747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5875 times:
Until around 2006, I always thought 747 classic was the second most advance first generation wide body built. I have reed that both the L1011 and DC10 was more advance, but I wanted to be sure that the DC10 was more advance than the 747. I been told most of my life that the 747 was much more advance than a DC10, since some may say that the 747classic was the best built airliner in the 70's. So I would like to know what was the more advance jet, the 747 classics or DC10s?
PS: I am a 747 fan, but I know the L1011 Tristar was the most advance First generation wide body, and I believe it was the best built, but I still like a 747 better.
Ex52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5722 times:
The ARMAR program on the 741s pretty much did the airplane in for me. To have to accomplish such an extensive repair to that airframe was it's death nell, but that is what happens when you build a fuselage that is not round.
As far as advanced, do you mean avionics, design, systems, or performance?
The airline I worked for did three 741 ARMARs, and scrapped the rest. The only big ARMAR type item on a DC-10 was the engine pylons, and we had them off and accomplished the updates regularly.
The short time I worked on the L1011, I was impressed with it's system layout, and operation, had it been equipped with CF6s it would have been more marketable.
From a maintenance standpoint,......personally........, I was not impressed with the 747. The JT9s were a NIGHTMARE to work on, the placement of the hydraulic reservoirs, and adp's in the pylons as high off of the ground as they were, left one asking the question " why all the way up there" ? The trailing edge flap drive system had more moving parts than a helicopter transmission. Those are some things off the top of my head.
The DC-10, and L1011.....more advanced...... hard to say.
"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
Ovrpowrd727 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5573 times:
wasn't the DC-10 and L-1011 debut after the 747?? they might have had slightly more advanced avionics, i know the tristar had some innovative systems...the one thing the 747 had over the others was it's lounge, that plane was so large for its market in the early 70's the last area of the aircraft was commonly used as a lounge area, the DC-10s and L-1011s never actually did that, on the other hand the L-1011 had an elevator between decks...they both have their uniques
N707PA From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 272 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5560 times:
Quoting Ovrpowrd727 (Reply 2): on the other hand the L-1011 had an elevator between decks...
L-1011's, DC-10's and some 747 classics (AA,UA,QF) had the lower deck galley lifts.
Bellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 574 posts, RR: 60 Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5523 times:
747400sp
...I would like to know what was the more advance jet, the 747 classics or DC10s?...
I flew both types, and have fond memories of them both. I got my first command on the DC10 and was an instructor on the B747-100/200 for many years.
"Advanced" is a rather subjective term, that people can differ over, but what I would say is that the B747, from a pilot's point of view, is clearly a better designed aircraft in two crucial areas.
Firstly, by any standard, the design of the whole hydraulic system in the B747 is superb, with massive redundancy built in. You have to lose two out of the four systems before you effectively notice any meaningful loss, and the aircraft is quite controllable on only one system. The B747 has the best hydraulic system of any aircraft I have flown, bar none.
Secondly, the (separate-but-joined-but-can-be-separated-if-necessary-push-me-pull-you-to-move-me) flap and slat levers, and the whole procedure for selecting the required (multi-variable) flap angle setting and then setting that flap angle on the DC10 is unnecessarily complicated, poorly designed and an ergonomic nightmare.
The Boeing philosophy of having just one lever, controlling both flaps and slats, moving through fixed detents, with only seven flap selections possible (UP,1°,5°,10°,20°,25°,30°) and with reminder baulks on the most critical selections, is clearly superior.
I would quite happily fly either tomorrow, and they both had one excellent safety feature, sadly designed out of modern airliners, that I miss greatly on my present type!
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5515 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 4): they both had one excellent safety feature
You're referring to the one mounted sideways on the flight deck, I presume?
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2511 posts, RR: 45 Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5382 times:
Quoting Ovrpowrd727 (Reply 2): the one thing the 747 had over the others was it's lounge, that plane was so large for its market in the early 70's the last area of the aircraft was commonly used as a lounge area, the DC-10s and L-1011s never actually did that, on the other hand the L-1011 had an elevator between decks...they both have their uniques
I don't think cabin furnishings make the aircraft more advanced. By the way, both DC-10's and L-1011's had lounges in some configurations.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6256 posts, RR: 39 Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5373 times:
Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 1): The ARMAR program on the 741s pretty much did the airplane in for me. To have to accomplish such an extensive repair to that airframe was it's death nell, but that is what happens when you build a fuselage that is not round.
What program was that? This is the first I've heard of it.
Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 4): I would quite happily fly either tomorrow, and they both had one excellent safety feature, sadly designed out of modern airliners, that I miss greatly on my present type!
What type do you presently fly?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21460 posts, RR: 24 Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 5356 times:
Quoting Ovrpowrd727 (Reply 2): the last area of the aircraft was commonly used as a lounge area, the DC-10s and L-1011s never actually did that,
CO DC-10-10s had a lounge behind the first class cabin.
Five L1011s built for PSA had a lounge in what otherwise would have been the forward cargo compartment on the lower deck. PSA only took delivery of two of those aircraft and operated them for less than a year in 1974-75. They were much too big and unsuitable shorthaul routes in California. The other 3 weren't taken up and were delivered to German charter/leisure carrier LTU.
When PSA took their 2 L1011s out of service the lounge made those aircraft unattractive to other potential operatorsand they spent quite a while stored in the desert. They were eventually leased by Aeroperu for a while and had a couple of other subsequent operators.
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2511 posts, RR: 45 Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5338 times:
Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 4): Firstly, by any standard, the design of the whole hydraulic system in the B747 is superb, with massive redundancy built in. You have to lose two out of the four systems before you effectively notice any meaningful loss, and the aircraft is quite controllable on only one system. The B747 has the best hydraulic system of any aircraft I have flown, bar none.
I agree that the B-747 hydraulic system is very good (I only have experience in the 744, however); I especially appreciate the redundancy and simplicity of the system. I do have to presume, though, that you have not flown the L-1011...
Ovrpowrd727 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 96 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5265 times:
apparently i should do more research, however i did learn from you guys so all is not lost
Bellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 574 posts, RR: 60 Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5264 times:
2H4
...You're referring to the one mounted sideways on the flight deck, I presume?...
AcNDTTech From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 338 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5249 times:
One thing to remember about the L-1011 and economics. Lockheed was used to building planes for the government - money was no object. They really had a hard time building airplanes for use primarily in the civillian market economically. Even the JetStar started out as an executive transport for the USAF. Lockheed made airplanes with all the bells and whistles first, and thought about the cost to build with all the bells and whistles last.
Bellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 574 posts, RR: 60 Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5121 times:
PGNCS
...I do have to presume, though, that you have not flown the L-1011...
Yes, you presume correctly. I bid for it, as an F/O, but sadly never got on it.
I'm not very knowledgeable about it, but am aware that the L-1011 hydraulic design, with four separate hydraulic systems (routed through different parts of the airframe) four engine driven pumps, plus several other pumps (of various sorts) and a RAT, was rightly very highly regarded.
Almost as though Lockheed thought they were designing an aircraft that would go into combat!
Lockheed undoubtedly had talented designers, and, knowing what we know now about their (covert) supersonic experience, we always wondered what would have happened if they, and not Boeing, had been given the civil transport supersonic project by the US government!
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5080 times:
Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 14): Almost as though Lockheed thought they were designing an aircraft that would go into combat!
No. Lockheed designed the L-1011 to be safe.
Both the L-1011 and the DC-10 experienced separation of the No. 2 fan disk. On the L-1011 three hydraulic systems were damaged but the crew still had control because of the fourth system. When the DC-10 lost the fan disk, it also disabled three hydraulic system, but that left the DC-10 without the use of any flight control system.
Dc863 From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1554 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5045 times:
The L1011's in '72 were more advanced than anything flying. From what I've read mechanically they were a bit of a pain.
The DC-10-10s, and -30s from 1971-73 were leaps ahead of the DC-8s and cut crew workload in half. Pilots praised the aircraft as much as crews did the L10s. It would've been interesting to hear from a former Delta pilot who had served aboard the DC-10s then transfered to the L10s by 1974/75. I'd like to hear his opinion as to which plane was "better".
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6256 posts, RR: 39 Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5031 times:
Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 14):
Lockheed undoubtedly had talented designers, and, knowing what we know now about their (covert) supersonic experience, we always wondered what would have happened if they, and not Boeing, had been given the civil transport supersonic project by the US government!
Unfortunately, the SST was done in by fuel costs more than anything else, and Lockheed had no magic bullet up their sleeve to make it more economical. It's possible that Lockheed would have designed a better plane, and might have had it flying before 1973, but when the oil price hikes of the early 70's hit it would have suffered the same fate as the 2707. It was dependent on political support to continue, and that support disappeared after 1972. Lockheed would not have been able to continue without government support any more than Boeing was able to. And certainly the airlines were in poor shape at that time, and would not have bought them. The Concorde survived because it was completed before the oil price shocks, but if it had been a few years later it would undoubtedly been canceled as well.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Venus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1409 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5026 times:
From all my experiance as a AMT I prefer Boeings, they were thought out as a no nonsence sense of purpose the LH,MD and Douglas's seam to have a alot of over engineering in them, a light switch can't just be a light switch mentality.
Ex52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4981 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 7): What program was that? This is the first I've heard of it.
ARMAR, from memory now, was the replacement of the cockpit and upper deck skin, and much of the supporting structure for the cockpit, from the forward pressure bulkhead to the end of the upper deck.
The lap seam joints were disassembled and corrosion was addressed. It was a very extensive, and expensive program that started in late 89. NW ARMARed three 741's, at about the time fuel went back up (Gulf War 1) and ended the program. As far as I know NW was the only airline to do an ARMAR, remember NW owned all of their airplanes outright back then, so there was no leasing company involved.
6601US flew for many more years because of the program. The program cost more than the airplanes were worth..........so as Clint Eastwood would say "scrap the whale Clyde".
"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 9 Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4936 times:
Quoting Dc863 (Reply 16): It would've been interesting to hear from a former Delta pilot who had served aboard the DC-10s then transfered to the L10s by 1974/75. I'd like to hear his opinion as to which plane was "better".
I know one, personally.
Now retired from active flying, he told me that the L1011 was, hands down, his favorite.
A true gentlemans airplane, he says.
After fifteen thousand hours in Command of the L1011and, still flying one, today), I would certainly have to agree.
Especially autopilot/avionics systems design.
Positively, nothing finer....then. Only the 777 comes close...now, according to pilots whom have flown both types extensively.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6256 posts, RR: 39 Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4874 times:
Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 19): ARMAR, from memory now, was the replacement of the cockpit and upper deck skin, and much of the supporting structure for the cockpit, from the forward pressure bulkhead to the end of the upper deck.
Thanks for the info. I take it this was in response to an AD; do you know the number? Did this arise just in response to corrosion discovered on some aircraft, or did an event precipitate it?
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4860 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 21): Thanks for the info. I take it this was in response to an AD; do you know the number? Did this arise just in response to corrosion discovered on some aircraft, or did an event precipitate it?
Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 19): ARMAR, from memory now, was the replacement of the cockpit and upper deck skin, and much of the supporting structure for the cockpit, from the forward pressure bulkhead to the end of the upper deck.
I am no 747 expert but it sounds to me like you are describing the Section 41 Mod. The flat side of the 747 that extends to the upper deck has to be replaced/modified after a specific number of cycles because of fatigue.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4857 times:
Quoting Dc863 (Reply 16): It would've been interesting to hear from a former Delta pilot who had served aboard the DC-10s then transfered to the L10s by 1974/75. I'd like to hear his opinion as to which plane was "better".
I would think all you need to know is that Delta bought forty four (44) new L-1011's from Lockheed and twenty three (23) used L-1011's from various operators. Delta operated the L-1011 for over 28 years. They operated five (5) DC-10's for three (3) years.
PhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4856 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 22): I am no 747 expert but it sounds to me like you are describing the Section 41 Mod. The flat side of the 747 that extends to the upper deck has to be replaced/modified after a specific number of cycles because of fatigue
I am not sure what specific AD covered the ARMAR or if there was an actual AD, but the section 41 mod is not the same.
NW initially did a 727-100 and a 747-100 and put a lot of manpower into the process. IIRC, they beat Boeing's estimate for manhours by almost 40%. I flew the both aircraft with the FAA and a boatload of mechanics once the ARMAR was completed. Both aircraft were an absolute joy to fly.
The Section 41 mod but a band on the window post of window 3 L/R to stop the cracks extending along the fuselage.
But, back to the question. The DC-10 was a much quieter cockpit and more ergonomically designed. The 747 was classic Boeing, it worked good and lasted a long time. Both were a pleasrue to fly and I would gladly fly either.
25 SEPilot: " target=_blank>http://www.plane-truth.com/fatigue_d...s.htm Thanks for the post; it was quite informative.
26 Dc863: Delta had the DC-10s leased from UA only as stop gaps until the L1011s arrived. The L10 was the mainstay of the widebody fleet for DA. However they h
27 Point8six: From a pilot's perspective, the L1011 was streets ahead of the early 747's and the DC10, however, the 747-400 and the MD11 caught up with Lockheed's e
29 AcNDTTech: Were the original Delta DC-10 pilots also former CV-880 pilots? I remember that most of the original L-10 pilots transitioned to them after the 880. N
30 Dc863: Good question. I've read that DC-8 Captains were offered 747 slots in 1970. Perhaps some 880 Capt were offered the same when the DC-10s were introduc
31 474218: The L-1011-100 was powered by the RB211-22B engines (same as the L-1011-1's). The L-1011-200 used the higher rated RB211-524's.
32 Point8six: 474218 - I think the engine rating was airline specific. As far as I can remember (and my wife says my memory is selective, i.e. I only remember to re
33 474218: RB211's were not airline specific. However, for cominality some operators only operated one specific sub type. If your airline operated L-1011-1 and
35 474218: The six (6) Delta -250's were fitted with RB211-524B4's. The -250 had a GTOW of 510K and had three (3) wet bays in the center wing box.
36 AAH732UAL: I think your the one who said the L1011 was the fist to have VNAV, albeit very crude. So I would say there is no answer to the question and I will ex
37 Stratosphere: The DC-10 and the L-1011 were great a/c. But the DC-10 was hastily put together to compete with the L1011. The L1011 was better engineered. The DC-10
38 SEPilot: What's more, I believe that the L-1011 had the hydraulic lines routed so that the departing engine wouldn't have severed them in the first place. I b
39 Max Q: Not just that, lockheed installed hydraulic 'fuses' (that MD copied after the DC10 crash in Sioux City) that would shut off the flow of hydraulic flui
40 PhilSquares: Haven't flown the 10 in a number of years, but IIRC they had them prior to the UAL crash.
41 Ex52tech: I am not sure if the ARMAR program was THE section 41 mod. I have been trying to contact a friend that extensively worked that program, but what was
42 PhilSquares: No, the Section 41 mod is not the ARMAR program. The 41 mod was accomplished long before the ARMAR program was thought up. The piece added to the aft
43 474218: The L-1011 rudder fuse is an actual fuse and works in conjunction with the rudder fuse differential pressure sensor. If the sensor senses differentia
44 Ex52tech: Yes I remember standing on the floorboard support structure in the main cabin and looking up, other than some cables and wire bundles tied up, there
45 Nycbjr: This is a great thread and very very informative! I never had the pleasure of riding on any of the classic wide bodies, sadly.. but this thread has al
46 AcNDTTech: Tritanic.....I never heard that one before. I like that. My favorite saying about the L-10 was that it was like a '76 Cadillac - the nicest ride in t
47 SEPilot: There was more to it than just being "rushed" into service. McDonnell had just taken over Douglas when the DC-10 design got under way, and McDonnell
48 MD11Engineer: AFAIK, the early 747-100s also had a seperate lever for the slats (AFIAK one factor which contributed to the LH 747 crash in Nairobi, the first one e
49 SEPilot: I just looked up this crash, and what I could find offers a different scenario. The problem was that the hydraulic system controlling the slats was n
50 PhilSquares: No. the early 747 had a flap lever system similar to the 727/737. Has not been changed since it was introduced.
51 Bellerophon: MD11Engineer As far as I am aware, the B747 has always had a single flap/slat lever, on all variants, with leading edge flap retraction/extension bein
52 Nycbjr: friend of mine in TechOps at DL used that term, he said that the plane always flew tail down because it was so heavy. apparently also I heard there w
53 TrijetsRMissed: The electronic shutoff valve was designed two months after UA 232. Mandated by the FAA on 7/20/1990, and incorporated in all DC-10s by 7/20/1991. The
54 Tdscanuck: UA232 likely would have still happened. The primary problem on UA232 wasn't close proximity of the hydraulic lines, it was the massive spray of shrap
55 AcNDTTech: That wouldn't surprise me a bit.....all the blue goo. It loves aluminum, but aluminum hates it. Come to think of it, aluminum doesn't like very many
56 Ex52tech: No it was set at a specific fluid level, allowing for some fluid loss.
57 Max Q: Eastern had an uncontained failure of the #2 engine on one of their L1011's, the Tristar has four separate hydraulic systems and hydraulic fuses. Good
58 PhilSquares: Interesting since the oringinal design had a fuse in the hydraulic system too.
59 SEPilot: That may well be the case. But I did get the impression that the DC-10 ran all the lines together, while the others tried to separate the different s
60 474218: If there was a lot of corrosion around the aft lavs that would make the tail lighter so it would not fly as nose high as normal. Actually the L-1011
61 TrijetsRMissed: Other than having a fourth system, the hydraulics of the 747 classic were not much better than the DC-10. All four lines ran together through the tai
62 AcNDTTech: Was there ever a corrosion issue with the aft pressur bulkhead?
63 411A: A common misconception, by those who don't know any better, or are only guessing. The L1011 standard body airplane was designed, from the beginning,
65 Ex52tech: Yes, they did all run right next to each other right in the middle along the top of the horizontal stab., front to rear, about 1 inch from each other
66 474218: No more than you would find on any other aircraft. 411A: Neutral position for the horizontal stabilizer is -4 degrees (stabilizer nose down/aircraft
67 411A: Yes, It's still there, alright. With regard to the 3.5 degree nose up I referred to earlier, this referred to deck angle, during the cruise flight se
68 SEPilot: Did it at least run the lines so that if the floor buckled (ala Turkish Airlines) that it wouldn't take out all of the lines?
69 474218: The reason the Turkish DC-10 lost control when the floor collapsed was that it took out the control cables not the hydraulic lines. The L-1011 runs t
70 SEPilot: Thanks for the info; I had always thought it was the hydraulic lines that were taken out. I'll have to reread the reports on that one.
71 Ex52tech: Yes they do run behind the cargo sidewalls in the DC-10 anyway, some of those lines have cooling fins on them to help dissipate the heat.
72 Ex52tech: After that crash they added the cargo bulkhead blow out panels, to help equalize the pressure between the cargo compartments, and the blow open panel
73 474218: We had to do the same thing on the L-1011, as I assume Boeing did too. FAA requirement called cabin decompression mod.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 574 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21460 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Jun 1999, 1554 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
