Guest

L1011

Wed Dec 02, 1998 9:40 pm

Here is one under appreciated aircraft. It was never produced in the numbers once thought possible but none the less, she was and is one fine aircraft.
On a normal crossing of the north atlantic, most airliners cruise at mach .083 to .085.
The L1011 would get up and go at .089.
Even though her flight deck is not adorned with EFIS crt's, she had some very sophisticated systems.
Most people dont even realize that the L1011 was designed and produced with auto-land. This is a very sophisticated system that is only now finding its way into the mainstream cockpits of long haul airliners.
I still say she was one of the finest commercial transports to come out of the last generation of airliners. Id fly her anytime over an airbus.
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 12:23 am

The first airliner with auto-land capability was the British Trident.
Trident/Tristar - spooky? OK, not really.

I hope you don't mind me being picky but if jets crossed the Atlantic
at mach 0.083 to 0.085 it would take them several days - perhaps we
should just ignore the zeros after the decimal points!

David L
 
Guest

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 12:46 am

My good friend, after flying the atlantic for almost 19 years now I hope Im reading my
mach indicator correctly.
.085 is 85 percent of the speed of sound. Our mach indicators havent changed since the last time i looked.
 
Guest

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 1:06 am

Actually, what I should have said to make myself clear is that .085 is the ICAO
designator for mach number. This is also how it is depicted on the indicator and the ICAO flight plan.
Send me an email address and Id be glad to send you a copy of an international ICAO flight plan.
Also, this is the depiction on the FMS, INS units and auto flight control display unit display our mach number in this form.
 
Guest

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 1:18 am

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but 85 percent of the speed of sound is mach .85, not .085 as you say?

Mach .085 would only be 8.5 percent of the speed of sound.

By the way, autolands have been pretty much standard in airplanes for what, 15 years now, so it is not exactly as if though they are only now becoming standard on other airplanes than the TriStar.
 
Guest

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 1:36 am

Autoland?? Standard for 15 years?? Im talking about the auto-land that is
Cat III a qualified. This system not only lets down to a decision height half the CatII standards, it steers and brakes the aircraft to a stop.
Most airliners arent even CatII qualified let alone CatIIIa
If this has been standard at your airline, Id sure as heck like to fly for them.
They must have some fleet :)
 
Guest

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 1:43 am

Is not the A320 cat III qualified? Well it was introduced about midway through the 80's if I have my history down correct.
 
Guest

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 2:07 am

I agree with UA. Thats exectly how its read of the face of the indicator.
 
Guest

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 2:14 am

Yes, your history is correct. However, I wouldnt call one model having that capability
"standard"
Hey, no hard feelings. People seeing thigs differently is what makes the world go round.
By the way, you never told me what you thought of the L1011.
Sometimes I wish for the old days when aircraft had analog cockpits like the L1011.
It seems EFIS has made the new flight decks so anticeptic and generic looking.
Give me those round dials anyday. lol
My current type (767-300-er) at least uses a combination of the old and the new.
Hey, Im all for progress but I miss those switches, gauges and instruments cluttering the panel and the overhead. :)
Nice to meet you by the way.
 
FedEx
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:07 pm

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 2:30 am

I don't think so.
I know that the Boeing 737 400, MD80 that Alaska fly is
certified for catIII !
 
Guest

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 2:30 am

Yea, what would we do if we all just agreed with eachother all the time. :)

I'm sort of neutral about the L-1011... I don't dislike it nor do I particularly love it. I would probably take the DC-10 over it. In any case, my favorite tri jet jumbo out of the three is the MD-11. I don't mind the glass cockpits. I think the MD-11's is very nice... I do sort of wonder about the 777 though since even it's "back-up" instruments are LCDs. I think it is nice to have good ol' iron instruments for back up like the MD-11 has.
 
Guest

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 7:15 am

yep ! i think that was the only thing that kept
her down ,,,, the numbers,,, seem's the large number operators loved her. once your spooled up
to maintain her ,, everyone loved it. but if
you werent prepared for that ,, she'd eat your lunch. and next generation tech stuff would have
flowed ,, ! just like the "27" -n- "37"
 
BryanG
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:59 am

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 7:38 am

Unfortunately, a bad luck cloud surrounded this entire aircraft's production. There were administrative delays on the lines, and engine delays from RR that set the project behind the DC-10. Lockheed also didn't really know how to market their great product, and ended up losing money on the entire program. That's why it was the last Lockheed passenger jet. If they had gotten lucky and had a smooth beginning, we'd all probably be L-1011 fans instead of DC-10 fans right now.
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 8:22 am

Well, you put me in my place, aviator_ua.

Point taken! :-/



 
Guest

FedEx

Thu Dec 03, 1998 8:34 am

I agee that they are catIII certified but they have the funny green heads up things that allow them to fly in 0 vis. they are the only airline to have.
Iain
 
AA727
Posts: 602
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 10:00 am

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 8:37 am

I agree with you aviator-ua. The L-1011 is a fine aircraft although that it did not have any crt in the cockpit. It did have advanced tecknology, the autoland capability, like you explained. It is however sad that Lockheed didn't stay long in the airline business. They have made great commercial airplanes, the L-1011 being one of my favorite ones. The very best Lockheed has ever made. I imagine that you have flown the L-1011 either with Pan Am or with United when they got them from Pan Am.
It sounds like you really enjoyed flying it. Did you fly that one as captain ?
Any reply from you will be greatly appreciated.

Ben Soriano
 
L1011
Posts: 2135
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:02 am

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 9:25 am

The L-1011 is my favorite aircraft. That's why I use it for my screen name and have it on my license plate. I have flown on many Eastern and Delta L-1011s, but only one on TWA. I liked them even better when they had eight-abreast seating in coach, 2-4-2. There was a console dividing the four in the middle, so it really seemed like 2-2-2-2. The airlines went to 2-5-2 in the late seventies. Flight attendants on Eastern told me that only a few were being converted to 2-5-2, but soon all of them were. I don't know what Delta will use on their mainland to Hawaii routes when their L-1011s are gone. I don't like the thought of flying that far over water on only two engines.
Fly Eastern's Golden Falcon DC-7B
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 9:42 am

Actually, LAX-HNL is only 2555mi, and SFO-HNL is only 2398mi. UAL flies 757s from the west coast to Hawaii. I think that DL will use the MD-11 on ATL-HNL and B767-300s from LAX and DFW. Unless, that is, they put 777s on those routes.
 
n4khgirl
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 11:46 am

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 9:43 am

Yeah The L1011 has to be one of my favorite airplanes! I would love to fly one, or just go up in the cockpit to see what it looks like. I bet it looks different than a Citation 1 :)

I also like the idea of having real dials. I like EFIS but nothing can replace the normal things...... Well, I guess EFIS is getting to be normal now, so I guess I should say the old-fashioned way.
See ya later,
Camille
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 9:49 am

Heres some pics of an Tradewinds L1011-385 (N75AA) cockpit taken by me in GSO.


Flight Engineers Panel


Pilot and Copilot Positions (look at the artifical horizons - I didn't know an L1011 could do that! :-)
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

Heres the other pic

Thu Dec 03, 1998 9:51 am

I really hate HTML, it never works right!

Heres the flight engineers panel
 
n4khgirl
Posts: 449
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 11:46 am

RE: It looks ancient!

Thu Dec 03, 1998 10:00 am

It looks ancient! I think that it looks like something that you'd find in an Apollo space capsule or something like that. A Citation definitely doesn't lool like that from the panel.
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: L1011 - Esp. aviator_ua

Thu Dec 03, 1998 10:02 am

Aviator_ua,

I did try to e-mail you with a more appropriate apology without
success. I was informed that I wasn't "on my friend's mailing list" -
well, now I feel twice as bad! I hope my later post will suffice.

I'll pay particular attention to your posts in future so I might learn
something. I've learned about ICAO mach designators already! :)

I also accept that the auto-land system of the Trident was as
comprehensive - it just got the aircraft on to the tarmac at which
point the pilot had to take over.

I'm afraid I've only flown in one L-1011. It was last year, Delta from
Brussels to JFK. It was a joint operation with Sabena, with the return
flight on an A-340. Having grown up in the narrow-body era, I was
surprised to find that I preferred the wider cabin of the L-1011 to
the A-340 and the Delta cabin crew were friendlier (sorry AA727). To
be honest, the only aircraft I didn't particulary like flying in was
the old Vickers Vanguard. It tends to be the airline and the state of
repair of the interior that makes the difference for me.

Regards, David L
david@appin.u-net.com
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: L1011 - Correction

Thu Dec 03, 1998 10:10 am

I maeant, of course, that the autoland system on the Trident was NOT
as comprehensive.

 
will
Posts: 305
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 12:31 am

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 12:02 pm

G'day All...
Aviator_ua, you are quite right in saying that the L1011 was a great plane. lt was well designed with lots of good ideas that we are still seeing come out as new in the new Boeing's and Airbus's. l personally think that the L1011 suffered with lower than expected sales due to the earlier release, and aggressive marketing of Douglas corp's DC10 series.
Just a couple of thing's to mention about the L1011. First the L1011 was powerd by a revolutionary new engine known to all as the RB211. Most could comment that RB211 gave the L1011 troubles when it was first introduced, but all new A/C and engines have it's teething problems. E.G.( have a look at the JT9D on the B747 when it was introduced back in 69-70's. ) The RB211 grew into a excellent and very reliable series that we now see as the Trent 800 which powers the B777.
Second. l will be accused of being biased by some :-), but the L1011 and other older classic A/C have another important item that is better than any EICAS system, it has a Flight Engineer.....:-)
Oh well.....l guess you can't have a beer with an EICAS computer after your flight.....:-)
See yah...
Will....
 
BryanG
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:59 am

L1011 using airlines

Thu Dec 03, 1998 2:42 pm

There are still a number of American airlines that use the L-1011, though they are usually small carriers that only have a few. Delta has the largest number of L-1011s, followed by American Trans Air (the largest airline no one has ever heard of). Tradewinds is fourth with four. I think the third place belongs to either Arrow Air or American International; they both have several L-1011s.
 
Guest

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 9:34 pm

AA, Unfortunately, I never did get to fly her as a pilot
but I think she has a personality all her own.
Lockheed was more interested in military aircraft and systems than commercial aviation. The C5A is a perfect example. They could produce heavy jets but the military had more money to spend. : )
Lockheed was famous for its innovative designs.
Imagine, the L1011 had catIII auto-land capability before other designers even dreamed of putting that kind of system in a passenger aircraft. The average commercial pilot flying domestic routes today is not even catII qualified. Only the big aerodromes have catII and III runways and the airlines thought it a waste to qualify crews and aircraft for something that was hardly needed. The aircraft alone needs everything required for approach to catII and III minimums in dual form.
There is some very expensive equipment required too.
Comparitors, sensitive radar altimeters, etc etc etc.
The comparitors alone are a fortune. Also, the carriers have not one aircraft but hundreds and some thousands. What we use on the 767-300 to shoot catII and III approaches are the gyros from the INS units to filter out the imperfections on the ILS signal so we dont chase every needle deflection. The INS units use ring laser gyros which are much more precise than the average gyro. They also provide attitude information to the displays (ADI HSI) for more exact control. I can select either Inertial navigation/Inertial reference or both. These gyros were so exact, Honeywell decided to use them for enroute nav also. To use them just to level the INS platform was a waste. However, GPS is soon in coming and INS will be an antique soon.
My carrier already uses GPS on trans-pacific routes
and we have begun to fly "Free Flight" routes across the pacific. We were the first carrier to implement free flight. The flight crew decides which is the most economical route in terms of weather, wind, time etc etc. and flies this unpublished route. The equipment that is needed is staggering. High speed data links to ATC, a new very advanced form of TCAS with radar and transponder returns. On free flight routes, the flight crew is responsible for its own seperation.
Scary, but it works. Ive geard guys say its cut almost 45 mins off the SFO NRT run. We now have some 20 free flight equiped 747-400's flying the pacific.
Anyway, before I talk your ears off Ill say goodbye.
Keep flying and never let go of the dream.
 
Guest

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 9:44 pm

I couldnt agree more BryanG.
You said it all beautifully.
 
Guest

RE: L1011 - Esp. David L

Thu Dec 03, 1998 9:54 pm

You are a real gentleman David. Ive opened up my mailbox so you or anyone can now write.
Im new to the internet so forgive me if I dont know all the protocalls.
I see I created quite a stir with the L1011. :)
Hey, I say we all enjoy this forum and exchange ideas.
Im always willing to learn from people.
You can write anytime.


Kevin
 
Guest

RE: L1011

Thu Dec 03, 1998 10:11 pm

Twins are the new age my friend. I miss that thrid and fourth hole too but the carriers are guided in their buying of aircraft by one principal.......GREED lol
 
Guest

RE: L1011 and the mach no.

Fri Dec 04, 1998 10:11 am

Can't say I know exactly what Boeings have indicated on their PFD's, but Airbus sure uses the 0.82 designation rather than the 0.082 which absulutely doesn't make sense if you regard mach.no.as a percentage of the speed of sound. So maybe Mr.Boeing is a bit mixed up or something (?)