Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lockheed Tristar / RB-211-22  
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4837 times:

Why did Lockheed whole-heartedly go for the RB-211 and not at least keep a back-up like the GE CF-6 just in case the design didn't develop right?

Andrea K

83 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6398 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4835 times:

IIRC, some significant British orders were depending on the engine selection...


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25459 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4825 times:

This is a good summary of the very messy L1011 and RB-211 history that came close to putting both Lockheed and Rolls-Royce out of business.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ystems/aircraft/l-1011-history.htm


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6924 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4750 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 2):
This is a good summary of the very messy L1011 and RB-211 history that came close to putting both Lockheed and Rolls-Royce out of business.

Thanks for posting this; it provided some very interesting history that I was unaware of. One thing I did not realize was that the L-1011 HAD to have the RB-211 because neither of the other available engines would fit in the tail because of length.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4699 times:

Actually I remember hearing that they were considering using a CF-6 Variant as a back-up but for some reason they never decided to use the back-up,

In regards to KELPKid's statement... even if they had the CF-6 as an option with the RB-211 as the primary option, wouldn't they have had the same opportunity in the British market?


User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4692 times:

The RB.211 engine was chosen primarily for noise and fuel efficiency considerations.

Lets review.

ALL models of the L1011 ware stage three noise compliant at ALL weights.
This cannot be said of some of the DC-10 and B747 models.

In addition, the RB.211 was (approximately) 11% more fuel efficient than the CF6 engines THEN currently available.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2556 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4686 times:

These days we are used to multiple engine variants on airliners. When the L-1011 was designed it was almost unheard of. I don't remember RB211 exclusivity on the TriStar seeming particularly unusual at the time. P&W were on the 747 and GE were on the DC-10. The A300 was one of the first jet airliners to have engine options designed in, with P&W and GE offering compatible engines.

Also, the centre engine of a tri-jet is the hardest mount to make alternate engines fit. The S duct inlet would have been especially hard to match for two very different engine types.

If the carbon fibre fan had worked it would have been a huge advantage for the RB211. The JT9D and CF6 would have been outclassed. So the RB211 must have looked a good bet. When the RB211 ran into trouble, Lockheed had no alternative but to stick with it or sink with it.

As for sales in the UK market, this would have been secondary for Lockheed. Their prime market was US domestic. it is true that BA at the time normally bought British engines, but that didn't stop them buying the 747-100 with P&W engines.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineBA777 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2179 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4675 times:

A little off-topic but does anyone have an actual recording of this RB-211-22 startup from outside?

User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4660 times:

Why was the carbon fiber they designed too weak? Was there anything they could have done to have made them stronger with the technology they had at the time?

Why did United choose the DC-10 over the L-1011? Was it because the engine wasn't ready on time? Or did they really want the CF-6?

If Lockheed signed a deal with the RB-211, but kept the CF-6 engine on as a "just in case" situation, would it have been a major financial issue? Because I remember reading about them considering a CF-6 variant...

Andrea Kent


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25459 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4636 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 6):
The A300 was one of the first jet airliners to have engine options designed in, with P&W and GE offering compatible engines.

Of the approximate 250 early model A300B2/B4s (those prior to the updated -600), only about 25 had P&W engines. I believe the only early A300 customers that ordered P&W engines were SAS, Iberia, China Airlines and Garuda, probably for increased commonality with engines on their early 747s.


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4635 times:

Quoting BA777 (Reply 7):
A little off-topic but does anyone have an actual recording of this RB-211-22 startup from outside?

No, but I do have two links to the RB-211-22 spooling up. Though I think what you really wanted to see was all the smoke coming from those engines. They were notorious for smoking upon start.

Anyway, enjoy.....

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircra...Air_Lines_Aviation_Video-6141.html

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircra...Air_Lines_Aviation_Video-1742.html


BTW, I have a technical question. I had a book about Airliners, and I still think it's in my old room at my parents, but it stated that the Lockheed L-1011 had an advantage of being able to put the wing engines further out on the wing, thus reducing wing flex and wear and tear on the wings, because the #2 engine was placed directly behind the aircraft, as opposed to the DC-10 #2 engine which was above the aircraft. If you look at the DC-10 engines vs. the L-1011 engines, the DC-10's #1 and #3 engines are much closer to the fuselage than the Tristar. Why does the position of the #2 engine determine how far out you could put the #1 and #3 engines?


UAL


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2556 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4628 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 8):
Was there anything they could have done to have made them stronger with the technology they had at the time?

Probably not. GE finally managed to succeed with composite fan blades on the GE90, over twenty years later, due to improved materials and advanced software modelling.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 9):
Of the approximate 250 early model A300B2/B4s (those prior to the updated -600), only about 25 had P&W engines. I believe the only early A300 customers that ordered P&W engines were SAS, Iberia, China Airlines and Garuda, probably for increased commonality with engines on their early 747s

It wasn't a popular option, that's for sure.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4622 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 6):
As for sales in the UK market, this would have been secondary for Lockheed. Their prime market was US domestic. it is true that BA at the time normally bought British engines, but that didn't stop them buying the 747-100 with P&W engines.

There were three launch customers for the L-1011, Eastern, TWA and Air Holdings. Air Holdings was a UK company that was up to off set the use of British engines. Air Holdings ordered 30 L-1011's (with 20 options) for sale outside the United States.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 10):
Why does the position of the #2 engine determine how far out you could put the #1 and #3 engines?

The position of the L-1011's No.2 engine (closer to the center line of the fuselage) allowed for a larger rudder. The larger rudder allowed the L-1011's wing engines to be seven (7) feet further outboard than the DC-10.'s.

Quoting 411A (Reply 5):
ALL models of the L1011 ware stage three noise compliant at ALL weights.

Not quite true, ANA did not pay to have the Stage 3 requirements in their flight manuals. Therefore, their L-1011's were only certified to Stage 2. When they were sold, the buyer had to come to Lockheed to have the AFM's revised. For a nominal charge (big $) as it was a paper work change only.

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 8):
Why did United choose the DC-10 over the L-1011?

United never flew Lockheed's.


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4619 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 12):
The position of the L-1011's No.2 engine (closer to the center line of the fuselage) allowed for a larger rudder. The larger rudder allowed the L-1011's wing engines to be seven (7) feet further outboard than the DC-10.'s.

Ah, okay, I see. So if the DC-10 had engines as far out as the L-1011, but with the smaller rudder, the rudder couldn't compensate enough for the engine out on the right or left side.

That right?

UAL


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4613 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 13):
Ah, okay, I see. So if the DC-10 had engines as far out as the L-1011, but with the smaller rudder, the rudder couldn't compensate enough for the engine out on the right or left side.

That right?

That is correct!


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25459 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4609 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 12):
Quoting Blackbird (Reply 8):
Why did United choose the DC-10 over the L-1011?

United never flew Lockheed's.

Yes they did, but not for long. They inherited 6 ex-Pan Am L1011-500s (and 11 B747SPs) as part of their purchase of PA's Pacific routes in 1985. UA only kept the L1011s for about 2 years. UA sold them to DL.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Takashi Takahashi
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tadashi Matsuura



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © AirNikon
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Roland Herzog


[Edited 2007-06-10 04:49:15]

User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4598 times:

I should have said United never "bought" Lockheed aircraft. Actually United liked the L-1011-500, it was an excellent fit for there far east routes. But with so few in the fleet and no way to obtain more they passed them on to Delta, who could not get their had on enough.

User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 4590 times:

Speaking of Delta, I had a long discussion with one of their senior VP's after the last of their L1011's were parked, and his exact comments were...

The L1011 made Delta the most profit of any airplane in our fleet, bar none.

Surprised?
I'm not.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4530 times:

Quoting 411A (Reply 17):
The L1011 made Delta the most profit of any airplane in our fleet, bar none.

In the mid 1980's Lockheed held a Operators/Suppliers conference, to insure the L-1011 continued to have spares. At that conference a Delta VP said, 'we operate a fleet of fifty L-1011's and each one of them generates $80,000 in revenue a day, and that is why we get upset when an aircraft is AOG for spares.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6924 posts, RR: 46
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4500 times:

Quoting 411A (Reply 17):

The L1011 made Delta the most profit of any airplane in our fleet, bar none.

Why did they park them? They still had plenty of life left, didn't they?



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineDl757md From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1562 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4483 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 18):
In the mid 1980's Lockheed held a Operators/Suppliers conference, to insure the L-1011 continued to have spares



Quoting SEPilot (Reply 19):
Why did they park them? They still had plenty of life left, didn't they?

One of the reasons we retired them from '98-'01 was because by that time spare part availability was becoming an issue. I once worked a flap track fitting replacement on one of our L-1011-250s. Lockheed didn't have a new one and the lead time was 120 days IIRC. We robbed one off of a parked bird in VCV but the holes in that fitting didn't line up with the ones in our aircraft. Lockheed ended up finding one but I'm pretty sure they didn't have any more as they weren't supposed to even have the one they sold us for $60,000.

The whole picture of why we retired the L-10 wasn't just about spares. The birds were becoming maintenance pigs. They weren't nearly as fuel efficient as the 764 that was supposed to replace them while eliminating the SO and thereby thinning the pilot ranks. It served DL well and DL did more than any other airline in keeping them flying and finding useful solutions to make the plane as successful as it was. It's time had come. Had we known about the coming financial disaster for the company maybe they would have stayed around a little longer. But as they say say hindsight is 20/20.

DL757Md



757 Most beautiful airliner in the sky!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25459 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4456 times:

Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 6):
it is true that BA at the time normally bought British engines, but that didn't stop them buying the 747-100 with P&W engines.

They had no choice on the 747-100 as there were no engine options then. The only 747-100s without P&W engines were 8 -100B models (with certain -200 features) for Saudi Arabian Airlines. They had R-R RB211s but weren't built until 1981/82, 5 or 6 years after the last standard 747-100s had been delivered.

Apart from BA's early 707-420s with R-R Conways, they also bought later, more capable, P&W-powered 707-320Cs (and 737-200s). In earlier years, their Constellations, Stratocruisers and DC-7Cs of course had US engines, but at the time there were no comparable British-built aircraft that could do the same job.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4430 times:

What aspects about the L-1011 made it the biggest revenue maker for Delta Airlines?

Andrea K


User currently offline411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4410 times:

Mature design, large capacity, all-weather capability, quiet.
And, last but not least, believe it or not, customer preference/satisfaction.

You might be surprised at the comments I receive when folks find out I still fly the TriStar, such as....gosh, I sure miss those big spacious cabins, or....most comfortable plane I have flown in, sad they're gone.

Speaking of quiet, if you go to the small village of Morfeldon, just south of the FRA airport, you will find, at the end of one street, a recording noise meter.

The important stuff is on the inside of the big steel box, but visible on the outside, is a DB meter.
It is, believe it or not, a gathering place in the evening for some local residents.
When I was there a few years ago, many of these folks lamentated the withdrawal of TriStar services to FRA, as they insisted it was the quietest large jet of 'em all.

I suspect they're right.


User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2556 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4358 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 21):
They had no choice on the 747-100 as there were no engine options then.

That was exactly my point. I thought the implication was obvious....

However when they bought 747-200s they chose RB211 power, rather than sticking with JT9Ds for commonality.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
25 Xv408 : The carbon fibre was strong enough to perform the day job. Just got all uppity when it hit hail or birds. Look at a GE90 fan blade, and note the big
26 Blackbird : I remember hearing that United would have bought the L-1011 if they would have used a CF-6 variant, and Lockheed decided not to and United bought the
27 Starlionblue : 411A is a truly unapologetic L-1011 enthusiast and knows a lot about the aircraft. He does make good points. The L-1011 was definitely ahead of its t
28 Lemurs : The biggest reason for the L1011 failing is the decision to build it. After Douglas had announced the DC-10 first, it was ego more than sound decision
29 474218 : There is a real problem with this statement, Lockheed actually launched the L-1011 over a year before Douglas made the decision to build the DC-10.
30 Blackbird : Still, I'm suprized they didn't keep the CF-6 as a back-up... the RB-211-22 was a revolutionary engine with, at the time, new technology. Andrea K
31 Viscount724 : However, by then BA also had a sizable L1011 fleet so the RB211 had commonality benefits there. And BA was still goverrnment-owned then which no doub
32 Starlionblue : Airbus bet on the SuperFan for the 340 too. Oops.
33 Blackbird : Still, how hard would it have been to have kept the CF-6 as a back-up just in case? Andrea K
34 Starlionblue : Very. Given the #2 engine position it's not just a question of redesigning the pylon. Apart from the pylon, the tail might have needed a redesign. Bu
35 Lemurs : Ahh, I got the order reversed. Oops. Regardless, they both had their fingers on their own ABORT buttons, but neither actually pushed it. You can argu
36 474218 : Try to find a copy of the book "The Sporty Game" by John Newhouse. Provides an overview of the DC-10, L-1011 and 747 and how they were designed, buil
37 Blackbird : Starlionblue, I'm pretty sure that statement in that link about them needing an unusually short engine for the number 2 pylon was simply a myth. I've
38 474218 : See Reply 36!
39 Jetlagged : Likely to be different inlet requirements though (mass flow, velocity, fan rpm). Matching the inlet to the engine is one of the hardest parts of engi
40 Jetlife2 : The leading edge is titanium, not steel. It's there more for hard body FOD (stones, etc) than birds and hail. GE does maintain that the fan system de
41 Starlionblue : Fine. But as Jetlagged mentions, different engines would still require quite different S-ducts. Given how hard and expensive those were in the first
42 Blackbird : Jetlagged Wrote: Okay, what's the mass-flow, and engine-rpm for the RB-211-22 and the early CF-6 then? It is my opinion that it wouldn't take anything
43 TristarSteve : The original RB211-22 had 42000lbs, the later -524 had around 50000lbs using the same S duct. This is a lot more mass flow and it worked OK. The prob
44 Jetlagged : What would be the point of a backup plan if it was uneconomic or unfeasible to implement?
45 United_Fan : Thanks for the links! I only flew on 2 DL L1011's . I flew CVG-ZRH-CVG in July '95.I remember being bummed that we weren't on an MD-11.
46 747400sp : I know some of the early B747 classic was louder than stage three, but I thought all model of DC10 was in stage three noise compliant.
47 Mandala499 : What's not true? All models of the L1011 were stage 3 noise COMPLIANT at all weights and as you said, not all certified them to Stage 3 noice complia
48 Blackbird : I think the L-1011 was an excellent aircraft and was great the way it was. It had a nice wide-fuselage, good passenger capacity, good-looks, capable o
49 Starlionblue : 100m sounds reasonable, not that I am an expert. Everything I have read about DC-10s, TriStars and 727s indicates the center inlet/engine mount is a
50 SEPilot : The issue is not diameter but length. What are the comparable lengths? I googled both and did not find dimensions, but the RB-211 does look shorter.
51 Post contains links PMN1 : Apparently when Government inspectors went through Rolls' books, they found some interesting accounting. This is a chapter from a site detailing the h
52 Blackbird : How much did it cost to develop the whole L-1011... Andrea K
53 Uscgc130 : What are the differences between the 747-100 and -200, apart from more engine options and more upper deck windows on the -200? With which model did t
54 Jetlagged : 747-200 had a higher gross weight, allowing more fuel capacity (larger centre wing tank) so greater range. Some 747-200s only had three windows per s
55 PMN1 : Would the RB211 have attracted the Lockheed interest if the design planned to use titanium blades from the start rather than Hyfil?
56 Starlionblue : Indeed. The number of windows is NOT a differentiator. Which raises an interesting question. Do the -100 and -200 SUD mods have a spiral or straight
57 411A : I was told by a Lockheed production test pilot that the RB.211 was THE only engine choice because of two primary reasons. 1. Noise, or rather lack th
58 Starlionblue : There must be a break even point for that. I mean after a certain flight time the fuel savings outweigh the increase in consumption entailed by the e
59 411A : I'm sure there is, however that target is constantly moving, together with the fuel price. As an example, lets compare the fuel consumption of the DC
60 SEPilot : That point is probably reached shortly after takeoff; the extra weight of the engine is probably well under 1000 lbs. This amount of fuel if the cons
61 N231YE : Wow, interesting thread. I believe that was only on the 727-100. The oval inlet of the #2 engine messed with the boundary layer in the S-duct, causing
62 Viscount724 : Then why did Lockheed have to shrink the original L1011, resulting in the L1011-500, to obtain more competitive range vs. the DC-10-30, but with wors
63 411A : Comparing fuel consumption only for the same aircraft weight, Viscount724, not fuel capacity or range. DC-10 held more fuel...and it needed it.
64 474218 : 411A is correct the DC-10-10 held 178,534 lbs of fuel, the L-1011-1 held 159,560 lbs. The extra 18,974 lbs of fuel gave the DC-10 between 350 and 425
65 TristarSteve : Although the scheduled aircraft was a L1011-100, TWA regularly used L1011-1 on the JFK-ARN route. It usually left ARN with full tanks, and needed en-
66 Starlionblue : I don't want to nitpick here (
67 474218 : I just reported the number, you can make out of them what you want. The bottom line is that the DC-10 could fly further than the L-1011 only because
68 Uscgc130 : Well, what do you know! I'd always assumed that that was a purely aesthetic change.
69 Starlionblue : I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pointing out that max fuel does not directly reflect range with useful payload.
70 Blackbird : How much money did it cost to build the L-1011? Also, even though the CF-6 would cost 11% more fuel consumption, each RB-211 is substantially heavier
71 N8076U : UA had two late-production ('87 or so) 747-222s that had straight staircases. I can only imagine some other -200s built near the end of the productio
72 Blackbird : Nobody has an answer for Reply 70? Andrea K
73 411A : Selling price of the last few L1011-500 aircraft, with a standard interior, was (IIRC) $53million. Circa 1983 or thereabouts.
74 Xv408 : Don't know the numbers on the L1011, but on the 747-400, the 211 is around 500lb per engine heavier, but c. 2% more efficient. Apparently the total f
75 474218 : Lockheed wrote-off $400,000 when they closed the L-1011 production line which brought the total loss on the L-1011 program to approximately $2.5 bill
76 Viscount724 : I think 3 zeros are missing!
77 474218 : Me thinks you right.
78 Blackbird : The L-1011 program cost 2.5 billion dollars in terms of R & D? In 1970's dollars? Am I missing something here? Andrea K
79 747fan : Not to mention the L-1011 put Rolls-Royce in bankruptcy due to the hydrafil fan blades, which made the engine relatively expensive. It did turn out to
80 Blackbird : If it took 2.5 billion dollars to make, why didn't they spend 100 mil to have another engine option. It could have been made to fit on the L-1011. And
81 VC10DC10 : ... Or it could have made the total loss $2.6 billion. Seriously, I have yet to be convinced that the option of a different engine would have brought
82 Blackbird : How many DC-10's did UAL order...... because if the L-1011 was fitted with a CF-6 variant, they would have probably ordered it. Andrea K
83 Post contains images Viscount724 : UA took delivery of 47 new DC-10-10s. They also operated a few used DC-10-30 freighters for a few years, and leased 3 passenger DC-10-30s from CP Air
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Lockheed Tristar / RB-211-22
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
RB 211-22B-02 posted Sat Mar 13 2004 19:15:20 by IlikeYYC
If Lockheed Were Still Designing Airliners... posted Fri Jun 1 2007 00:21:12 by Blackbird
How Did Lockheed Avoid... posted Tue May 15 2007 20:27:11 by Blackbird
Lockheed And The New FSSs: Not So Smooth... posted Fri May 11 2007 22:46:56 by FLY2HMO
Differents Between The 747 & L1011 RB 2:11 524? posted Wed Apr 18 2007 05:57:49 by 747400sp
Why Do All 3 Major NYC Airports Have Runways 4/22? posted Fri Mar 30 2007 05:38:19 by CoolGuy
What Made The L1011 Tristar A "maintainance Hog"? posted Mon Dec 11 2006 01:26:28 by Jimbobjoe
Lockheed L-2000 Question posted Sat Nov 4 2006 00:06:17 by Blackbird
Whats Wrong With This Photo Lockheed C121C posted Fri Oct 13 2006 01:18:53 by Airfoilsguy
I Soloed Today! 08/22/06 posted Wed Aug 23 2006 07:55:20 by Turpentyine

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format