Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Technical Differences Between L-1011 And DC-10  
User currently offlinetsugambler From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 302 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 11342 times:

I've heard many people assert that the L-1011 was a more technically advanced aircraft than the DC-10; however, they never seem to state what exactly the technical differences are. In what ways is the L-1011 more advanced than the DC-10? And in what ways (if any) is the DC-10 more advanced than the L-1011? (I'm not necessarily asking which one everyone likes more, although you can certainly add that if you wish... as for me, I've always loved the DC-10, despite its reputed flaws.) And..... go!

122 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2756 posts, RR: 45
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 11326 times:

This is way too big a topic to go into here. You need a complete manual set of each to even start. I have the manuals (though I never flew the DC-10,) but this is a gigantically general question and books could be written on it. Whatever answers you get, they will be confined to high points like L-1011 hydraulic redundancy, DLC, etc., but will not ultimately be representative of the whole picture of the vastly different design decisions made at the macro-level and at the individual component and part level.

User currently offlineDaysleeper From UK - England, joined Dec 2009, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 11270 times:

I don't know a great deal about the L1011 TBH, but one differance which sticks out for whatever reason was the fact it used an S duct for engine 2 where as the D10 had it mounted up high. I know this caused a few performance issues, in that the L1011 had to be rolling at a fair old whack before they could apply full power to the number 2, but it also made maintenance significantly easier with the engine being much lower.

User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2756 posts, RR: 45
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 11218 times:

Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 2):
I know this caused a few performance issues, in that the L1011 had to be rolling at a fair old whack before they could apply full power to the number 2, but it also made maintenance significantly easier with the engine being much lower.

Not really. That was true on a 727 in a significant crosswind, however.


User currently offlinetsugambler From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 11142 times:

General high points are just fine for me... I'm not sure I'd have enough technical knowledge to understand the really detailed nitty-gritty. Things like "hydraulic redundancy" are exactly what I'm looking for, however. Keep 'em coming!

User currently offlinetymnbalewne From Bermuda, joined Mar 2005, 936 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 11074 times:

You'll notice that the L-1011 has two beacons on top vs, the DC-10's one. I was told that Lockheed did this so that the aircraft couldn't be grounded should a beacon go out of service at an airport without appropriate maintenance.


Dewmanair...begins with Dew
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 10977 times:

The technical difference between the DC-10 and the L-1011 are easy to explain:

The DC-10 was a follow on project after the DC-8 and DC-9. It borrowed heavily on both previous projects to save money and cut development time.

The L-1011 design was a clean sheet of paper, new systems were built into design from the very beginning, Cat III Auto Land, Flying Stabilizer and Direct Lift Control are three.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1208 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 10893 times:

It's a bit like comparing the differences between a Cadillac and a Mercedes-Benz. Technically speaking, they're both luxury automobiles, but the design process, engineering, technology, innovation and production standards of the two products are widely different.

Agreed, there's also the brand snobbery to consider in the above example, and that's not something worth much in the world of airline bean counters - but if it had been left to the guys and gals on the coalface to choose between either an Elleteneleven and a Diesel-Ten, the legacy of the two aircraft might well have been reversed.*

Alas, the -10 will go down in history as the commercial winner of the wide-bodied trimotor contest and the TriStar as Lockheeds swan song as far as commercial aircraft goes, despite it being the pilots aircraft par excellence and, in its own way, the technologically superior product.**

* At this point, there's bound to be someone out there sharpening keyboard in preparation of launching a tirade on early L-1011 mishaps. True, it had at least one crash which captured the imagination of tabloid editors and conspiracy theorists alike, and that mishap did tarnish the L-1011's reputation amongst the unwashed public. But the -10 had its share of accidents too, but somehow managed to come out the other end with less bad publicity. Lockheed had great engineers, but were a lot less accomplished in the art of media spin. And history showed it was the -10 which had a design flaw, not the TriStar.

** Initial RB-211 donks excluded - another example of how pioneering technology, first ridiculed, eventually turned out rather first class.



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3930 posts, RR: 34
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 10806 times:

Quoting PGNCS (Reply 3):
Quoting Daysleeper (Reply 2):
I know this caused a few performance issues, in that the L1011 had to be rolling at a fair old whack before they could apply full power to the number 2, but it also made maintenance significantly easier with the engine being much lower.

Not really. That was true on a 727 in a significant crosswind, however.

The Tristar S duct was designed for the 42000 lb thrust RB211-22B. and it worked OK. You could get take off thrust at a standstill.
But the -524B which came along 3 years later had over 50000 lb thrust. The S duct, and in fact the engine, dimensions were unchanged. At take off, over 20 pc more air tried to go down the same duct. It didn't work until the aircraft was rolling into about a 40kt wind.

This caused us maintenance guys a problem. We could not run up a nbr 2 engine to take off. Lockheed put loads of graphs and tables in the AMM so you could work out if you would get take off thrust, but we had an engine shop that replaced engine modules, but had no test bed. So we carried out the test bed run on the aircraft. ( If all went well I could do all the tests 1 through 15 in about 45 minutes.) With a rebuilt engine, we could not do this in nbr 2 position, which occasionally led to multiple engine changes if we did not have a ready tested engine in the hangar.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4069 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 10615 times:

The L1011 never had a design caused accident.



Not many Aircraft can claim that. The Eastern crash in the Everglades was, sadly caused by crew error.



No one was actively monitoring the Aircraft's altitude while the rest of the Crew dealt with a minor technical issue and, as a result they allowed it to descend into the ground without intervention.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinedw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1254 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 10592 times:

One minor note I've heard:

Placing the L1011 engine in the fuselage allowed for a larger, more effective rudder than on the DC-10. This allowed the wing engines to be placed further outboard, which improves wing-bending relief and reduces structural weight.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlinejetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 10482 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
The L1011 never had a design caused accident.

In most accidents the design can contribute to the cause. Accidents where the design causes the accident comparatively are rare. The infamous Chicago and Paris DC-10 accidents were not caused by design problems, for example, but poor design contributed to the result.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 25
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10282 times:

Quoting tsugambler (Thread starter):
I've heard many people assert that the L-1011 was a more technically advanced aircraft than the DC-10

If someone were to tell me that, my rebuttal would be "If it (L-1011) was more technically advanced, then why did the DC-10 outsell the L-1011?"



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10245 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 12):
"If it (L-1011) was more technically advanced, then why did the DC-10 outsell the L-1011?"

The Bugatti Veyron is unquestionably more technically advanced than the Volkswagon Beetle...guess which one sold more.

Tom.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4069 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 10245 times:

Quoting jetlagged (Reply 11):

In most accidents the design can contribute to the cause. Accidents where the design causes the accident comparatively are rare. The infamous Chicago and Paris DC-10 accidents were not caused by design problems, for example, but poor design contributed to the result.

There are clear cases of accidents caused by bad design. The DC10 cargo door design was one, the failure of this door was a direct cause in the loss of control and fatal crash of the THY Aircraft in Paris.



The L1011 never had a design caused accident.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 12):

If someone were to tell me that, my rebuttal would be "If it (L-1011) was more technically advanced, then why did the DC-10 outsell the L-1011?"

There is no issue for rebuttal, the L1011 was more technically advanced than the DC10 without doubt.



But technology doesn't always sell.


Simple as that.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24075 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10222 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 12):
If it (L-1011) was more technically advanced, then why did the DC-10 outsell the L-1011?

There was never an L-1011 with the same combination of payload and range as the DC-10-30. The L-1011-500 wasn't competitive with the DC-10-30 due to the shortened fuselage and resulting reduced seating and cargo capacity. The DC-10 was also available from the factory in combi and convertible models with main-deck cargo door which the L-1011 never was.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10218 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
There are clear cases of accidents caused by bad design. The DC10 cargo door design was one

In that case, design was a contributing factor but not the only one. *If* you latched the cargo door properly, it worked just fine. The design problem was that you could get the door into a state (by using unreasonable force on the mechanism) where it appeared to be locked but wasn't. This is, obviously, a giant design flaw but it wouldn't have caused an accident if people hadn't tried to strong-arm the latching mechanism instead of checking why it was so !#%!@% hard to close.

Tom.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 10202 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 12):
If someone were to tell me that, my rebuttal would be "If it (L-1011) was more technically advanced, then why did the DC-10 outsell the L-1011?"



Back in the 1970 there was a saying that was going around: The perfect airliner would be:

1. Designed by Lockheed

2. Built by Boeing

3. Sold my Douglas

The truth is that Douglas had a known sales team, they had loyal customers and they had a product that could do the job.

Lockheed had left a bad taste in many airlines mouth with the Electra. Not because of the early crashes, as Lockheed paid to fix all the Electra's. But because when they stopped producing them they stopped fully supporting them.

So even though Lockheed had a superior product it was had to convince some airlines that this time things would be different.


User currently offlinetsugambler From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 10148 times:

Re: 474218

That's interesting, I never knew that Lockheed had any sort of negative reputation re: product support. Of course, it wasn't until I started reading the forums here that I had any inkling that James McDonnell might have been in any way responsible for the declining fortunes of Douglas Aircraft in the civilian market. (And of course, I'm sure there are arguments to be had about that, too!   )


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10119 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 13):
The Bugatti Veyron is unquestionably more technically advanced than the Volkswagon Beetle...guess which one sold more.

The Beetle sold more, I would assume.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):
There is no issue for rebuttal, the L1011 was more technically advanced than the DC10 without doubt.


That may be, however, the DC-10 sold more than the L1011 did.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinesfotom From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 29 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10105 times:

I would question the L-1011s having better hydraulic redundancy. In 1981 Eastern Airlines had an L-1011 engine fan shaft fail on takeoff on #2 engine. The now unconnected fan drove forward into the s-duct and came apart. It caused the complete failure of hydraulic systems A, B & D. Several lines carrying hydraulic system C were damaged but only by luck did they not also leak. In addition to the hydraulic failures some of the flight control cables were severed, and the fuel supply line to #2 engine was punctured. After this a hydraulic fuse was added in the tail area to prevent a recurrence.

The aircraft was N309EA and the report information can be found here. http://hfskyway.faa.gov/HFTest/Bibli...Maintenance/Eastern%20Airlines.pdf

I would also say that only the exemplary actions of the Delta crew on the L-1011 that took off with a snapped elevator cable prevented a tragedy in that case.

To be honest, the DC 10 and the L-1011 were two very different aircraft, each took a very different approach to their design. There are mechanics that I know and highly respect that feel that the L-1011 was the best aircraft ever built, and there are those I have equal respect for that hated it. I have worked on both, and my personal opinion is that the L-1011 overextended it's reach for what the technology of the time was able to reliably and consistently support. It also made a difference how well the aircraft was maintained. If you took good care of the L-1011 maintenance wise, then it's daily maintenance workload was not too bad, but I saw in some airlines that weren't willing to expend the resources in maintenance the L-1011 would become a maintenance pig much more rapidly then other types.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4069 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 10088 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 16):

In that case, design was a contributing factor but not the only one. *If* you latched the cargo door properly, it worked just fine. The design problem was that you could get the door into a state (by using unreasonable force on the mechanism) where it appeared to be locked but wasn't. This is, obviously, a giant design flaw but it wouldn't have caused an accident if people hadn't tried to strong-arm the latching mechanism instead of checking why it was so !#%!@% hard to close.

In other words, it was a bad design.

Quoting sfotom (Reply 20):



I would question the L-1011s having better hydraulic redundancy. In 1981 Eastern Airlines had an L-1011 engine fan shaft fail on takeoff on #2 engine. The now unconnected fan drove forward into the s-duct and came apart. It caused the complete failure of hydraulic systems A, B & D. Several lines carrying hydraulic system C were damaged but only by luck did they not also leak. In addition to the hydraulic failures some of the flight control cables were severed, and the fuel supply line to #2 engine was punctured. After this a hydraulic fuse was added in the tail area to prevent a
recurrence.

Not sure why you would 'question the hydraulic redundancy here'



Im this case the hydraulic redundancy allowed the Flightcrew to fly the Aircraft back to a successful landing after an unprecendent
and incredibly destructine uncontained engine failure.



Contrast this incident with the disastrous uncontained failure of the #2 engine on the UAL DC10 that left the Aircraft completely without any flight controls after the loss of all hydraulics.



Many passengers paid the ultimate price that day, but for the skill of Al Haynes and his crew there would have been no survivors at all.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinesfotom From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 29 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10062 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 21):
Not sure why you would 'question the hydraulic redundancy here'

If in the case of the Eastern L-1011, the C hydraulic system survived because it had been routed through a more safe area, or that it had be protected by structure that had been beefed up for that purpose, or if it had been fitted with a system to isolate that line in the event of leakage, then I would give credit to the engineering work for the safe return of the aircraft. As it was, non of the above applied. The C hydraulic lines passed through the same area damaged by the uncontained failure of #2 engine as the other hydraulic lines and it only survived by dumb luck, not by design.

If you compare this to flt 232, if only one of the blades had taken a slightly different trajectory then hydraulic system 1 or 3 might have survived giving that flight a very different ending. In both cases, hindsight shows us that neither aircraft had sufficient redundancy to meet the standards that we would want them to have.

Both aircraft had a lot of good design work put into them. Both aircraft have their strengths and weaknesses. Both aircraft when maintained and operated properly gave good service to safely move people around the world. I don't believe that the DC 10 deserved it's negative reputation, and I think the L-1011 got some lucky breaks which could have gone the other way.


User currently offlinestratosphere From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1647 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 10042 times:

Quoting sfotom (Reply 22):
I don't believe that the DC 10 deserved it's negative reputation, and I think the L-1011 got some lucky breaks which could have gone the other way.

I think you might be right but even though I never worked the L1011 it was more thought out with regards to redundancy. The DC-10 was playing catch up at the time. But you have a good point Bad luck exposed the DC-10 vulnerabilities. But take AA 191 in 1979 would not have happened with the L1011 the slats on the L10 would have locked and not retracted like they did on AA 191. I really like flying on the DC-10 and the L1011. As for working on them the DC-10 was a maintenance pig and actually I think the L1011 was challenging as well. As for pilots that flew them pilots loved both a/c. Our friend PGNCS will attest to how much he loves the L1011 over any other a/c. Too bad both a/c especially the L1011 are a tough find as far as flying on one.



NWA THE TRUE EVIL EMPIRE
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9959 times:

Quoting sfotom (Reply 20):
I would also say that only the exemplary actions of the Delta crew on the L-1011 that took off with a snapped elevator cable prevented a tragedy in that case.

Having worked with the L-1011 for over thirty years we never had a broken elevator drive cable. The incident are referring to was caused by a failed bearing in the elevator drive quadrant. The failed bearing allowed the quadrant to tilt and jam. This happened prior to T.O. during the controls check. After reviewing the incident Lockheed installed a jam detector in the system.

Quoting tsugambler (Reply 18):
That's interesting, I never knew that Lockheed had any sort of negative reputation re: product support.

Because of the Electra Lockheed went in the opposite direction with the L-1011 product support. Written to each purchase contract was a clause that Lockheed would continue to provide support as long as one L-1011 was still in service with an original purchaser. While I am a little bias because I spent 22 years in L-1011 product support, our support was second to none. If fact when Airbus was trying to sell A310's to an L-1011 operator, they insisted that Lockheed provide the support for them. Several meetings were held in Toulouse and Burbank on the subject, before we backed out of the project.

L-1011 support is on going as I just got a fax from them this week covering a new FAA requirement.


25 Pihero : All the above three quotes sum nicely up the comparison. What we could say, as a fact, is that the Tristar was designed from it's start as a"system",
26 broke : The DC-10 was an enlarged DC-8/DC-9 airplane. Many of the major structural elements were identical in shape but only larger than those on the DC-8/DC-
27 Viscount724 : What structural elements of the DC-10 were identical in shape to those on the DC-8 and DC-9? I've never herd that before. There's certainly nothing i
28 jetlagged : It was a weak design, but safe if used correctly.
29 Max Q : So was the Hindenburg..
30 wn700driver : In what way? It's faster? I can't imagine the cost of ownership, actual usefulness or reliability on one of those is anything like acceptable. Probab
31 Starlionblue : 777, 330*/340, 318-321 are all airliners with no design caused accidents. 757 and 767 as well unless I am mistaken. *AF 330 crash still not solved at
32 thegeek : A 767 crashed due to a reverser deploying in flight. I don't think that one qualifies. 330/340? Until AF447 that was probably true, but I'd struggle t
33 Starlionblue : Good info thegeek. I am on the fence about including problems that are specifically engine related such as Lauda Air 767 or BA 777 since engines are s
34 DH106 : I think the early 737-100/200's had a hydraulic system design flaw that caused an accident. The reverser hydraulics required the weight on wheels swi
35 Post contains images Starlionblue : You're quoting the wrong guy DH106.
36 Max Q : Well, I cannot agree that the A320 has had no design caused accidents. Lufthansa had a fatal runway overrun in Warsaw with an A320. After touchdown th
37 thegeek : With the reverser on the 767, you can still blame the airframe for that one as it is supposed to be designed to not fall out of the sky in that scenar
38 DH106 : Yes, sorry Starlionblue - too easy to highlight some text then click on another button which gives that result
39 Starlionblue : Fair enough. So we're left with 330*/340 and L-1011. Certainly true! A great aircraft which I have had the pleasure to fly in only twice. CX BKK-HKG
40 thegeek : Which actually was a similar situation to the one in Brazil, although a misunderstanding in the cockpit regarding what was actually happening was rea
41 474218 : There where only a hand full of RB2111-22C engines built and all were either modified to -22B configuration (by RR service bulletin 72-2500) or remov
42 faro : The Paris THY accident was not caused by bad design, it was caused by regulator apathy. A similar cargo door blow-out was experienced on AA96 three y
43 Post contains links faro : See also PGNCS's reply 6 in this thread: Handling Qualities Widebody Vs Narrowbody (by Faro Nov 11 2009 in Tech Ops)? "The best control harmony and m
44 OldAeroGuy : The 757 still qualifies as well.
45 MD-90 : 1. No matter how advanced an aircraft is, regardless of how much better it is than its competition, if you can't deliver them on time according to co
46 tdscanuck : All designs are bad if used incorrectly. Like most aircraft accidents, the DC-10 door issues is a confluence of multiple things...design, maintenance
47 474218 : The L-1011 does not have any "belly tanks" all the fuel is in the outer wings and the center wing box. I think this is the same with the DC-10-30 and
48 474218 : Not on 767's with Rolls Royce engines.
49 Max Q : Sorry, but anything that Boeing certifies on it's Aircraft whether its a thrust reverser or a coffee maker has their 'seal of approval' And as such t
50 thegeek : And Boeing does the certification? I see your point though, but I was still reaching the same conclusion as you. That may be, but it was secondary to
51 tristarsteve : But has the same engines as fitted to the -200, which was delivered to Saudia in 1976.
52 Starlionblue : JAL crash. Yes, it was caused by a faulty repair, but it could be argued that there was a single point of failure, which would be a design flaw.
53 OldAeroGuy : Except there is no proof that the 757 would have reacted in the same way to an inflight reverser deployment. The circumstances are very dependent on
54 474218 : It is just not true that a single point failure the caused the JAL123 crash: o The incorrectly installed aft pressure bulkhead repair failed (failure
55 tdscanuck : That was a combined design + maintenance failure (assuming the probable cause is the real one). All existing capacitance fuel gauging systems (which
56 jetlagged : That's a weakness shared by many aircraft with hydraulic power controls. All the hydraulic systems lines have to pass through a small region in the f
57 Max Q : Thats a good list, i'm really not sure if every Aircraft on it has not had a design cause accident though. Just in the case of the MD80 for instance,
58 474218 : Not if you don't route all systems to the rudder. The L-1011 rudder uses only three (3) of the four (4) systems. Addtionally, one (1) of the three (3
59 thegeek : It wouldn't be the C system which is not routed through the rudder, would it? That was the surviving hyd system in the 3 system failure. Conversely,
60 Max Q : [quote=thegeek,reply=59] DC-10/MD-11 has a special naughty corner reserved for them, I'm afraid, Sorry, but that's hilarious !
61 thegeek : Which is substantially after the DC-10-30 EIS though.
62 DL_Mech : D system hydraulics does not go to the rudder.
63 tdscanuck : The Lauda 767 went down because the fan was still producing significant thrust when the reverser deployed, resulting in significant disruption of the
64 IADCA : A decent argument can be made that the AA Cali crash was partly design. Though primarily crew error, at least two design issues (the FMS and the lack
65 Starlionblue : They do, but I wonder how much of that is insurance and union posturing. The NTSB disagrees with them and I think that is what should be accepted as
66 thegeek : They did go down due to a deep stall, but they had disconnected the stick shaker. Can't blame the design for that one. With that A300 crash, I'd sugg
67 Max Q : While the FMS design and the lack of speedbrake autostow were factors in the Cali accident they can hardly be labelled as the cause. The Flight crew
68 tdscanuck : In order to be certified, you have to show that maximum input to any surface won't exceed limit load. Applying maximum rudder input wouldn't have rip
69 ReidYYZ : To the original poster, my time on the Tristar was not long, there were however a few items of note that I am not saying were exclusive to the Tristar
70 XT6Wagon : Problem is we have no idea if the pilot was moving the pedals, the rudder was moving the pedals, or some combination. Also its been discovered that t
71 tristarsteve : But the flush manifold was pressurised to the other lavs. I can't count how many times I have seen a mechanic changing a flush valve, without trippin
72 OldAeroGuy : The original Trident had quite a serious design flaw in that leading edge droop and trailing edge flap controls were separate. This led to one crash
73 DH106 : Well yes, but you could argue that the crash was due to pilot error and not a flaw in aircraft design - the pilot retracted the wrong device. Sure -h
74 Post contains images Pihero : Interesting view from a maintenance perspective. I'm quite surprised that no one has mentioned one of the characteristics of the L-1011, : The RCCB a
75 tdscanuck : As usual, Lockheed was way ahead of their time, but Boeing did catch up. They're had the FIRM-style manual since at least the 737NG. Tom.
76 jetlagged : The problem was that the droops were retracted at too low a speed, causing an immediate stall. The position of the TE flaps was irrelevant, IIRC the
77 Wingscrubber : Point worth noting; it was a piece of FOD from a DC-10 left behind on the runway which caused the single Concorde crash. For that reason I hold that a
78 Max Q : It is a shame you hold that opinion. It is not backed up by the facts however, there were so many other contributing factors that day as has been pro
79 DH106 : Well, that piece of titanium that fell off the DC-10 that day if I remember correctly wasn't a standard DC-10 part, so whatever the view you hold on t
80 Woof : Surely any weak design in aviation is a bad design? A highly flammable skin containing a highly flammable gas? - ok you could argue that He wasn't av
81 Post contains images DH106 : It contained a highly flammable gas (hydrogen) because the US had an export ban on helium, virtually the only large scale source at the time. So the
82 474218 : The L-1011 hydraulic reservoirs are located below the mid-cabin floor in the hydraulic service center, which is located between the main landing gear
83 tdscanuck : Not exactly...almost all aviation designs are "weak" when abused because they're so point-optimized that there's not much margin left for abuse cases
84 Woof : Indeed, but the case in point reflects using a handle that is designed to do the job that that the person is expecting it to do. In terms of using ex
85 thegeek : The part that was a design flaw was that the door could indicate that it was correctly closed when it wasn't.
86 jetlagged : This was soon corrected after an AA DC-10 had a cargo door open in flight. This incident resulted in design modifications, including beefed up mechan
87 Max Q : That makes sense of course. Build a mickey mouse door latching mechanism that is easy to close improperly and then blame the loss of the Aircraft on t
88 tdscanuck : Issue a fix for the mickey mouse door latching mechanism that *does* indicate when it's not correctly latched, have a mechanic ignore it, then blame
89 alwaysontherun : So in case of any violent decompression in the cargo hold of any "modern" jet, the floor structure of the passenger cabin will not collaps sucking th
90 474218 : When an aircraft has a design problem like the DC-10 cargo door latches, cabin floor strength, pylon design (I know it was maintenance that caused th
91 tdscanuck : There are blowout panels in the lower sidewalls and cargo liners that will vent the cabin into the cargo hold to minimize differential pressure. Whoe
92 Max Q : The proof is in the pudding folks. The L1011 never had a design caused accident. This is indisputable. The DC10 had several clearly attributed to desi
93 thegeek : Wasn't the problem in Turkish 981 that the fix hadn't been installed to that aircraft? Are you saying here that if UA811 (the 747 which lost its carg
94 MD-90 : I would guess probably not since losing that door ripped off parts of the fuselage as well from the main cabin area so there would've been no danger
95 thegeek : Good point. Can I re-phrase the question then: Did the 747 require the same remediation as the DC-10 regarding floor venting? Would a collapsed floor
96 474218 : May be but we will never know, because the decompression mods (and or floor strengthening) were required on all DC-10's, L-1011's, B747's and A300's.
97 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : The attachment is a summmary of the accident. http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19720618-0 Not really. Separating the LE/TE controls m
98 sfotom : Keep in mind that the reason the DC 10 was certified without a leading edge slat lock mechanism was that Douglas demonstrated that the aircraft could
99 jetstar : A side note to the THY DC-10 accident. I remember reading about this accident in Aviation Week that the investigators after the accident checked the
100 jetlagged : You originally said the problem was the droop retraction before the flaps were retracted, thus splitting the levers was unsafe. This says "after flap
101 Max Q : Not on the 747 because, at least some of the Control lines are routed just below the ceiling
102 474218 : How can the "Control lines" (control cables) be routed just below the ceiling? That would make them in the cabin. Suggest reading the following: Note
103 OldAeroGuy : An initial flap retraction was made, but trailing edge flaps were still deployed when the droops were retracted. If the TE had been completely retrac
104 sfotom : The fact that the DC 10 has the ability to split the slat/ flap handle has nothing to do with the AA Chicago crash. The DC 10 has separate cable runs
105 474218 : On the L-1011 operation of the slats and flaps is controlled by the flap handle. Movement of the flap handle from the 0 to 4 degree detent allows the
106 jetlagged : Obvious is not a word which should be used like that for a supposition about an accident. Without a CVR (another report recommendation) no one can sa
107 OldAeroGuy : I've given you a link to the accident report and a quote of the report statement on an underlying cause of the accident. You can read it yourself fro
108 Max Q : You are correct, that was not the best description. 'Above the Passenger ceiling' is a better one and is what I meant.
109 411A : ***I know this caused a few performance issues, in that the L1011 had to be rolling at a fair old whack before they could apply full power to the numb
110 474218 : Not according to the T.C.D.S. The following engines are approved for use on the L-1011-385-1-15 (L-1011-200) 3 Rolls-Royce RB.211-524B-02 engines or
111 411A : Quite a large difference between approved, and what was done in actual airline service, with 'as delivered' airplanes. NO -200 airplanes were deliver
112 Epten : This is a classic exaple of an invalid argument (appeal to popularity). Is Madonna the best, technically most developed singer with greatest vocal ra
113 474218 : I will have to dig out my "as delivered list" but I am almost positive the at a minimum the two British Air Tours -200 (s/n 1211/1212) were equipped
114 TrijetsRMissed : Cracks were found on AA, UA, and CO aircraft. Crane or forklift - it didn't matter. NW did not remove the engine and pylon together, and hence never
115 b741 : According to a 1978 publication, the DC-10 had the most technologically advanced flight-deck at the time.
116 411A : I've flown s/n 1212 extensively in the past...-524B02 engines installed, in all three positions.
117 Starlionblue : That's a fairly vague statement and could well just have been regurgitation of McDonnell Douglas marketing. What was the publication?
118 Post contains images mandala499 : I like that!!!!!! Very much agree. IMHO, it was very much ahead of its time. The flight control AFDS schematic that 474218 posted in the runaway stab
119 b741 : Sorry, my mistake. The publication stated that the DC10 was the most advanced flight-deck illustrated in the book. They go on to state that the Trista
120 411A : It was, without a doubt. A comprehensive study of the various aircraft systems redundancy features, would tell the tale. Do NOT be deceived by FD app
121 thegeek : Ok, but leaving the thrust level in climb was a "poor crew action" in retrospect. Also the computer didn't give any more "information" than "retard,
122 mandala499 : Retrospect or not... it was definitely "poor crew action", the problem is... why did it happen? One locked (dispatched as such) reverser may have res
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Technical Differences Between L-1011 And DC-10
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...
DC-8 And DC-10 Aileron Design posted Sat Sep 1 2007 03:19:18 by Blackbird
Differences Between US And UK Air Traffic Control posted Fri Nov 25 2005 08:51:10 by Bruce
Questions On Some Differences Between B737 And A319/320 posted Wed Jun 8 2005 06:15:55 by DCAflyboy
Differences Between Boeing And Airbus Wing Designs posted Sat Feb 5 2005 23:53:59 by Thrust
Differences Between US And European Airspace posted Mon Feb 16 2004 22:43:47 by BMAbound
Major Differences Between 75 And 76? posted Wed Jul 24 2002 17:56:38 by Zionstrat
Differences Between C-II And C-III posted Wed Mar 14 2001 18:49:59 by Turbulence
Perf. Diff. Between The DC-10 And L-1011 posted Tue Apr 6 2010 11:14:46 by c5load
DC-10 / L-1011 Slat-Configuration And Design posted Wed Aug 29 2007 18:58:50 by Blackbird
DC-10 And L-1011 Tail Engine Designs And Mounts posted Wed Jan 5 2005 13:21:24 by Thrust
Questions On Some Differences Between B737 And A319/320 posted Wed Jun 8 2005 06:15:55 by DCAflyboy
Differences Between Boeing And Airbus Wing Designs posted Sat Feb 5 2005 23:53:59 by Thrust
Differences Between US And European Airspace posted Mon Feb 16 2004 22:43:47 by BMAbound
Major Differences Between 75 And 76? posted Wed Jul 24 2002 17:56:38 by Zionstrat
Differences Between C-II And C-III posted Wed Mar 14 2001 18:49:59 by Turbulence
Perf. Diff. Between The DC-10 And L-1011 posted Tue Apr 6 2010 11:14:46 by c5load
DC-10 / L-1011 Slat-Configuration And Design posted Wed Aug 29 2007 18:58:50 by Blackbird

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format