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, 999 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24331 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 onlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1627 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24239 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 offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12518 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 24137 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, 1971 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 24096 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, 999 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 24086 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, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 24028 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 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 24019 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 onlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1627 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 23903 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 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 23751 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, 999 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 23713 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, 3151 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 23594 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, 8309 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 23542 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 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 23424 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 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 23362 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, 3151 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 23360 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 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 23255 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, 3214 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 22890 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.


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6407 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 22824 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, 511 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 22595 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, 7712 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 22570 times:

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, 8309 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 22543 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 offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 22452 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, 2702 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 22361 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 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 22277 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, 410 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 22268 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.

User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 648 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 23627 times:

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

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. I don't think the L-1011 was an exception.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8634 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 23365 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 10):
Like the 717, it was killed by economic and business factors that don't reflect the airplane's capabilities.

Totally respected aircraft (similar to Concorde) but did not meet the extremely tight financial demands of commercial air service anymore post - 2000.

There was a good post here comparing the D10 to L1011 that concluded, the L10 was more ambitious in every way, but the D10 was slightly cheaper, the -30 had longer range and superior fuel burn, and that kind of took care of it.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 27, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 24201 times:

Quoting LY777 (Reply 22):
What was the speed of the L1011 and of the DC10, compared to the 747 (mach 0.85) and the 767 (mach 0.80)?

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 - 0.88
MD-11 - 0.88
767 - 0.86
777-200/200ER - 0.87
777-300/300ER/200LR/200F - 0.89
787 - 0.90


User currently offlineYakflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 23885 times:

Quoting westindian425 (Reply 6):
Many also loved the lower galley accessible by elevator.

Many also got love in the lower galley!!!


User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 999 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 23796 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 27):
L-1011 - 0.90
747 (all except 747-8 and -8F) - 0.92
747-8 and -8F - 0.90
DC-10 - 0.88
MD-11 - 0.88
767 - 0.86
777-200/200ER - 0.87
777-300/300ER/200LR/200F - 0.89
787 - 0.90

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 enjoyed flying it.

its growing on me


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vladimir Pouche - LKPR Spotters



User currently offlineYakflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 23759 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 25):
Most aircraft sit about 3 - 4 degrees noseup in cruise and not really any higher. I don't think the L-1011 was an exception.

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 of the fuselage and the cord line of the wing. I think on the L-1011 the angle was zero or very close to zero where on other jets the angle would be 2-3 degrees. That is why it flew with it's nose up.


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2833 posts, RR: 45
Reply 31, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 23209 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
The one airplane that I find surprising is the L1011.

Why are you surprised?

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
What was so special about the L1011?

It is comfortable, quiet, has exceptional cockpit space and ergonomics (trouncing the B-744 in all those areas,) has extraordinarily well-designed (and redundant) systems that were far ahead of their time, and the best harmonized flight controls of any aircraft I have flown.

Without doubt my favorite aircraft of all the airliners I have time in: A-320 is a distant second.


User currently offlinen92r03 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 22997 times:

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 767 pilot telling me the 767 could fly "so much" higher than the L-1011.


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3151 posts, RR: 7
Reply 33, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 22848 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 27):
Quoting LY777 (Reply 22):
What was the speed of the L1011 and of the DC10, compared to the 747 (mach 0.85) and the 767 (mach 0.80)?

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 - 0.88
MD-11 - 0.88
767 - 0.86
777-200/200ER - 0.87
777-300/300ER/200LR/200F - 0.89

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 faster than heck.

What was the L-1011s normal cruise speed?


User currently offlineb741 From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 716 posts, RR: 1
Reply 34, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 22769 times:

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 book time after time.


Being Bilingual, I Speak English And Aviation
User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 22676 times:

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 mating area on the bottom of the fuselage.

User currently offlinegeorgiaame From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 985 posts, RR: 6
Reply 36, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 22566 times:

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, ultimately by the Airbus 340s, "under thrusted", slow to rise, hairdryers on the wings, uber quiet 2-4-2 seating. Technologically, the aircraft might have been years ahead of its time, but for me, it made a big noise, it rolled down the runway, pointed itself into the air, made even more noise, landed, and got me to where I was going. Just like all of them do. My 2 cynical cents...


"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1616 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 21317 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 2):
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.

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 was the best. It seems it was either the most senior or the most junior down there. Some loved it, some hated it.

Memories.

M


User currently offlinethrufru From Marshall Islands, joined Feb 2009, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 21331 times:

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. Ding ding, is Dan there? Send him back, please.

User currently offlineArcher From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 21122 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 sure if it could do that far.


User currently offlinelweber557 From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 21069 times:

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 thump and some of the overhead bins popped open. Freaked alot of us out but I'm still happy to have flown on one because I doubt I ever will have the opportunity to again.

User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 41, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 20709 times:

Quoting cubastar (Reply 24):
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.

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 on a DC-10 and ATL-ORD on a Tristar one weekend.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 42, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 20646 times:

Quoting Archer (Reply 39):
The 1011 International version probably could do California to Asia. It had the 3rd landing gear so you could always tell it was international.

No L-1011s had the "3rd landing gear", assuming you're referring to the centerline gear as on the DC-10-30/40.


User currently offlineNWAROOSTER From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1106 posts, RR: 3
Reply 43, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 20540 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 some airlines to buy the DC-10. If Rolls Royce was not on the edge of bankruptcy and possible demise, the L1011 would have ben a much more successful aircraft. Some airlines like Delta flew the DC-10 while waiting for the L-1011 engine shortage to be resolved.   

User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 44, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 20338 times:

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 43):
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 some airlines to buy the DC-10. If Rolls Royce was not on the edge of bankruptcy and possible demise, the L1011 would have ben a much more successful aircraft. Some airlines like Delta flew the DC-10 while waiting for the L-1011 engine shortage to be resolved.

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.

Quoting Archer (Reply 39):
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 sure if it could do that far.

Nope.....the Tristar never had the "3rd gear" like the DC-10-30 and -40.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineL0VE2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 1609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 19892 times:

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

Anyone knows why old aircrafts, especially widebody trijets had much larger windows than modern birds? The cockpit windows of the 787 & A350 are tiny compared to the DC-10, MD-11 & L-1011.

Quoting g500 (Reply 29):
I must admit I used to think the L1011 was an ugly airplane then I started hearing how much pilots enjoyed flying it.

its growing on me

What?! There's no such thing as an ugly trijet. The L-1011 is one of the best looking aircrafts of all time. If I think an aircraft is ugly, I'll still think she's ugly regardless of how much pilots enjoy flying it!

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 33):
990 was faster than heck.

I think she was the second fastest passenger jet ever made, next to the Concorde.


User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1453 posts, RR: 9
Reply 46, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 19658 times:

Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 37):
When I started at TZ in 2002, they had the largest fleet of L-1011s in the world at 16.

When I started a year earlier we had 19 and two left when we went out of business in '08...fond memories for sure.

Quoting lweber557 (Reply 40):
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 thump and some of the overhead bins popped open. Freaked alot of us out but I'm still happy to have flown on one because I doubt I ever will have the opportunity to again.

Interesting....perhaps a number 2 engine compressor stall.



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
User currently offlinecornishsimon From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2013, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 19220 times:

Still a gorgeous sight to see the RAF tristars knocking around. Brilliant machines.

Catch them in service while you still can !!


cs


User currently offlinetmoney From Myanmar, joined Nov 2011, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 18922 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 16):
I'm not sure there's a plane in existence that even remotely gets close to 2:1 T:W ratio.

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 is to have a lower galley. With today's IFE I don't think anybody would care about that anyways.

Tristar rosy-reminiscing day, eh? I'm surprised nobody brought up the EA401 incident. Then there are DL191, and SV163 and SV163. Now that is cray!


User currently offlineArcher From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 18813 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 50, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 18682 times:

Quoting Archer (Reply 49):
There was a 500 version of the 1011. Maybe that's what I was thinking of.

Still no third gear........just fewer pax and more fuel



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 51, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 18574 times:

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Reply 45):
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 33):
990 was faster than heck.

I think she was the second fastest passenger jet ever made, next to the Concorde.

The 990 still never met the original speed (or range) projections, and when it did fly at maximum speed it was very uneconomic.


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3543 posts, RR: 5
Reply 52, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 17794 times:

Speaking of RAF 1011s...there is one stranded in BDA on taxiway R all week. Word is it has some mx issues

Sexy plane


User currently offlinesolarflyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 1109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 17550 times:

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 43):
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 some airlines to buy the DC-10. If Rolls Royce was not on the edge of bankruptcy and possible demise, the L1011 would have ben a much more successful aircraft. Some airlines like Delta flew the DC-10 while waiting for the L-1011 engine shortage to be resolved.

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 ground up with GE engines it would have been a real success.


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 54, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 17395 times:

Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 37):
When I started at TZ in 2002, they had the largest fleet of L-1011s in the world at 16.

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 love that thing for some reason!



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineHBGDS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 55, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 16587 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 16):
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.

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 throttle up (110%) reached 3!
     


User currently offlineezalpha From Canada, joined Mar 2010, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 16460 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 chose the latter. I distinctly recall him passing his hand across the the overhead panel, saying "just feel that, perfectly flat. Flush mounted push buttons. DC 10s are a forest of switches and knobs". Struck me as an odd thing to be fixated on, but he was the one flying them, I was on the other end of the mike. I recall working them in the M80 - .81 range. Slower than 747s, and about the same as '10s. I flew with Saudia a number of times. My recollection is the L101 was a quiet ride. The DC-10s not quite so. I like the looks of the DC10 better. I watch Fedex depart YYZ every day and when they're empty, (I'm assuming) it takes your breath away. It may not be 2:1, but out the window it sure looks like it! And while we're at it, I'm sure we had a private TriStar visit us last year. I might have been the year before, but no more than that. Don't recall who's it was though

User currently onlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13643 posts, RR: 62
Reply 57, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 16035 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
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..

So are you saying the L-1011 was NOT a good-looking machine and couldn't do the intended job?



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4900 posts, RR: 16
Reply 58, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 15707 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 2):
I don't think I've ever met a pilot (or passenger) who had a bad word to say about it.
Quoting georgiaame (Reply 36):
(a passenger of steerage class) never cared for them. 2-5-2 was a bitch
Quoting georgiaame (Reply 36):
but for me, it made a big noise, it rolled down the runway, pointed itself into the air, made even more noise, landed, and got me to where I was going

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. There was just something about the cabin that lacked the ambience of the 747 or DC10. I think the DC10 was a superior plane for passenger comfort.


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 59, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 15023 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 9):
Did it have the range for California-Asia???

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

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 (barely) do LAX-NRT.

Note that I'm very roughly estimating here. Real ops would have a few more conditions than max payload range and the great circle mapper. 
Quoting tmoney (Reply 48):
I've never been on an L1011 so I'd never know how cool it is to have a lower galley.

I think the lower galley was nice for the crew. Peace and quiet. The pax could probably care less.

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Reply 45):
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 33):
990 was faster than heck.

I think she was the second fastest passenger jet ever made, next to the Concorde.

The always forgotten Tu-144 is the fastest passenger jet ever made, making the 990 third.

[Edited 2013-04-19 00:56:06]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 60, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days ago) and read 14988 times:

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 love of this beautiful bird.


RIP 411A



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineDL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1968 posts, RR: 9
Reply 61, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 14840 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 60):
Shame 411A is not here to contribute his love of this beautiful bird.


RIP 411A

Or 474218......

RIP Carl



This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlinedaviation From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 62, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 14786 times:

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 Simon & Schuster, long out of print but available in the second-hand market. ISBN 0671776509


User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 63, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 14723 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 entered the cockpit was how large it was and nothing could be compared to it until the A3801 capme along : then, how well that cockpit was laid : Uncluttered system panels with light-switches, the clearest flight and engine displays so far seen on an airliner, a logically laid warning panel... everything was breathing conscious, deliberate intent of making that flight deck the best office for an airline pilot.
The Tristar had the best coordinated flight controls a pilot could dream of : the all-flying tailplane was actuated by a fast-rotating jackscrew it was attached to... an impressive piece of engineering... the ailerons/spoilers were as smooth as a kiss of breeze on a calm pond... it was an absolute delight to fly.
The DLC... it required a few sim sessions to gat used to. During an approach, high on the glide, you'd push the control column and... nothing happens, the nose stays where it was... but suddenly you realise that you're now looking at an all red VASI !.. so you start integrating the whole geometry of the approach, the horizon, the runway, the amount of sky...
There was also a feature few pêople talk about : the thumb wheel trim, a miniature of the wheel for elevator trim, but you could set it with an uncanny precision, contrarily to the usual thumb switches which brutally start a motor that you can't really control.
To say the Tristar was a pilot's plane could be seen in the delight most of us shared at her controls.
.. And then, the first FMS, The first modular navigation system (IRSs were continuously updated by DME/DME, VOR/D.).. all on the system's choice. No silly manipulation for introducing - and forcing - each IRS to accept an update in which you also had to input the altitude of the Navaid.
And then, the Cat 3 capability, only shared with Air Inter Caravelles and Mercure and BEA Tridents. Made life a lot easier for us in suddenly uncrowded skies. Bragging rights in crew bars above the pilots of **other airplanes** was sweet... and the beers, too !
Yes, the Lady was in many ways ahead of her time, but the heritage still lingers : one just needs to look at an Airbus system diagram to be on familiar grounds : the PTU for instance...
Some Hosties were complaining about the marked nose-up attitude of the Tristar in cruise : Sign of a low Mach, as at .85 M, at which we flew her, the floor was level.
The Lady Tristar : One of the fondest memories of my dying career.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 999 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 14524 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):

thanks for the post, enjoyed reading it


User currently offlineGeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 65, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 14496 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 10):
it was killed by economic and business factors that don't reflect the airplane's capabilities.

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 the time, Rolls Royce was in a very shakey financial position, which is what caused Delta Airlines not to buy the additional 20 planes they had planned on;

The second reason probably had even more to do with it's overall lack of commercial success; at the time, prior to Lockheed bringing the L-1011 to the commercial market, most commercial planes were all coming from Douglas and Boeing, both of whom were MUCH better at the day to day "catering" to the needs of the airlines; at the same time, Lockheed had for a long time been used to dealing with the military procurement people; according to the author, when Lockheed attempted to deal with the airlines the same way, they effectively caused themselves many needless problems; so even though the airlines all loved Lockheed's product, they couldn't stand Lockheed's business attitude; that fact along with RR's problems was just enough to prevent what is arguably one of the finest commercial transports ever, to fail, simply for lack of orders; it should also be noted that Lockheed came very near to going bankrupt because of the Tri Star's failure. ( Even though the early years of the DC 10 were anything but trouble free. )

Quoting g500 (Reply 64):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):

thanks for the post, enjoyed reading it

I'd like to second that; I enjoy reading everything Pihero writes.



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 66, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 14471 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 59):
Quoting g500 (Reply 9):
Did it have the range for California-Asia???

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

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 (barely) do LAX-NRT.

When DL operated the L-1011-500 LAX-HKG the routing included a stop at ANC in both directions.


User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 67, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 14551 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 it as I really did love the Lady and I had already made up my mind to return to France.
One of my colleagues who became a training captain on the 76 saw it : He told me one day that as a matter of fact, the Tristar and the 76 had the same total fuel flow figures.. problem was the 76 was in lbs and the Tristar in kg. A bit of an exaggeration but not really that much.

I also remember that we got an influx of ex-DC-10, ex-Laker Airways people and they did not like the Lady : "A real airplane has switches and not gismo light thingies !", they used to say. Took the bastards not very long to appreciate how easy it was to operate compared to the '10...except a few engineers who resented the lengthy pre-descent validation procedure of the Dual Autoland and they often were scandalously happy saying :"Skipper, we have a DANA !" ( DANA was an acronym for *dual autoland not available*, of which there were two sorts : soft or hard).

Although not digital, the autopilot system was incredibly smooth and accurate. Cross wind on the ILS, it would track the Localiser with a forward slip, before introducing a measure of crab angle for - IIRC - xwinds in excess of 20 kt... and I remember the face of the 742 trainer when I used the Tristar technique !

Another aspect which is not well known is that the Lady had the lowest decision height on Cat 3 operations :15 ft at CDG and LHR and I remember BA thought of a 12 ft DH at one time... those DHs are still unmatched to this day.
Two reasons for these low minima : the precision of the autopilot system and the DLC : on a go around, even at 15 ft, it was just impossible to hit the runway : the first result of TOGA was to immediately retract the DLC spoilers, giving us an immediate 6 or 7 tons of lift and ZoooooM ! Up we went !


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jorge Abreu


On this picture, there are a few features to notice : the strictly horizontal line of the coaming, which helped a lot on visual approaches, the well laid out autoflight panel, the chart holders that remain vertical ( they're attached to the top of the control column and not part of the wheels and the flight engineers handles on the throttles so that he doesn't disturb the pilots ...    ...everything is designed for ease of operations and comfort

...and finally, the Lady in her glory


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © M.Oertle




@ g500 and Geezer, many thanks !

[Edited 2013-04-19 15:16:21]


Contrail designer
User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 68, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 14474 times:

Quoting Archer (Reply 39):
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 sure if it could do that far.
Quoting mayor (Reply 50):
Still no third gear........just fewer pax and more fuel

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" between the bottom of the nacelle and the fuselage.


User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 69, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 14545 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DualQual (Reply 68):
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" between the bottom of the nacelle and the fuselage.

...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 the factory had it. A few -100s became , with the -524 engines virtual -200s, without the fairing. To my knowledge, it had never been retrofitted.
This is a real -200 :

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



and this is a -200 from a -100 :

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



A4O-TV was the epitomical hangar queen, so that she was nicknamed "Tango Vicious" by the aircrews.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2259 posts, RR: 1
Reply 70, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 14436 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 69):
...called the "Frisbee fairing", for the engineer who designed it ( yes, the one who made a fortune with the flying frisbee )

While the Frisbee fairing is in fact named after the engineer who designed it, he had nothing to do with the toy frisbees.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 69):
To my knowledge, it had never been retrofitted.

It was available as a retrofit, but I don't know how many L1011s were retrofitted.

Same L1011, with and without the Frisbee fairing:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Thomas Greenlandy Williges
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © J.Laporte



A quick google search seems to indicate TWA retrofitted their entire fleet, not sure about other airlines.

[Edited 2013-04-19 16:55:17]

User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1721 posts, RR: 8
Reply 71, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 14316 times:

Pihero, those two posts of yours are great!

Merci beaucoup!


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 72, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 14334 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):
Yes, the Lady was in many ways ahead of her time, but the heritage still lingers : one just needs to look at an Airbus system diagram to be on familiar grounds : the PTU for instance...

So how did Lockheed engineering manage to influence later Airbus designs?


User currently offlinelax777lr From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 73, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 14274 times:

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

Quoting Pihero (Reply 67):


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 74, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14215 times:

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 61):


Quoting Max Q (Reply 60):
Shame 411A is not here to contribute his love of this beautiful bird.


RIP 411A

Or 474218......

RIP Carl

likewise, sorry ! did not know.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 75, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 14230 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 entered the cockpit was how large it was and nothing could be compared to it until the A3801 capme along : then, how well that cockpit was laid : Uncluttered system panels with light-switches, the clearest flight and engine displays so far seen on an airliner, a logically laid warning panel... everything was breathing conscious, deliberate intent of making that flight deck the best office for an airline pilot.
The Tristar had the best coordinated flight controls a pilot could dream of : the all-flying tailplane was actuated by a fast-rotating jackscrew it was attached to... an impressive piece of engineering... the ailerons/spoilers were as smooth as a kiss of breeze on a calm pond... it was an absolute delight to fly.
The DLC... it required a few sim sessions to gat used to. During an approach, high on the glide, you'd push the control column and... nothing happens, the nose stays where it was... but suddenly you realise that you're now looking at an all red VASI !.. so you start integrating the whole geometry of the approach, the horizon, the runway, the amount of sky...
There was also a feature few pêople talk about : the thumb wheel trim, a miniature of the wheel for elevator trim, but you could set it with an uncanny precision, contrarily to the usual thumb switches which brutally start a motor that you can't really control.
To say the Tristar was a pilot's plane could be seen in the delight most of us shared at her controls.
.. And then, the first FMS, The first modular navigation system (IRSs were continuously updated by DME/DME, VOR/D.).. all on the system's choice. No silly manipulation for introducing - and forcing - each IRS to accept an update in which you also had to input the altitude of the Navaid.
And then, the Cat 3 capability, only shared with Air Inter Caravelles and Mercure and BEA Tridents. Made life a lot easier for us in suddenly uncrowded skies. Bragging rights in crew bars above the pilots of **other airplanes** was sweet... and the beers, too !
Yes, the Lady was in many ways ahead of her time, but the heritage still lingers : one just needs to look at an Airbus system diagram to be on familiar grounds : the PTU for instance...
Some Hosties were complaining about the marked nose-up attitude of the Tristar in cruise : Sign of a low Mach, as at .85 M, at which we flew her, the floor was level.
The Lady Tristar : One of the fondest memories of my dying career.


Contrail designer

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, as a student Pilot at the time just could not have impressed me more, I distinctly remember the thumb wheel rotary trim, its incredible power and perfectly linear, smooth control. The only thing I have experienced remotely close to that was the cruise trim switch on the B727.



I was fortunate enough to fly on a few trips with my Father on the L1011 in those days, I could sit on the jumpseat as long as I wanted and was always there for every take off and landing.


What an Aircraft, your description of the personal experience of flying it was more than just a technical delight but a real personal and excellent tribute to one of the best Aircraft ever made.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently onlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4024 posts, RR: 33
Reply 76, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 14193 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 63):
the all-flying tailplane was actuated by a fast-rotating jackscrew it was attached to... an impressive piece of engineering..

Actually the horizontal stabiliser was moved by four hydraulic jacks, one on each hyd system. They were enormous, over two metres long retracted. You could climb up through a hatch and stand on the hor stab to work on them. A very dangerous place and we all unfailingly fitted the big red lock out tool to the control column before entering.

I think the Tristar was the most advanced mechanical/analogue airliner. Lockheed had gone as far as it could. The mechanical controls that ran the hor stab were a marvellous collection of servos and rotating rods that joined them together. A servo the size of a dishwasher each side of the tail, and around four rotating rods that sequenced them.
I enjoyed my 10 years as a L1011 maintenance engineer, mostly at Gulf Air (might have known you, I left 1987) There was no BITE at all, you had to know how the system worked. There was a FIRM/FIM manual which the flight engineers used to give us a clue, but it didn't help that much.


User currently offlineDL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1968 posts, RR: 9
Reply 77, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 13972 times:

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 61):
Or 474218......

RIP Carl

Here is Carls' obituary for those interested:

http://www.avpress.com/obit-archive.php?obit=31324811

Quoting Pihero (Reply 67):
:"Skipper, we have a DANA !" ( DANA was an acronym for *dual autoland not available*,

I do not miss working to repair a DANA light.....Well, maybe a little.

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 76):
. A very dangerous place and we all unfailingly fitted the big red lock out tool to the control column before entering.

Not only could the stabilizer crush you to death, everything was coated in slippery Skydrol with exposed Hi-Loks everywhere.



This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlineBravoOne From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 13900 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cubastar (Reply 24):
Quoting cubastar (Reply 24):
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.

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 over to the L1011. The L1011 was ceratinly a great flying machine. As I recall the DC10 was limited to something around 350kts IAS in the descent which was considerably slower than the L1011. It was pretty easy to get ahead of a DC10 during the let down in say, HNL.

DAL had six DC10's prior to or just as their L1011's were coming on line. I think they got around nine in the WAL merger and most of these remined west cost to the islands until they were replaced.


User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 79, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 13836 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Polot (Reply 70):
While the Frisbee fairing is in fact named after the engineer who designed it, he had nothing to do with the toy frisbees.

I did not know that... it was common wisdom then. I gladly stand corrected.

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 76):
Actually the horizontal stabiliser was moved by four hydraulic jacks, one on each hyd system

Thanks for the correction. I tryped too quick and forgot *system*. That is a feature than 747 maintenance engineers were most impressed with... brings down the then *queen of the skies* a peg.

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 76):
(might have known you )

... and shared a beer, too !

Quoting Max Q (Reply 75):
What an Aircraft, your description of the personal experience of flying it was more than just a technical delight but a real personal and excellent tribute to one of the best Aircraft ever made.

   Blush !
Off topic : what then do you think of my idea to open a series of threads titled " Great airplanes I flew " which would include the Convair 580, the Twin Otter, the DA-20, the DC-4 along with 731 and 2...etc... better known types ?



Contrail designer
User currently offlineintsim From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 80, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 13757 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 79):
Off topic : what then do you think of my idea to open a series of threads titled " Great airplanes I flew " which would include the Convair 580, the Twin Otter, the DA-20, the DC-4 along with 731 and 2...etc... better known types ?

(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 DAL L10s between SLC and PDX, and to Hawaii. Meeeemories.

Maybe it will be the beginings of a book!  

Edit: And thank you for everyone's info here. I learned a lot about this great beast. (browner nose)

[Edited 2013-04-20 12:20:21]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 81, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 13675 times:

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.


User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 82, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 13713 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Polot (Reply 70):
A quick google search seems to indicate TWA retrofitted their entire fleet, not sure about other airlines.

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 engine )
Starts with a lot of preparation, computation from Lockheed for performance on the planned runway : length, obstacles... everything.... the dead engine fan would be blocked in order to prevent it from windmilling... weight would be kept as low as possible ( off with containers, catering, water... ) no cabin crew, the only occupants were the flight deck crew and some hardy-souled ground engineers.. ( yes, yes there were quite a few of them !).
The technique was fun :
- First set max trim against the live engine and aligned with the runway, verify that you have TOGA performance on the live wing engine... then reduce to idle
- Second , verify the same on the # 2 and leave it there
- Third, release the brakes
- Fourth, copilot announces ASI readings every ten knots and FE sets and calls out these figures for N1 on live wing engine, in order to avoid too high a thrust assymetry ( Vmcg is rather high ) so it sounded as " 50 knots...N one fifty... 60 knots... N one sixty... until by some 100 kt, we'd achieved full thrust... then you'd be past the *commit speed*after which, you won't have enough runway to stop... "Rotate !" and up you go.
- As the pilot, you just keep a hand on the triim wheel, keep her on the runway centerline with a lot of foot initially... once airborne, you're back with the love of your life with almost the same performance as she's very light.

The whole thing was a bit of an act of faith... in yourself, your crewmates and the aircraft.

DC-10 / MD 11 pilots, is your technique the same ?



Contrail designer
User currently offlineBravoOne From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13573 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 it up I thought I should look it up as five sounded a little light. Actually my records show they had ten at the ime of the DAL merger and that did not include the -30 which had been gone for some time by then. Good thing you were not on the WAL merger committee at that time!


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 84, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13527 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 79):

Off topic : what then do you think of my idea to open a series of threads titled " Great airplanes I flew " which would include the Convair 580, the Twin Otter, the DA-20, the DC-4 along with 731 and 2...etc... better known types ?

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 contribute my own modest ones.


Best wishes.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9524 posts, RR: 42
Reply 85, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13471 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 79):
what then do you think of my idea to open a series of threads titled " Great airplanes I flew "

Bring it on.  
Quoting Pihero (Reply 67):
"A real airplane has switches and not gismo light thingies !", they used to say

Plus ҫa change...


User currently offlineSAAFNAV From South Africa, joined Mar 2010, 281 posts, RR: 1
Reply 86, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 13438 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 44):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 79):

Blush !
Off topic : what then do you think of my idea to open a series of threads titled " Great airplanes I flew " which would include the Convair 580, the Twin Otter, the DA-20, the DC-4 along with 731 and 2...etc... better known types ?

I'd love to read it, and I would buy your book as well!

Erich



On-board Direction Consultant
User currently onlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4024 posts, RR: 33
Reply 87, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 13468 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 82):
One last aspect flying the Tristar and it's about two engine takeoff for ferry back.

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 was no V1. After rotation, you had to accelerate to a speed when an engine failure did not mean you went down again. On a summer daytime departure from MCT it seemed like ages.
Made you look extra hard when you were boroscoping the good engines.


User currently offlineBravoOne From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 13465 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 unlatched as you may recall. Nice airplane for sure.


User currently onlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1627 posts, RR: 7
Reply 89, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 13426 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 79):
Off topic : what then do you think of my idea to open a series of threads titled " Great airplanes I flew " which would include the Convair 580, the Twin Otter, the DA-20, the DC-4 along with 731 and 2...etc... better known types ?

Would love to read about the 731!!

Quoting SAAFNAV (Reply 86):
I'd love to read it, and I would buy your book as well!

Same here...


Quoting Pihero (Reply 82):
of course for one dead wing engine

I'm probably missing something obvious, but why of course a wing engine? 2 engine ferry with dead #2 isn't possible?!



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 90, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 13484 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 87):
Made you look extra hard when you were boroscoping the good engines.

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 .

Quoting BravoOne (Reply 88):
Yes and on the L1011 they latched and unlatched as you may recall.

That I don't certainly recall.
On the other hand, the weirdest thing in the systems was the RCCBs, *remote controlled circuit breakers * a flight engineer's nightmare when trying to know what systems were behind a simple cb. IIRC, and Tristarsteve could correct me, part of the pressurisation / air conditioning was on the same circuit - therefore cb - as the toilet flushing system ( the first computer controlled by a chip).



Contrail designer
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 91, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 13405 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 87):
What the crew never explained was that there was no V1. After rotation, you had to accelerate to a speed when an engine failure did not mean you went down again.

V1 at brake release?

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 89):
Quoting Pihero (Reply 82):
of course for one dead wing engine

I'm probably missing something obvious, but why of course a wing engine? 2 engine ferry with dead #2 isn't possible?!

Probably a simpler proposition given symmetrical thrust.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 92, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 13350 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 91):
V1 at brake release?

Just about
  

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 91):
Probably a simpler proposition given symmetrical thrust.

Piloting wise, yes.
Yet the airplane prep is similar (includes the engine boroscope Tristasteve has mentione and I forgot.



Contrail designer
User currently onlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4024 posts, RR: 33
Reply 93, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 13287 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 92):
Yet the airplane prep is similar (includes the engine boroscope Tristasteve has mentione and I forgot.

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 the oil from the Air Driven Pump air exhaust ducts. These pumps were rarely used, but in a two engine operation they will run continuosly.


User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1721 posts, RR: 8
Reply 94, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 13141 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 79):
Off topic : what then do you think of my idea to open a series of threads titled " Great airplanes I flew " which would include the Convair 580, the Twin Otter, the DA-20, the DC-4 along with 731 and 2...etc... better known types ?

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 the plane was ferried on two engines to… Memory fails me, it was in England. We had a replacement aircraft coming from Ireland the next day.

Honestly, your relation of the two-engined take-off is fascinating.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 95, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 13078 times:

Quoting BravoOne (Reply 83):
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 it up I thought I should look it up as five sounded a little light. Actually my records show they had ten at the ime of the DAL merger and that did not include the -30 which had been gone for some time by then. Good thing you were not on the WAL merger committee at that time!

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 all fleet lists I can find do show that there were five at that time. They all went to UA as more L-1011s were delivered.


User currently offlinecornutt From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 96, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 13068 times:

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 53):
This was my recollection as well and RR actually went bankrupt at some point I think.

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 Lockheed in trouble. The U.S. government bailed out Lockheed by making them a loan (long since repaid, with interest). It was quite controversial in the U.S. at the time; the rationale for the bailout was provided by the DoD which feared shutdown of military programs that Lockheed was working on.

It was during the nationalization period that the Rolls-Royce automotive and aerospace operations became separated. The aerospace side remained nationalized until the late 1980s when it was finally re-privatized as Rolls-Royce plc. The automotive operation has been through some strange twists and turns since then. Nowdays, BMW owns the rights to use the Rolls-Royce name and logo in the automotive world.


User currently offlineBravoOne From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 97, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12887 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 for the clarification.

User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 98, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12639 times:

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 magic of the machine, but your stories have confirmed all we know to be true now. Quite telling when seasoned flyboys refer to an aircraft as "Lady". One thing I am always curious about is how common it is to see trim angles like these in shots taken after landing:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/4/7/1/1312174.jpg



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 99, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 12584 times:

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 98):
One thing I am always curious about is how common it is to see trim angles like these in shots taken after landing:

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 will give you that sort of deflection.

[Edited 2013-04-22 18:41:17]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 100, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 12509 times:

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 !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9555 posts, RR: 14
Reply 101, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 12411 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 29):
I must admit I used to think the L1011 was an ugly airplane

I'm sorry.....what?         

Quoting ChiGB1973 (Reply 37):
The lower galley was the best. It seems it was either the most senior or the most junior down there. Some loved it, some hated it.

.....and everynow and then two FAs would get cought down there doing.....not airline work.  
Quoting Archer (Reply 39):
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 sure if it could do that far.

L15 could do LAX-NRT(looooong flight for her though.) the rest of Asia went through ANC. (Delta ran an L15 LAX-ANC-HKG. Later the M11 took over. Delta had to install extra tanks in two 11s for this route. (804/806 I believe)

Quoting tmoney (Reply 48):
I've never been on an L1011 so I'd never know how cool it is to have a lower galley. With today's IFE I don't think anybody would care about that anyways.

Well you couldn't go down there. Crew only.   (IIRC if you were nice enough Delta's FAs would take you down for a tour)

Quoting Max Q (Reply 60):
RIP 411A
Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 61):
Or 474218......

RIP Carl


        
Both some of the most knowledgeable people I have ever gotten to talk to. Missed greatly around here.  


I didn't get to fly her, but i got the chance to fly on them growing up. We had family that lived in TPA and MCO. Delta use to run most of its flights between them and ATL on L10s. I loved the sounds and smells of the RB211s as they fired up. (and them smoking like hell on the first run of the day. One of my first times in the engine shop they were running a RB in the test cell. Such an amazing aircraft. Such an amazing engine
I do know guys at Delta who have flown the L10. I have had 777 pilots tell me they would do anything to be back on the L1011. Also a ton of guys in TechOps loved them.

I really do miss them.   



yep.
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 102, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12431 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 100):

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 !

  
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 ; 10 ; 14 ; 22 and 33 and most airlines reffered to round numbers : 4 ; 10 ; "fourteen" ; 20 and 30.
At the bottom left of the captain's panel is the flight control surface position indicator they were using for that control check.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Christian Ettelt



rudder on top, spoilers on both sides and in the middle ailerons on top of elevators.
Probably the only not-so-nice feature of the Tristar was the steel brakes, quick on heating. Fortunately the reverse system was sparkling and we generally start using the foot pedals below 100 knots... otherwise quick turnartounds were out of the question.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 103, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12376 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 102):
A Flap 4 takeoff. There must be a few obstacles there !

Kai Tak. Most of Hong Kong is "obstacles". 



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineairmagnac From Germany, joined Apr 2012, 316 posts, RR: 52
Reply 104, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12325 times:

This is really a wonderful thread !    Thank you all !

Quoting Pihero (Reply 102):
At the bottom left of the captain's panel

Just to nitpick : would that be bottom *right*, under the ADF indicator and next to the warnings lights ?

Otherwise, what would be the purpose of the PITCH DISC(onnect ?) and ROLL DISC handles on either side of the throttles ?



One "oh shit" can erase a thousand "attaboys".
User currently onlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1627 posts, RR: 7
Reply 105, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12302 times:

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 104):
Otherwise, what would be the purpose of the PITCH DISC(onnect ?) and ROLL DISC handles on either side of the throttles ?

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 obvious difference with other panels. Am I missing someting?  



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently onlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4024 posts, RR: 33
Reply 106, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12258 times:

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 104):
what would be the purpose of the PITCH DISC(onnect ?) and ROLL DISC handles on either side of the throttles ?

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 controlled the left wing or stab servo, and the F/O controlled the right wing or stabservo. The pilot that had control became the Pilot Flying. It was quite complicated. It did more than just disconnect the control columns.


User currently onlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1627 posts, RR: 7
Reply 107, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12235 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 106):
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 controlled the left wing or stab servo, and the F/O controlled the right wing or stabservo. The pilot that had control became the Pilot Flying. It was quite complicated. It did more than just disconnect the control columns.

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 prominent place on the pedestal? And did or do any other airlines have this function?

Sorry for all the questions, just love this stuff 

PS: I can imagine some quite interesting situations if those system are unlocked when there is no locked control. Captain rolling left, Co-pilot rolling right..what would happen?!

[Edited 2013-04-23 09:43:05]


Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2778 posts, RR: 2
Reply 108, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12222 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 107):
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 prominent place on the pedestal? And did or do any other airlines have this function?

The CRJ has Pitch and Roll disconnect handles in almost exactly the same location.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 109, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 12234 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 103):
Kai Tak. Most of Hong Kong is "obstacles

I thought so, especially when the aircraft was CX. But I couldn't recognize any feature I used to know.

Quoting airmagnac (Reply 104):
Just to nitpick : would that be bottom *right*, under the ADF indicator and next to the warnings lights ?

My bad ; you're right of course.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 107):
I have never heard of this before, thanks!

On Boeing airplanes,for instance, you have to physically break the control links in order to re-establish control for one pilot.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 107):
And did or do any other airlines have this function?

It was a Tristar feature.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 107):
What was the reasoning behind it?

In case of a flight control jam. Pulling the handle allowed the un-jammed path to be re-established as main path ; of course, you've lost - in many cases - half the control surfaces ; It just made piloting a bit more interesting albeit with a slower response.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 107):
I can imagine some quite interesting situations if those system are unlocked when there is no locked control. Captain rolling left, Co-pilot rolling right..what would happen?!

Honestly, that had never crossed my mind. Tristarsteve has probably an answer.
My reaction would have made the air in that cockpit dark blue   

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 105):
Also I read that the Caution/Warning panel of the Tristar was very user-friendly. Looking at it I don't see an obvious difference with other panels. Am I missing someting?

For a captain, it was paradise : instead of giving a warning message, it referred you to an abnormality of the FE or the overhead panel like "Hydraulic System", or "Flight Control Panels"...etc... and as the captain has a superior view of the FE panel, you could immediately establish a Capt / FE link for the abnormality.
That is with the exception of the first three rows : Oil Press Eng 1... Nacelle ovht 1... Turb air ovht Eng 1... and a few flight control messages : Flap LRS ; Anti skid ; Auto Grnd Spoilers inop...
The captain was never out of the loop.
AFAIK, the DC-10 didn't have it.

[Edited 2013-04-23 11:49:03]


Contrail designer
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 110, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12182 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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° bank from the IGS, followed by tracking the visual PAPI with a 20° of crab... after I landed, the adrenaline rush stopped and I was left with shaking legs, just barely able to brake while keeping on the centerline... The then F/O never understood why I gave him the taxi to the gate !

Next to the horizon - on the right - is the radio altimeter / DH annunciator.
It was linked to an audio tone that would start at 50 ft above the selected decision height, and stop when it reached it.
Now,because you are all very nice, I'm going to reveal a secret I've kept for the past thirty years :
I was cheating and used the rad alt and the tone to help my landings.
First I have to say that the rad alt system was linked to each pilot audio headset or loudspeaker... I'd turn my loudspeaker off !
I'd just select 2 feet on the DH window... at 52 ft, the tone would start and increase in frequency as we were getting closer to 2 ft - and the runway surface, of course ! It would come like this "Tut.....Tut....Tut... Tut.. Tut .Tttuttuttuttuttut...."
The technique was just about flaring and reducing thrust with the rythm of the tone. When it stopped, just another little pull on the control column would achieve a gentle, very gentle kiss landing !
It never failed !



Contrail designer
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 111, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 12195 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 89):
I'm probably missing something obvious, but why of course a wing engine? 2 engine ferry with dead #2 isn't possible?!

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 symmetrical, one could very well miss it.
So the Lockheed engineers designed a warning for just the loss of engine # 2 thrust.
If you looked again at the warning panel, there's a **green** light in the middle of all possible red / amber warnings.
That light is for the " ENG 2 Fail armed ", part of the pre-takeoff verifications. The system will cause an alarm for the failure.



Contrail designer
User currently onlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1627 posts, RR: 7
Reply 112, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 12131 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 110):
Now,because you are all very nice, I'm going to reveal a secret I've kept for the past thirty years

Amazing read Pihero, thanks! This is turning out to be one really nice thread   

Quoting Pihero (Reply 111):
The system will cause an alarm for the failure.

So in what way did that alarm differ from a #1 or #3 fail alarm?

And just be sure; an 2-engine ferry with a inop #2 engine was indeed possible?



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 113, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 12039 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 109):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 103):
Kai Tak. Most of Hong Kong is "obstacles

I thought so, especially when the aircraft was CX. But I couldn't recognize any feature I used to know.

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 easier.  
Quoting Pihero (Reply 110):

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° bank from the IGS, followed by tracking the visual PAPI with a 20° of crab... after I landed, the adrenaline rush stopped and I was left with shaking legs, just barely able to brake while keeping on the centerline... The then F/O never understood why I gave him the taxi to the gate !

No matter how impractical that airport was, it was pretty darned awesome.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 114, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12011 times:

Pihero, thanks again for your vivid recollections  
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 113):
No matter how impractical that airport was, it was pretty darned awesome.

Cannot agree more. On my one Tristar flight we arrived on CX from BKK. I had been there a couple times before but never arrived on the 31end before. There was howling wind and rain and the I vividly remember the flight controls at their most active on my view of the wing. I watched the mountains go right by the wing and then we were blind in cloud for several minutes till out of nowhere a few buildings became visible in the murk and then it was water water water till we touched down on runway 31. We taxied way into the nether regions of the remote parking near the cargo ramp and it continued raining like nobody's business as we deplaned and got on the bus. If the weather had been different I'm sure I'd have ended up with a picture of that beautiful green-striped Tristar.

But everything about Kai Tak was Hong Kong - noisy, cramped, and if you had to get to the island, getting onto the expressway for the harbor tunnel was incredible. On the way to the tunnel, towering mountains on one side, huge apartment blocks on the other, both partially obscured in the ugly grey mist. Then you emerge from the tunnel on the HK island side in a different world of glass facades and manicured streets. Memories like that never die  



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 115, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 12009 times:

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 114):

Cannot agree more. On my one Tristar flight we arrived on CX from BKK. I had been there a couple times before but never arrived on the 31end before. There was howling wind and rain and the I vividly remember the flight controls at their most active on my view of the wing. I watched the mountains go right by the wing and then we were blind in cloud for several minutes till out of nowhere a few buildings became visible in the murk and then it was water water water till we touched down on runway 31. We taxied way into the nether regions of the remote parking near the cargo ramp and it continued raining like nobody's business as we deplaned and got on the bus. If the weather had been different I'm sure I'd have ended up with a picture of that beautiful green-striped Tristar.

But everything about Kai Tak was Hong Kong - noisy, cramped, and if you had to get to the island, getting onto the expressway for the harbor tunnel was incredible. On the way to the tunnel, towering mountains on one side, huge apartment blocks on the other, both partially obscured in the ugly grey mist. Then you emerge from the tunnel on the HK island side in a different world of glass facades and manicured streets. Memories like that never die

What a great description a747. I spent most of my childhood in HK and your writing brings back many fond memories.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 116, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11904 times:

^
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. Fortunately all of them begin and end with Kai Tak and RB211s attached to some of my favorite airframes  



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 117, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11916 times:

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 116):
Fortunately all of them begin and end with Kai Tak and RB211s attached to some of my favorite airframes

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 silly to me (the ads, not the fleet).

[Edited 2013-04-24 00:22:51]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 118, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11895 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 117):
Cathay used to advertise that they were the only airline with only widebodies powered by Rolls-Royce engines.

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 Peninsula Hotel in particular), and it's a fair assumption Cathay was trying to piggyback that image.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineBravoOne From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 290 posts, RR: 0
Reply 119, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day ago) and read 11886 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 seats on both Cathay and Dragon Air in and out of HKG while doing some SE Asia airport quals. The crews were extremely warm and friendly to a Yankee such as my self and were more than willing to share their local knowledge to this newbee. Had one memorable crew on Dragon Air. Both the Capt and the lady F/O were from Rawanda. You have to be amazed at any career that will bring people together from afar and together in a mutual love for avaition.

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17068 posts, RR: 66
Reply 120, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day ago) and read 11882 times:

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 118):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 117):
Cathay used to advertise that they were the only airline with only widebodies powered by Rolls-Royce engines.

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 Peninsula Hotel in particular), and it's a fair assumption Cathay was trying to piggyback that image.

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 placed the largest Rolls Royce car order ever.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 121, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day ago) and read 11897 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 112):
So in what way did that alarm differ from a #1 or #3 fail alarm?

There was none for # 1 and # 3, except the *Eng oil Press* light on the CAWP.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 112):
And just be sure; an 2-engine ferry with a inop #2 engine was indeed possible?

Yes.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineaaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 122, posted (1 year 6 months 18 hours ago) and read 11800 times:

Wow....wish there were more of these

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5H0Ht-BoJA



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineTWAL1011727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 631 posts, RR: 0
Reply 123, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 10023 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 4):
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"

Sure that wasn't my dad....He flew the L10 from 1980-1987

Quoting n92r03 (Reply 32):
One question thought, what was the ceiling for it at cruise? I seem to recall a 767 pilot telling me the 767 could fly "so much" higher than the L-1011.

The usual magic cruise altitude was FL330. Anything higher you needed to be either empty of pax and/or fuel.

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 89):
I'm probably missing something obvious, but why of course a wing engine? 2 engine ferry with dead #2 isn't possible?!

The # 2 engine runs the B and C hydraulics.
Sys B was normal brakes...Sys C was alternate brakes..
plus Sys B & C have PTU to power Sys A & D (respectively) in the event of a wing engine failure
The A (#1 engine)and D (#3 engine) systems

This would preclude normal redundancy.

KD


User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 124, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9938 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TWAL1011727 (Reply 123):

This would preclude normal redundancy.

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 allows me to give a further insight about the built-in safety of the design :
  • Every system has at least two power sources : A and D from the engine driven pumps and - as you said a PTU each pressurised by a PTU : A from B and D from C;
  • Engine #2 powers system B and C through their respective engine driven pumps, but
  • They have another two power sources available : an ATM each - called B2 and C2 - and an AC pump each - called B3 and C3 ...ATMs or Air Turbine Motors are driven by the bleed air system... Moreover,
  • Hydraulic B system can be pressurised by the RAT, should it be necessary

All the above means that the loss of one engine leaves an intact hydraulic system.

I daresay that redundancy had been achieved, and way beyond.

All the above confirm that a symetrical engines configuration takeoff and ferry is a non-event.



Contrail designer
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 125, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9955 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TWAL1011727 (Reply 123):
The usual magic cruise altitude was FL330. Anything higher you needed to be either empty of pax and/or fuel.

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.
Granted, the Tristar 1, equipped with the -22 B engines was no sparkling climber. The Tristar 200 with the -524 was, and a damn sight better than a 747.
I went once up to 41000 ft, to the disgust of the flight engineer... When I asked the F/O to request descent clearance, the F/E said it would be more appropriate to ask for re-entry to the atmosphere, so we did.
The ATCOs played the game and eventually they cleared us to a glide down to runway 13.
They made my day... and those were the good times of uncrowded airspace.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4655 posts, RR: 19
Reply 126, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 9821 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 125):

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.
Granted, the Tristar 1, equipped with the -22 B engines was no sparkling climber. The Tristar 200 with the -524 was, and a damn sight better than a 747.
I went once up to 41000 ft, to the disgust of the flight engineer... When I asked the F/O to request descent clearance, the F/E said it would be more appropriate to ask for re-entry to the atmosphere, so we did.
The ATCOs played the game and eventually they cleared us to a glide down to runway 13.
They made my day... and those were the good times of uncrowded airspace.

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.


Thanks for providing an accurate account of it's capabilities, I doubted what Twa was saying as well !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5555 posts, RR: 28
Reply 127, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9841 times:

Quoting BravoOne (Reply 78):

There may have been a couple of DAL pilots that flew all three but only a few if that

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 A/DC-8
A/DC-9 A/L-1011 A/MD-11

Imagine a career spanning from the CV240 to the MD-11, and everything in between.

But, 'tis true, he did not fly the 747, DC10 and L1011.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 128, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 9844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 TWAL1011727 (Reply 123):
This would preclude normal redundancy.

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 allows me to give a further insight about the built-in safety of the design :
1/- Every system has at least two power sources : A and D from the engine driven pumps and - as you said a PTU each pressurised as follows : A from B and D from C

2/- Engine #2 powers systems B and C through their respective engine driven pumps, but

3/- Systems B and C have each another two power sources available : an ATM each - called B2 and C2 - and an AC pump each - called B3 and C3 ...ATMs or Air Turbine Motors are driven by the bleed air system...and normally act as a back up to the EDP for hydraulic high demands like the landing gear operation. Moreover,

4/- Hydraulic B system can be pressurised by the RAT, should it be necessary

All the above means that the loss of two engines leaves an intact hydraulic system.

I daresay that redundancy had been achieved, and way beyond.

All the above confirm that a symetrical engines configuration takeoff and ferry is a non-event.



Contrail designer
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6921 posts, RR: 76
Reply 129, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 9448 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 67):
I did not wish to type-rate on it as I really did love the Lady and I had already made up my mind to return to France.

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 earlier!" (if I recall, he moved from the 732...)   

Since then, whenever I think L-1011... I remember that remark.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 101):
I loved the sounds and smells of the RB211s as they fired up.

Oooh yeah! I still remember it to this day! Thank my days in LHR and LGW downwind from the planes.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 109):
Honestly, that had never crossed my mind. Tristarsteve has probably an answer.

I thought like in other planes, pulling the roll d/c would enable one pilot to control roll using ailerons, and the other pilot to use roll spoilers... or was it the high speed and low speed ailerons... forgot to be honest. And for pitch d/c, each pilot gets authority for an elevator and loses authority for the other elevator.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 110):
Now,because you are all very nice, I'm going to reveal a secret I've kept for the past thirty years :
I was cheating and used the rad alt and the tone to help my landings.

I forgot what other type of aircraft used that same tone system... but you are now the second person I know that had admitted to that 'cheat'... I am told that actually more than a few used that cheat at sometime in their careers on planes using that system... but you're the first one who explained the 'finesse' of it !   

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 113):
No matter how impractical that airport was, it was pretty darned awesome.

I used to fly from Jakarta to London and back, 2x a year... Flying CX was often the first choice... I'd arrive in HKG in mid afternoon (CX711 I think)... and took the last flight out to London (be it Gatwick or Heathrow (after they opened LHR), for the sole purpose of maximizing my time hanging around gate 1, and hog that window facing the runway 13... for the best view from the IGS turn to touchdown... (and I noticed different methods on how to tackle the final approach... usually grouped into airlines and/or types).

Landing there, I'd pick a right window seat for the best view... especially the stormy 13 approach!

Quoting aaron747 (Reply 114):
I had been there a couple times before but never arrived on the 31end before.

I departed 31 before... on UA's DC-10 to SEA... it was... errr... the next best thrill to 13 approach.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 109):
I thought so, especially when the aircraft was CX. But I couldn't recognize any feature I used to know.

The photo is a unique one... I think the bridge taxiway is the one from the eastern remote apron to the main apron... that is also where the fire department is and a holding point (non-runway holding point). The photo looks easterly... so you can see the runway, kowloon's hills, and the easternmost peaks of Hong Kong island. The remote stands that I call "Tristar Row" (where they park in the late afternoon bank, and also where they dump the narrowbodies in peaktime), is to the right of the photo. Most planes would not use this route... after landing 13, they'd go back towards the terminal on the parallel, then make the right turn to this loop, to the main terminal, where they'd pass the fire station, and the holding point beyond where the Tristar in this pic is, then go turn along the canal where HAECO and cargo is located on the N & NE side of the canal.



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineAircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1721 posts, RR: 8
Reply 130, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9021 times:

This thread is incredible! Merci beaucoup, Pihero!

User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 131, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8446 times:

Quoting tmoney (Reply 48):

Tristar rosy-reminiscing day, eh? I'm surprised nobody brought up the EA401 incident. Then there are DL191, and SV163 and SV163. Now that is cray!

And EA401 and DL 191 were not the fault of the a/c.

Quoting BravoOne (Reply 83):
Well since you brought it up I thought I should look it up as five sounded a little light. Actually my records show they had ten at the ime of the DAL merger and that did not include the -30 which had been gone for some time by then. Good thing you were not on the WAL merger committee at that time!
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 95):
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 all fleet lists I can find do show that there were five at that time. They all went to UA as more L-1011s were delivered.

It was five that were sold to UA, then leased back in our livery. Those a/c were LONG gone (1975) by the time of the DL/WA merger (1987). If I'm not mistaken, Western's DC-10-30 was a lease from Air Pacific, so that was gone by then, too.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 132, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8379 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 131):
If I'm not mistaken, Western's DC-10-30 was a lease from Air Pacific,

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 operation LAX-HNL-NAN after Western dropped the LGW routes, but the FJ flights were actually operated by WA as far as I know (possibly with some FJ flight attendants). Photos of the aircraft in FJ livery have a small "Operated by Western Airlines" decal next to one of the forward doors.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 133, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8075 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 132):
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 operation LAX-HNL-NAN after Western dropped the LGW routes, but the FJ flights were actually operated by WA as far as I know (possibly with some FJ flight attendants). Photos of the aircraft in FJ livery have a small "Operated by Western Airlines" decal next to one of the forward doors.

Maybe that's what I was thinking of. I can remember seeing it a few times at SLC, BEFORE the merger, but not after.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25638 posts, RR: 22
Reply 134, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7945 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 133):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 132):
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 operation LAX-HNL-NAN after Western dropped the LGW routes, but the FJ flights were actually operated by WA as far as I know (possibly with some FJ flight attendants). Photos of the aircraft in FJ livery have a small "Operated by Western Airlines" decal next to one of the forward doors.

Maybe that's what I was thinking of. I can remember seeing it a few times at SLC, BEFORE the merger, but not after.

It was sold to AA a few years before the DL/WA merger.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kjell Nilsson
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © J.Laporte



User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 135, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7885 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 134):

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.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinemrskyguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1214 posts, RR: 3
Reply 136, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7826 times:

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 Misawa AB in the middle of winter (246" of snow my last winter there) with that big ole' "Pleasant Hawaiian Holidays" livery looking like a billboard for a week while replacement parts were flown in. Just imagine sitting there freezing your butt off in white-out conditions, only to see that big palm tree livery peek through serving as a reminder that it was warm and tropical somewhere else in the world.


"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10511 posts, RR: 14
Reply 137, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7725 times:

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 normal (sometimes seemed like one a day) and I have a theory about that. First, this theory does not attempt to disparage the abilities of the former WA mechanics, but just to put forth a theory. I think that with the switchover to DL for the mechanics, especially on the Tristar, many of them, obviously were not familiar and/or experienced with the aircraft. Now, I'm sure they had training to familiarize them with the Tristar's systems, but that is no substitute for years of experience. On top of that, when the Tristars were transitting thru former WA stations, I believe some mechanical problems (those that were allowed to be) were just being MCO'd, and they were piling up until they had to be done.

Now, please, if there is anyone out there that is or was a DL mechanic in those days, please feel free to refute or even flame me for this theory. I look forward to hearing another, better theory that what I've just offered. Now, remember, these are just my observations, as I was just a ramp rat and cargo agent for DL at SLC, but that doesn't mean that I didn't pick up on these things.

Ok.....have at it!



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 138, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks ago) and read 6605 times:

Quoting transaeroyyz (Reply 12):
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?

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 testing.

[Edited 2013-06-26 01:14:11]

User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4596 posts, RR: 77
Reply 139, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6445 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tmoney (Reply 48):
Tristar rosy-reminiscing day, eh? I'm surprised nobody brought up the EA401 incident. Then there are DL191, and SV163 and SV163. Now that is cray!

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 totally indecisive captain "helped" by a dyslexic F/E and an unassertive F/O.

None of the above was aircraft design fault.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 138):
Quoting transaeroyyz (Reply 12):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?
It was not intended. It was accidental to the design.

Red Herring : at the design Mach of .85, the floor was just level (1.5 to 2° nose up like most aircraft).
At M.82, it was noticeable at 4 to 5°.
10 to 20° was when I was doing Cuban eights with my girlfriend, but you didn't see it...



Contrail designer
User currently offlineplanesofthepast From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 140, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6092 times:

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 ... Great flight in 1982, from a passenger's standpoint !

User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 141, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 5970 times:

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 limit my comments to aesthetics. I still believe "The Lady" is the best-looking jetliner ever. And Gulf Air's graphics (livery) is probably the best dress ever put on her.

And in retrospect, Lockheed also succeeded in designing the best-looking propliner(s) ever with the Constellation series, from the original 049 all the way up to the Super-G and Starliner. There's an old industrial design phrase that "form follows function". This is kind of rarely true in this day and age with some of the airplanes, autos, etc we are now seeing, but Lockheed designers and engineers sure hit it out of the park with the TriStar (and Connies).

Anyway thanks again to everyone (and especially Pihero). kind regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2833 posts, RR: 45
Reply 142, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5663 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 129):
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 earlier!"

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 1011. Just a great, great pilot's plane. I couldn't think more highly of a machine.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 141):
Having only flown (as a pax) on the L1011 a few times, I'll limit my comments to aesthetics. I still believe "The Lady" is the best-looking jetliner ever

I couldn't agree more, cptkrell!   


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