Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Was The L1011 So Popular With Pilots  
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 950 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 23960 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

For the most part pilots like the airplane we fly...

There are several airplanes out-there that seem to get the most compliments/praise from pilots. its understandable why pilots like airplanes like the 757, 747-400, and Gulfstream-V... Those are good looking machines that can do the job

The one airplane that I find surprising is the L1011. I've heard several good things about it from pilots that used to fly it..

What was so special about the L1011? Why was it a "pilots airplane"

142 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1607 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 23867 times:

What I gathered leeching the forums for years is the great handling, cockpit ergonomics and innovations like the DLC (Direct Lift Control)


Live From Amsterdam!
User currently onlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12428 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23766 times:

It was a much loved aircraft by pax and crews alike; very reliable, good cockpit and (as mentioned above) ergonomics ... just a nice aircraft in many ways.

It's amazing to think that at one stage, DL operated over a quarter of the entire L1011 production - and CX operated around 20 at its peak of L1011 operations, before the A330/340s joined the fleet.

I don't think I've ever met a pilot (or passenger) who had a bad word to say about it.


User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1935 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23725 times:

It was powerful too. I believe it had a 2:1 weight to thrust ratio.


My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23715 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have never met a pilot who said anything negative about the L1011 either

I sat next to a TWA pilot once, he flew the thing for many years, he said the airplane " was years ahead of its time"


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10372 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23657 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 2):
It's amazing to think that at one stage, DL operated over a quarter of the entire L1011 production

DL flew a total of 70 a/c, up to 56 at one time.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinewestindian425 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1024 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23648 times:

The L-1011 Tristar (my favorite airplane of all time, so take it with a grain of salt...  ) is a pilot favorite for it's speed, ease of handling (cockpit ergonomics, including more room than most other widebodies today, innovative technology that led to many of the current automations today, etc.), relatively quiet, and appealing exterior. Many also loved the lower galley accessible by elevator.


God did not create aircraft pilots to be on the ground
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1607 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23532 times:

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 3):

It was powerful too. I believe it had a 2:1 weight to thrust ratio.

Wouldn't that make it able to go vertical?! 



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlinewestindian425 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1024 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23380 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 7):
Wouldn't that make it able to go vertical?! 

LOL! I think you're right, although the F15 needs a bit of a running start in order to go vertical, and I do believe it's thrust-to-weight ratio is at or near 2:1.  



God did not create aircraft pilots to be on the ground
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 950 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 23342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting westindian425 (Reply 6):

Did it have the range for California-Asia???

Or was more like U.S to Europe and South America?


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3046 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 23223 times:

Quoting westindian425 (Reply 8):
Quoting travelavnut (Reply 7):
Wouldn't that make it able to go vertical?!

LOL! I think you're right, although the F15 needs a bit of a running start in order to go vertical, and I do believe it's thrust-to-weight ratio is at or near 2:1.

He said weight to thrust, not thrust to weight. Another very useful thread a few years ago showed the power to weight ratios of all the various airplane models. Go look for it.

I'd always heard the L1011 was a solid airplane too. Apparently Boeing took one apart and said it was the best built airplane they'd ever seen. Like the 717, it was killed by economic and business factors that don't reflect the airplane's capabilities.


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8227 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 23171 times:

Don't forget it had enormous windows! The view from the front of an L10 is unmatched.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlinetransaeroyyz From Canada, joined Dec 2010, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 23053 times:

I know a AC FA in the 80s, she didn't like working on them because in cruise they fly with a nose up angle and it was hard pushing the carts uphill. Guessing 10 to 20 angle maybe, anyone know why?

User currently offlinea3xx900 From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 22991 times:

Quoting transaeroyyz (Reply 12):
Guessing 10 to 20 angle maybe, anyone know why?

I'm not a pilot, but errrrr.... definitely not 



Why is 10 afraid of 7? Because 7 8 9.
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3046 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 22989 times:

Quoting transaeroyyz (Reply 12):
Guessing 10 to 20 angle maybe, anyone know why?

It certainly wouldn't have been 10 or 20, maybe like 3 degrees. Many models rotate at 8 degrees and initial climb is 15, so it wouldn't be cruising that those attitudes.

[Edited 2013-04-18 13:07:10]

User currently offlinea3xx900 From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 22884 times:

My first memory of flying is on a LT L-1011 going to Greece, I remember I loved it.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Udo K. Haafke



Are there still any L1011 in service somewhere (except military)?



Why is 10 afraid of 7? Because 7 8 9.
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3203 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 22519 times:

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 3):

It was powerful too. I believe it had a 2:1 weight to thrust ratio.

No, not even close. I've never heard of anyone using a weight-to-thrust ratio, but in any case here are the figures:

L1011-1
MGTOW: 430.0
Thrust Per Engine: 42.0
Total Thrust: 126.0

Thrust to weight: 0.29
Weight to thrust: 3.41


L1011-500
MGTOW: 510.0
Thrust per engine: 50.0
Total thrust: 150.0

Thrust to weight: 0.29
Weight to Thrust: 3.40


Just for comparison sake, here are a few others aircraft from the time period:

747-200B
MGTOW: 833.0
Thrust per engine: 54.7
Total thrust: 218.8

Thrust to weight: 0.26
Weight to thrust: 3.80


DC10-30
MGTOW: 555.0
Thrust per engine: 51.0
Total thrust: 153.0

Thrust to weight: 0.28
Weight to thrust: 3.63


L1011 had a very slight T:W advantage over similar-mission types but not by too much.

Quoting westindian425 (Reply 8):
and I do believe it's thrust-to-weight ratio is at or near 2:1

Also, not even close.

F-15C
Loaded Weight: 44.5
MGTOW: 68.0
Thrust per engine with afterburner: 25.0
Total thrust with afterburner: 50.0

Thrust to weight at combat weight: 1.12
Thrust to weight at MGTOW: 0.73


I'm not sure there's a plane in existence that even remotely gets close to 2:1 T:W ratio. Just having a tad over 1:1 is good enough to accelerate doing pure vertical.



A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6370 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 22453 times:

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 3):
It was powerful too. I believe it had a 2:1 weight to thrust ratio.

IIRC, this saved a flight crew's bacon once. An L-1011 was stranded down in MEX, in need of an engine change. The decision was made to do a two engine ferry back to the 'states. Well, as luck would have it, they had a second engine failure on climbout from MEX, and were able to around on one engine and safely land the bird  Wow!



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinesturmovik From India, joined May 2007, 509 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 22224 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 11):
The view from the front of an L10 is unmatched.

I would've thought the DC-10/MD-11 were better in this regard. Haven't sat in either one, but just a hunch..



'What's it doing now?'
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7694 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 22199 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I certainly liked my one and only flight on the L1011 with the RAF. It had a beautifully smooth, powerful takeoff and climb, and was all-round very enjoyable indeed.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8227 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 22172 times:

Quoting sturmovik (Reply 18):
I would've thought the DC-10/MD-11 were better in this regard. Haven't sat in either one, but just a hunch..

DC-10 is no slouch either, but the L10 wins there.



This Website Censors Me
User currently onlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25106 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 22081 times:

Quoting N766UA (Reply 11):
Don't forget it had enormous windows! The view from the front of an L10 is unmatched.

I don't think the L-1011 cockpit windows are much larger than those on the DC-10 and MD-11

Unfortunately the L-1011's passenger windows are notably small compared to the very large windows on the DC-10/MD-11. Also smaller than 747 windows. I also found the L-1011 windows located slightly too high on the fuselage compared to other widebodies.


User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2679 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 21990 times:

What was the speed of the L1011 and of the DC10, compared to the 747 (mach 0.85) and the 767 (mach 0.80)?


אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlinekeuleatr72 From Germany, joined Apr 2008, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 21906 times:

Good day

One of my former Flight Instructor was a retired LTU-Pilot. During his career he flew the Fokker 28, the L-1011, the 767 and ended up on the MD11. His favorite plane was and still is the Tristar. When he starts walking down memory lane, he always tells stories about his time on the 1011. Not once did he tell me something about the others planes he flew.
Although the Tristar was retired many, many moons ago and LTU is an airline of the past, he still comes up with new stuff about his 1011. And it never gets boring - never.


User currently offlinecubastar From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 407 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 21897 times:

I believe that at one time, Delta had some pilots that had flown the 747, DC-10 and the L1011. Almost all of them agreed that the L10 was their favorite widebody to fly.

25 bueb0g : Nowhere near that. That would mean it'd be stalling in level flight! Most aircraft sit about 3 - 4 degrees noseup in cruise and not really any higher
26 Flighty : Totally respected aircraft (similar to Concorde) but did not meet the extremely tight financial demands of commercial air service anymore post - 2000
27 Viscount724 : Maximum operating Mach number per the FAA type certificate data sheet: L-1011 - 0.90 747 (all except 747-8 and -8F) - 0.92 747-8 and -8F - 0.90 DC-10
28 Yakflyer : Many also got love in the lower galley!!!
29 Post contains links and images g500 : WOW great numbers Viscount, thanks for posting I must admit I used to think the L1011 was an ugly airplane then I started hearing how much pilots enj
30 Yakflyer : The L-1011 did fly with the cabin at a higher angle than any other commercial jet I've flown. The angle of incidence is the angle of the center line
31 PGNCS : Why are you surprised? It is comfortable, quiet, has exceptional cockpit space and ergonomics (trouncing the B-744 in all those areas,) has extraordi
32 n92r03 : Very cool plane. My last flight on one was LAX-SAN in the mid 90's. One question thought, what was the ceiling for it at cruise? I seem to recall a 76
33 BoeingGuy : I think he meant normal cruise speed not VMO/MMO. 777 is about mach .83 or .84. 787 is about mach .85. 767 is about mach .80 as he stated. 990 was fa
34 b741 : I have only two aircraft tech books in my collection-one on the Tristar, another on the A330. Aside from tonnes of mags. I always read the Tristar boo
35 cschleic : IIRC, it had innovative automatic wing surface controls that aided handling, and generated an unusual amount of lift from the design of the the wing m
36 georgiaame : I (a passenger of steerage class) never cared for them. 2-5-2 was a bitch, I had been spoiled by the original 747s at 3-4-2, later the 767s with 2-3-2
37 ChiGB1973 : Very nice. Amazing to work on as cabin crew. When I started at TZ in 2002, they had the largest fleet of L-1011s in the world at 16. The lower galley
38 thrufru : Well, I never flew one as a pilot, only an F/A. I was on them for three years and loved it. I still spent a lot of time in the flight deck, though. Di
39 Archer : The 1011 International version probably could do California to Asia. It had the 3rd landing gear so you could always tell it was international. Not su
40 lweber557 : I flew on one as a passenger on a ATA military charter back in 2008. I sat in one of the last rows and I remember when we took off there was a loud th
41 mayor : For a short time after the Tristars were delivered, DL was operating the 747, DC-10 and the Tristar at the same time. I remember non-revving ORD-ATL
42 Viscount724 : No L-1011s had the "3rd landing gear", assuming you're referring to the centerline gear as on the DC-10-30/40.
43 Post contains images NWAROOSTER : What really hurt the L-1011 was the fact that Rolls Royce was in very dire straits and was unable to supply enough engines to Lockheed, thus forcing s
44 mayor : Exactly. This is why DL bought 5 DC-10s, sold them to UA and then leased them back in DL's livery until the Tristars came on the property. Nope.....t
45 L0VE2FLY : Anyone knows why old aircrafts, especially widebody trijets had much larger windows than modern birds? The cockpit windows of the 787 & A350 are
46 TZTriStar500 : When I started a year earlier we had 19 and two left when we went out of business in '08...fond memories for sure. Interesting....perhaps a number 2
47 cornishsimon : Still a gorgeous sight to see the RAF tristars knocking around. Brilliant machines. Catch them in service while you still can !! cs
48 tmoney : According to wiki F-16 has around 1.1 (in combat config) and F-22 has around 1.6 on empty. I've never been on an L1011 so I'd never know how cool it
49 Archer : Answering Viscount 724 You are right. I was thinking DC-10. There was a 500 version of the 1011. Maybe that's what I was thinking of.
50 mayor : Still no third gear........just fewer pax and more fuel
51 Viscount724 : The 990 still never met the original speed (or range) projections, and when it did fly at maximum speed it was very uneconomic.
52 jfklganyc : Speaking of RAF 1011s...there is one stranded in BDA on taxiway R all week. Word is it has some mx issues Sexy plane
53 solarflyer22 : Great, Great point. This was my recollection as well and RR actually went bankrupt at some point I think. I think if L-111 had been designed from the
54 UAL747DEN : That was my one and only ride on the L-1011. Took that beautiful bird to CUN and only went to fly on the L-1011. My favorite aircraft by FAR! I just
55 Post contains images HBGDS : OK, Sorry for going a little off-topic. You are right. The closest is the F-22 Raptor: 1.61. If you want the full monty, the space shuttle at throttl
56 ezalpha : I recall visiting the ACA TriStar simulator back in the '70s. The pilot showing us around explained how they had looked at DC-10s and TriStars, but ch
57 EA CO AS : So are you saying the L-1011 was NOT a good-looking machine and couldn't do the intended job?
58 comorin : I have flown the L-1011 as pax quite a few times (TWA, Eastern and LTU). I really disliked the plane - it was noisy and rumbled in the rear sections.
59 Post contains images Starlionblue : California-Asia was not really in the cards. The -1 was built for US transcon. The -200 could do JFK-LHR. The -500 had much greater range and could (
60 Max Q : Normal cruise Mach on the magnificent Tristar was .83 - .84. Of course it could easily go faster if needed. Shame 411A is not here to contribute his l
61 DL_Mech : Or 474218...... RIP Carl
62 daviation : If you're an L-1011 fan, you must read this book; it's all about flying in the cockpit of a Delta Tristar: "Frequent Flyer," Bob Reiss, pub 1994 by Si
63 Pihero : I flew the Tristar from 1984 to 1990 and these were some of the most enjoyable years of my career. The first impression that strikes you when you ente
64 g500 : thanks for the post, enjoyed reading it
65 Geezer : I read a book a while back about Lockheed that had quite a bit about the L-1011 in it; despite the fact that all the pilots flying it loved it, at th
66 Viscount724 : When DL operated the L-1011-500 LAX-HKG the routing included a stop at ANC in both directions.
67 Post contains links and images Pihero : What really rang the end of the Tristar was fuel economy. In the late eighties, my airline decided on buying 763 ERs. I did not wish to type-rate on i
68 DualQual : There was a difference between the -500 and the -1. If you look at the tail intake for the #2 engine, the -500 featured a more aerodynamic "join" bet
69 Post contains links and images Pihero : ...called the "Frisbee fairing", for the engineer who designed it ( yes, the one who made a fortune with the flying frisbee ) The Tristar 200, from t
70 Post contains images Polot : While the Frisbee fairing is in fact named after the engineer who designed it, he had nothing to do with the toy frisbees. It was available as a retr
71 Aircellist : Pihero, those two posts of yours are great! Merci beaucoup!
72 MD-90 : So how did Lockheed engineering manage to influence later Airbus designs?
73 lax777lr : Great comments! I flew on her on DL from LAX-JFK in C in '95 and it was fantastic. I hear nothing but gushing comments from the cockpit crews
74 Max Q : likewise, sorry ! did not know.
75 Max Q : What a superb post and thank you Pihero. The closest I ever got to flying the Tristar was a couple of hours in the simulator with my father, which, a
76 Tristarsteve : Actually the horizontal stabiliser was moved by four hydraulic jacks, one on each hyd system. They were enormous, over two metres long retracted. You
77 Post contains links DL_Mech : Here is Carls' obituary for those interested: http://www.avpress.com/obit-archive.php?obit=31324811 I do not miss working to repair a DANA light.....
78 BravoOne : There may have been a couple of DAL pilots that flew all three but only a few if that. When DAL and WAL merged a number of the WAL DC10 pilots moved
79 Post contains images Pihero : I did not know that... it was common wisdom then. I gladly stand corrected. Thanks for the correction. I tryped too quick and forgot *system*. That i
80 Post contains images intsim : (brown nose) I think it would be fascinating! It is always nice to read posts such as yours. Especially your accounts here. I was lucky enough to fly
81 Viscount724 : Almost. Five, not six.
82 Pihero : Didn't know that either. Thanks. One last aspect flying the Tristar and it's about two engine takeoff for ferry back. ( of course for one dead wing e
83 BravoOne : Quoting BravoOne (Reply 78): DAL had six DC10's prior to or just as their L1011's were coming on line. Almost. Five, not six. Well since you brought i
84 Max Q : I think it's a superb idea Pihero. It would be tremendously enjoyable reading up on other Pilots experience on on different types and I'd be happy to
85 Post contains images David L : Bring it on. Plus ҫa change...
86 SAAFNAV : I'd love to read it, and I would buy your book as well! Erich
87 Tristarsteve : Yes, I have been in the flight deck for two of those. A 22B from MCT and a 524B from KHI, both to BAH. What the crew never explained was that there w
88 BravoOne : Quoting Pihero (Reply 67): "A real airplane has switches and not gismo light thingies !", they used to say Yes and on the L1011 they latched and unlat
89 travelavnut : Would love to read about the 731!! Same here... I'm probably missing something obvious, but why of course a wing engine? 2 engine ferry with dead #2
90 Pihero : and it was never a worry for us crews. The maintenance was the best I ever saw in an airline. You were truly an outstanding team . That I don't certa
91 Starlionblue : V1 at brake release? Probably a simpler proposition given symmetrical thrust.
92 Post contains images Pihero : Just about Piloting wise, yes. Yet the airplane prep is similar (includes the engine boroscope Tristasteve has mentione and I forgot.
93 Tristarsteve : Part of the prep included making sure that both nosewheel tyres had good tread on them, because they wore out during the take off!! and cleaning out
94 Aircellist : Please do! Once, in Toulouse, our flight back to Montréal was postponed 24h because the Air Transat Tristar had swallowed a bird on approach, and th
95 Viscount724 : You were referring to the DL (not Western) DC-10s "pror to or just as their L1011's were coming on line". Those were the 5 I was referring to, and al
96 cornutt : The British government stepped in and saved R-R from bankruptcy by nationalizing them. But the delays in the RB211 program had in turn gotten Lockhee
97 BravoOne : Okay I see where the misunderstnding came from. You are correct regarding the UAL/DC10's that Delta leased prior to the L10's coming onboard. Thanks f
98 Post contains links and images aaron747 : Unfortunately, I only had the pleasure of one trip on the Tristar in 1995, to the airport in the pic below. I was too young then to appreciate the mag
99 Starlionblue : In the case of this aircraft, that's not necessarily trim angle. Since the Tristar had an all flying tail I presume that pulling back on the yoke wil
100 Max Q : I suspect that Tristar was taxiing for take off (judging by the flap position) and was doing a control check. Full back stick will look like that !
101 Post contains images Deltal1011man : I'm sorry.....what? .....and everynow and then two FAs would get cought down there doing.....not airline work. L15 could do LAX-NRT(looooong flight f
102 Post contains links and images Pihero : A Flap 4 takeoff. There must be a few obstacles there ! as the normal setting was for Flap 10. On this subject, the flaps had some weird settings : 4
103 Post contains images Starlionblue : Kai Tak. Most of Hong Kong is "obstacles".
104 Post contains images airmagnac : This is really a wonderful thread ! Thank you all ! Just to nitpick : would that be bottom *right*, under the ADF indicator and next to the warnings l
105 Post contains images travelavnut : Ha! I just wanted to ask the same! Also I read that the Caution/Warning panel of the Tristar was very user-friendly. Looking at it I don't see an obv
106 Tristarsteve : They were to partition the Pitch and Roll control systems. If you had a jam on the controls, you pulled the correct handle, and then the Capt control
107 Post contains images travelavnut : I have never heard of this before, thanks! What was the reasoning behind it? Were locked controls more common back then as to necessitate such a prom
108 Alias1024 : The CRJ has Pitch and Roll disconnect handles in almost exactly the same location.
109 Post contains images Pihero : I thought so, especially when the aircraft was CX. But I couldn't recognize any feature I used to know. My bad ; you're right of course. On Boeing ai
110 Pihero : Looking at the picture above brings back an awful lot of memories : A gusty southern wind during the tornado season at Kai Tak, which demanded a 35°
111 Pihero : On the Tristar - and I 'd guess on the DC-10 - an engine # 2 failure could be in fact more dangerous than a wing engine : as the thrust is still symm
112 Post contains images travelavnut : Amazing read Pihero, thanks! This is turning out to be one really nice thread So in what way did that alarm differ from a #1 or #3 fail alarm? And ju
113 Post contains images Starlionblue : The very bland architecture of the apartment blocks, is typical of HK. There's also a mountain in the background. I guess if you live here it gets ea
114 Post contains images aaron747 : Pihero, thanks again for your vivid recollections Cannot agree more. On my one Tristar flight we arrived on CX from BKK. I had been there a couple tim
115 Max Q : What a great description a747. I spent most of my childhood in HK and your writing brings back many fond memories.
116 Post contains images aaron747 : ^ My pleasure Mr. Q. I had the good fortune of spending quite a bit of time there around that period as well, and there are many fond memories indeed.
117 Starlionblue : Back in the eighties, Cathay used to advertise that they were the only airline with only widebodies powered by Rolls-Royce engines. Seemed a bit sill
118 aaron747 : As you may recall, RR had a certain cachet in HK around that time. Chauffeur services offered by the top hotels featured Rolls vehicle fleets (the Pe
119 BravoOne : I flew the Tristar but not in and out of HKG, All of my time ther was in the MD11, from the the inagural trip on. I did get to ride a few Tristar jump
120 Post contains images Starlionblue : Yes indeed, and RR still does hold a special place, though not like in those days. I still found it silly though. On a side note, The Peninsula once
121 Pihero : There was none for # 1 and # 3, except the *Eng oil Press* light on the CAWP. Yes.
122 Post contains links aaron747 : Wow....wish there were more of these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5H0Ht-BoJA
123 TWAL1011727 : Sure that wasn't my dad....He flew the L10 from 1980-1987 The usual magic cruise altitude was FL330. Anything higher you needed to be either empty of
124 Pihero : I totally disagree ( after all, an engine #2 shut down shouldn't - and did not - prevent normal operations of B and C hydraulics °; But your post al
125 Pihero : That is patently not true. FL 330 was the initial cruising level for a takeoff at max weight, but some half an hour later, FL 350 was available. Gran
126 Max Q : Great stuff as usual Pihero, I was never fortunate enough to fly the mighty Tristar but I always admired it and enjoy your accounts tremendously. Tha
127 sccutler : Here is the list of Type ratings for a DL pilot with whom I am acquainted: A/B-727 A/B-757 A/B-767 A/CE-500 A/CV-240 A/CV-340 A/CV-440 A/DC-6 A/DC-7
128 Pihero : Begging all your pardon, I typed too quickly last night and my post wasn't vcedry accurate, nor correct. This is how it should have read : Quoting TWA
129 Post contains images mandala499 : I remember a comment from a former Ten-Eleven flyer... "When I finally moved to it, I regretted it... because I wondered why I didn't move to it earl
130 Aircellist : This thread is incredible! Merci beaucoup, Pihero!
131 mayor : And EA401 and DL 191 were not the fault of the a/c. It was five that were sold to UA, then leased back in our livery. Those a/c were LONG gone (1975)
132 Viscount724 : The DC-10-30 was ex-NZ. Not sure whether it was purchased or leased. It did operate in Air Pacific livery for a while as part of the joint WA/FJ oper
133 mayor : Maybe that's what I was thinking of. I can remember seeing it a few times at SLC, BEFORE the merger, but not after.
134 Post contains images Viscount724 : It was sold to AA a few years before the DL/WA merger.
135 mayor : Yes, the Air Pacific livery is what I saw at SLC......I guess WA was still using it......when I saw it was probably in '83 or '84.
136 mrskyguy : I flew aboard the L-1011 a few times, for TWA and TZ. As lovely as she was, she had a habit of breaking down when she reached my duty station at Misaw
137 mayor : I can remember at SLC, that probably in the last few years of the Tristar's service life, we were having more breakdowns or mechanical delays than nor
138 tommytoyz : It was not intended. It was accidental to the design. I roomed with one of the top engineers at Lockheed who told me all about this "discovery" in te
139 Pihero : EA401 : Crew busy with a bulb and not minding the store. CFIT . DL191 : Classic get-there-itis on a severe mùicroburst SV163 : Cargo fire + a totall
140 planesofthepast : I loved the only round trip I ever took in the L-1011, on Delta, Atlanta to Gatwick, and a return from Frankfort back to ATL. Smooth, comfortable ...
141 cptkrell : What a great thread! I've read all 140 posts...twice. Thanks to all for contributing. Having only flown (as a pax) on the L1011 a few times, I'll limi
142 Post contains images PGNCS : Mandala: That is the best way to put it that I have ever heard. I would gladly trade every hour in my logbook on any other type for more time in the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Was The L1011 So Popular With Pilots
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...
Why Was The JT9D-70A So Rare On 747's posted Fri Jun 2 2006 23:45:50 by 747400sp
Why Are The L1011, DC10 And A300, Such Dogs? posted Mon Aug 29 2011 16:02:06 by 747400sp
WHY Is The 777 Tail Shaped With A Vertical Pinch? posted Wed Dec 26 2007 14:05:16 by HOOB747
Why Is The 757 So Tall? posted Thu Jul 24 2003 18:23:51 by Leezyjet
Why Was The Fore TE Flap Scrapped In The Ngs posted Tue Jun 10 2003 13:21:16 by HAWK21M
Why DL 77L Use So Much Runway On The LAX-ATL Route posted Sat Mar 13 2010 12:33:03 by 747400sp
What Exactly Was The Problem With Early JT9D-3's? posted Tue Jan 5 2010 01:16:59 by Faro
Adam Air Accident-why Didnt The Pilots... posted Sun May 10 2009 05:34:18 by Ajaaron
Why Keep The Gear Down So Long? posted Wed Dec 19 2007 22:41:35 by DL767captain
732: Why Is The Front Right Door So Hard? posted Sun Jul 22 2007 21:02:05 by CanadianNorth

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format