's when airlines had to make a choice which way to go...the engineers on the panel would always heavily favor the L-1011 Tristar.....Cloudy is right...there main problem was that they were marketing an orphan otherwise the Tristar was probably a superior plane.
Personally....i have found the Tristar to be one awesome looking plane...the engine in the back and how its molded.integrated into the tail just looks so amazing and muscular....i remember flying a BA L-1011 in 1989 from London-Kuwait-Karachi....one of the best flights i have had im my life
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8285 times:
It is too bad that Lockheed will not go back into the commerical aircraft business and market a new advanced version of their L-1011 with FBW systems, digital two man cockpit, and engine options like the RB211, PW4000, and GE CF6 series.
Garuda From Indonesia, joined Nov 2000, 584 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8243 times:
Are the range data correct? I'm pretty sure that Lockheed developed the Tristar -500 in order to compete to DC-10 series 30 and 40 since the previous Tristar models lacked in the range performance... But the data shown above showed a different thing...
Meechy36 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 314 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8230 times:
The L-1011 had 2 crashes, the Eastern one in the Everglades and Delta at DFW. Saudi had some bad luck in 1980 when one of their L-10's cargo hold caught fire, however the plane landed safely and taxied, the other one was where a tire burst at cruise altitude and 2 passengers were ejected from the aircraft. A Sri Lanken one had a bomb explode while on the ground killing 16 people.
Granted the L-1011 had a production run of only 250 aircraft but in 30 years of flying to have only 2 crashes that is something.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8215 times:
According to a movie I saw back in the 80s, the cause of the crash of Eastern Flt 401 was because the flight crew was not paying attention to the altimeter after the auto pilot quit during their approach into MIA. The flightcrew was focusing on a burned out light bulb on the instrument panel for the front landing gear.
Captain.md-11 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8143 times:
I only got to fly on one DC-10, a UA DC-10-10 from KSEA to KORD. That was my favourite flight of all time. Unfortunately I never managed to get on an L1011, so I would have to choose............................... BOTH!!
Twins,twins, everywhere.... but where are the three holers?
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13354 posts, RR: 77
Reply 24, posted (12 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8135 times:
BA loved the Tristar, though the effects of the 1991 Gulf War hastened the aircraft's retirement, and the early 80's recession saw the -500's go after a couple of years (to the RAF as tanker/transports where they still serve), but in 1985 a couple of -500's were leased from Air Lanka for a time, (I've a pic somewhere of one of these with the 4th engine pod in use, ferrying a RB211).
Great aircraft, the cockpit was known as 'The gentleman's Office'.
I flew on them a couple of times, I've been on a CO DC-10 in 1990.
25 DC-10 Levo
: Never liked the L1011, and just by looking at my name, I think i'll choose the DC-10! DC-10
26 BWIA 772
: I think that if the L1011 programme did not have a problem with the engine developement or what ever it was that hindered the programme that Lockheed
: I flew both planes few years ago with International Airways and Peach Air, two charters from UK, and even if both planes were old and with an high den
: A modernized and upgraded L-1011 would be really cool, I agree. New avionics, engines and maybe a stretch as well.
: 386 DC-10s were assembled, plus another 60 KC-10s for the USAF. 250 L-1011s were produced. Numbers for Ual777contrail. Regards.
: I would take the DC-10 over the L-1011 in a heartbeat. Although I am a fan of the L-1011 also. UALrampORD
: Unfortunately, I only got to fly on a L1011 once, on Delta from ATL-MCO. I don't remember much because it was a while ago. I will admit it was quite a