clipperno1
Posts: 641
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 12:47 am

L1011F Vs DC-10F

Thu Jul 01, 1999 1:32 am

By now there have been only a few conversions of TriStars into freighters, while almost every DC-10 has been converted. The only 'bigger' Freight Line using a L1011F is Fine Air. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the safety record of L1011s is better than the ones of the DC10s. The only big L1011 crash I remember is DL191 (shearwinds). I think the L1011 has always been more advanced than the DC-10. There are for sure more DC-10's at the market, but in the recent a lot of L1011 have been retiered from pax-ops (Cathay, Delta, Saudia, Royal Joradanian.....), most of them became victims of the blowtorch instead of being converted into a freighter.
So why are there almost only DC-10F's???
"I really don't know one plane from the other. To me they are just marginal costs with wings."� Alfred Kahn, 1977
 
Guest

RE: L1011F Vs DC-10F

Thu Jul 01, 1999 2:26 am

Many factors in this:
Its the spares cost and aviablity of the L-1011 are far less spares then the DC-10.

Also the avalibilty of the plane it self is far less then the DC-10, were you can find for of them, the cost of one of them, and the cost of operating.

It could also be, I'm not really sure, that the L-1011 might be using different size containers then standard LD-3 used by 747s, Airbus widebodys, DC-10, and maybe the 777. There are standard in carry cargo.


Rooz
 
Boeing727
Posts: 814
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 1:32 am

RE: L1011F Vs DC-10F

Thu Jul 01, 1999 3:26 am

Although I love the old L1011s, I have to admit that the DC10 can haul more cargo than the TRISTAR (mainly because of its #2 engine location).

Regards
 
BryanG
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:59 am

RE: L1011F Vs DC-10F

Thu Jul 01, 1999 11:19 pm

The L-1011s use the same LD-3 and main deck boards as the DC-10, so it's not a configuration issue. I had the rare pleasure of working on an L-1011F, and it was a nice plane. Max payload was about 120,000 lb. Don't know the load for the DC-10, but I'd imagine that it's a bit more. It's true that the DC-10 does have more internal volume, and that's an important factor in the cargo biz. Often planes "bulk-out", meaning that when they haul lighter cargo their loads are limited not by weight but by space. I'd guess that a more important reason is the effort of upkeep. Passenger charter airlines can dictate their own flying schedules, but cargo ops need high reliabnility and easy maintainaility. Sadly, the Tristar is ancient history to Lockheed, so the only source of spare parts is retired planes. Some Tristars must be sacrificed to the desert so that they're luckier bretheren may fly on... Lots of L-1011s are being used a lot in the passenger charter biz, whereas not many old DC-10s are being fitted for passenger ops. So at least the L-1011s that are still around are being enjoyed by people rather than boxes. Either way, they're still turing a profit to whoever uses them.
 
clipperno1
Posts: 641
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 12:47 am

RE: L1011F Vs DC-10F

Fri Jul 02, 1999 7:48 pm

I don't think that TriStars are so profitable to Charter Airlines! The main reason they use them I think, is because they don't have to care about ETOPS when flying over the 'big pond'.
"I really don't know one plane from the other. To me they are just marginal costs with wings."� Alfred Kahn, 1977