viscount
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 1999 12:35 am

Tristar Or DC10?

Wed Dec 22, 1999 12:38 am

If there are any pilots out there who have flown both Tristars and DC10s, I'd like to know which you prefer and in your opinion which is the better of the two aircraft?
 
Guest

RE: Tristar Or DC10?

Wed Dec 22, 1999 1:54 am

I would select the L-1011. Why, is because it is built better with 4 hydraulic systems vs. 3 on the DC-10.
Lockheed did it's homework when they designed and built this plane, they didn't cut corners like MD did with the DC-10. That is why they are now part of Boeing, the 3 hydraulic systems on the DC-10 are side-by-side next to each other and are in sections where a malfunction could sever them like the United Sioux City crash and the May 1979 American Airlines disaster at O' Hare when the engine tore off the wing severing the hydraulic lines on that wing causing it to roll over and crash. The L-1011's 4 hydraulic lines are in different sections of the plane where there won't be any kind of malfunction. That is why it has had an excellent safety record!!! Plus, I would fly a Rolls Royce powered plane over a GE!!!
 
Guest

RE: Tristar Or DC10?

Wed Dec 22, 1999 1:55 am

I would select the L-1011. Why, is because it is built better with 4 hydraulic systems vs. 3 on the DC-10.
Lockheed did it's homework when they designed and built this plane, they didn't cut corners like MD did with the DC-10. That is why they are now part of Boeing, the 3 hydraulic systems on the DC-10 are side-by-side next to each other and are in sections where a malfunction could sever them like the United Sioux City crash and the May 1979 American Airlines disaster at O' Hare when the engine tore off the wing severing the hydraulic lines on that wing causing it to roll over and crash. The L-1011's 4 hydraulic lines are in different sections of the plane where there won't be any kind of malfunction. That is why it has had an excellent safety record!!! Plus, I would fly a Rolls Royce powered plane over a GE!!!
 
Guest

TriStar More Advanced?

Wed Dec 22, 1999 2:11 am

I'm not a pilot, but have been told that the TriStar is regarded as significantly more technically advanced than the DC-10.
Can anyone Confim/Deny this?
 
MEA-707
Posts: 3672
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 1999 4:51 am

RE: Tristar Or DC10?

Wed Dec 22, 1999 2:42 am

The Tristar looks cuter but most DC-10s still fly in frontline service while only 100 of 250 L-1011s are still in service. So economically the L-1011 appears to be a pretty outdated plane.
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
 
HyperMike
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 1999 7:03 am

RE: Tristar Or DC10? Engine Question

Wed Dec 22, 1999 3:50 am

Tedski said that he preferred the RR engines over GE. Why is that?

Is it just a personal preference or experience? Is one more reliable than the other?

I'm not nagging or picking, I'm genuinely curious.
 
exnonrev
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 1999 4:26 am

RE: Tristar Or DC10?

Wed Dec 22, 1999 4:26 am

The L-1011's technical advances have also proven to be its downfall. While the DC-10 and L-1011 cost about the same to fly in terms of fuel consumption, the L-1011 has always cost more to maintain. The L-1011 also had a higher initial purchase price than the DC-10.

The Tristar is anything but outdated. It was Stage III compliant 25 years before it became mandatory. Its fuel consumption is actually slightly less than the DC-10 and its quadruple-redundant hydraulic system is far superior to the DC-10. All that technology in 1970's form is expensive and requires more downtime to maintain. The early model RB211s have also been a long time maintenance problem.
 
AC183
Posts: 1496
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 1999 10:52 am

RE: Tristar Or DC10?

Wed Dec 22, 1999 4:43 am

The L1011 was a better airplane. The safety record shows that. As far as why there are more DC10's still around, that is partly because there were more built, and partly because spare parts are easier to come by. Part of the reason there were more DC10's built is because the development program for the L1011 was longer, and that delayed production so that Douglas got the business before Lockheed was finished designing. Long range versions of the Tristar were delayed ever later than the DC10's long range versions, so again Lockheed wasn't quick enough to get the market, despite its having a superior airplane. The L1011 production line also was shut down before the DC10 line, somewhat due to Lockheed giving up as it only had the L1011 in civilian production, so it just left the market because it didn't have enough market share. By all counts the L1011 was more advanced, better designed, and safer than the DC10.
 
Guest

RE: Tristar Or DC10? Engine Question

Wed Dec 22, 1999 7:19 am

I think Rolls Royce engines are of better quality and reliability. Why do you think the newest A340-500 & 600 are having them? Nothing personal against GE, they make good engines too.
 
exnonrev
Posts: 598
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 1999 4:26 am

RE: Tristar Or DC10? Engine Question

Wed Dec 22, 1999 8:04 am

Today's RR engines are as reliable as they come. The early RB211s on the Tristar were anything but. The development of the RB211 was delayed so often that it not only caused Lockheed to lose orders, it also led to a bailout of RR by the British government.

In the early days of L-1011 service the joke in the industry was that the Tristar was "the world's best twin". They became known at Eastern as "L-Ten-Lemons". Over time the bugs were worked out of the engines and the Tristar went on to a successful and very safe career. By then it was too late. The DC-10 had quickly passed the L-1011 in sales. Not only that, a little-known European consortium was playing around with Lockheed's idea of a "Jumbo Twin". The rest is history.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: TriStar More Advanced?

Wed Dec 22, 1999 8:19 am

There was a book published in the mid-1970's (after the 1974 Turkish DC-10 crash near Paris) titled "Destination Disaster" and it had a very detailed accounting of the great DC10/L1011 war of the era. I seem to recall that the L1011 had more advanced flight controls, and better system redundancy, particularly the hydraulics with 4 systems to the DC10's 3.

Great book, if you can find it at the library, or a secondhand store..
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
MCOtoATL
Posts: 448
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 1999 12:01 pm

RE: Tristar Or DC10?

Wed Dec 22, 1999 10:17 am

Let me start by saying that I am not a pilot, but I read a great book entitled, "Frequent Flyer," by Bob Reiss. The author spends several days traveling on a Delta L-1011 and goes into great detail about the plane, how it was built, the battle between Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas, as well as other interesting facts about the plane. He said that pilots love the L-1011 because of it was built around the pilot. The book is out of print, but Amazon.Com was able to find a copy of it. For the aviation buff, it is an awesome book. It talks a lot about the L-1011 and DC-10.
 
hmmmm...
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:32 am

RE: Tristar Or DC10?

Wed Dec 22, 1999 10:37 am

The reason why Lockheed got out of the civilian airliner business was that they were too good at what they did, so good to the point that there wasn't any money in it for them. Airliners have slim profit margins, sometimes none at all. Essentially, they are cattle cars for the masses. So to compete in the airliner game, you must adopt the industry mantra: make them reasonably reliable, make them reasonably simple, and make them reasonably cheap. And sell, sell, sell. Make a dollar profit on each one, and sell a million. When they crash, make the appropriate adjustments on the next batch. Historically, Lockheed products didn't fit that mold. They made them ultra realiable, they made them ultra advanced, and they made the adjustments before they crashed. As a result, they didn't make them cheap. Such as airliners are, they needn't be built by a firm like Lockheed whose engineering talent was wasted on such cattle cars. Especially so considering how they were so good at making expensive, exotic, technical wonders for the military in limited quantities. And that's where the money is, anyway. So that is where they are now. In fact, they are the prime contractor chosen by NASA to produce the Venturestar, the first reusable space plane. http://www.venturestar.com Having Lockheed make airliners, was akin to having Ferrari make trucks. Ferrari trucks would drive great, look spectacular, but they would be more expensive to produce and maintain. Ferrari could never sell enough of them to make any money. That's what happend to the the L-1011 we all love. Regrettable as it was. So, GM makes trucks. Boeing and Airbus make airliners. Ferrari makes sportscars. And Lockheed makes space planes. There is order in the universe. As far as engines are concerned, a GE engine, should be the mirror image of a Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney engine. There should be nothing that could account for any significant difference in reliability betwen them. The physics is the same for either company. The engineering is the same. The tolerances are the same. The materials are the same. And the engineers, who design these things, are also the same. They went to the same universities, earned the same degrees, and learned the very same facts of life. And I assume their pay is also somewhat the same. Having said all that however, let me say I would prefer a plane powered by Rolls Royce or Pratt & Whitney engines over a GE powered one. But I have nothing against General Electric. They made my toaster, my refrigerator, my dishwasher, and they made the can opener I use to remove the lids from the cat food cans. And whenever I buy lightbulbs, I can assure you, the choice is clear. They know more about making light bulbs than anybody else.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
 
User avatar
sammyk
Posts: 1560
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 1999 11:31 am

RE: Tristar Or DC10?

Sun Dec 26, 1999 1:38 pm

GEs dont power the A340-500/600 because of their own choice. I dont know the details, but they pulled out of developing an engine for that aircraft. It was not an Airbus choice. Surely from a sales point of view, Airbus would love to offer all three manufacturers.

Sammy
 
Guest

RE: Tristar Or DC10?

Mon Dec 27, 1999 3:33 am

I have been on both and I prefer the (Delta) L1011. For 1 the service on Delta was excellent (Compaired to the Northworst DC-10). And 2 I am tall and I could stand op in my seat and not hit my head with their 9 ft cealings. But that was also my only complaint. No overhead bins for the aisle seats.
 
Guest

RE: Tristar Or DC10?

Mon Dec 27, 1999 9:24 am

Well you guys have said it all, I agree with you!!!
The TriStar is as reliable as an old volvo car, you just know that even if it's a 20 year old machine it will never cause you any problems, beleave me I have been working on a L-1011 and have an old volvo too...

But there is one thing to add and that is that the there is one modification on the DC10-series 40, it is powered by Pratt&Whitney JT9Ds.

I have to tell you that RRs and PWs are powering the safest airliners of the world according to the records I have and to my preferences.

RR- RB211s power the TriStar and
Pratt&Whitney JT8Ds power the MD-80s.
If you aske me I love those two planes.
The DC-10 I would only fly with the 40 (PW Power) series, have no trust in GE's.
 
Guest

RE: Tristar Or DC10?

Mon Dec 27, 1999 7:14 pm


The L1011 v/s DC10 war continues, many years after! Shows the impact both the aircraft still have.

Anyway, my personal opinion is that the L1011 was always a superior aircraft to the DC10 in many ways, and loved by passengers and pilots alike. The DC10, however, has suffered from many crashes, an unfortunate fact which continues on the DC10 successor, the MD11. This year alone there were three MD11 crashes ...the Swissair off New York, the China Airlines in HKG and the FedEx at Manila.
In retrospect, Lockheed's biggest blunder was to put all its Eggs - or Engines - in one basket. By signing up an exclusive deal with RR, they were hit with RR's problems right at the start, when the DC10 beat them with more sales. Unfortunately
Lockheed did not have the resolve or the resources to 'revamp' the L1011 (like the MD11) and if they had done so, the new aircraft would have given the A340 and 777 a run for their money!

Well, there are about 190 TriStars still flying today and will for many years to come. Even after the last are retired, the L1011 will remain in fond memory.
 
Guest

RE: Tristar Or DC10?

Tue Dec 28, 1999 7:06 am

Don't forget the recent crash of that UTA DC-10 in Guatamala that was used by Cubana. Don't know if it was pilot error or mechanical. L-1011 is the best for safety and reliability!!!! What would be nice if Lockheed and Boeing teamed up and they came up with a high perfomance supersonic jetliner to beat or replace Concorde and compete against Airbus.
 
MAS777
Posts: 2757
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 1999 7:40 am

RE: Tristar Or DC10?

Wed Dec 29, 1999 4:57 am

Growing up in the UK and flying to Malaysia every three months on British Airways' L1011 TriStar 200 service during the 1980s...the TriStar was a superb aircraft. BA's route to Kuala Lumpur was probably one of its longest for the TriStar taking up to 19 flying hours via Bahrain and Bangkok...but the flights were always fantastically smooth...even when landing in tropical rainstorms at KUL....shame the 747-400s have now pretty much taken over all long-haul Asian flights. Then again the 747-400s now only take 14 hours non-stop.
 
TSV
Posts: 1604
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 12:13 pm

RE: Tristar Or DC10?

Wed Dec 29, 1999 10:04 pm

With regard to the statement:

"Unfortunately Lockheed did not have the resolve or the resources to 'revamp' the L1011 (like the MD11) and if they had done so, the new aircraft would have given the A340 and 777 a run for their money!"

1. I thought that the L-1011 was canned long before the MD-11, A340, and 777 were designed let alone metal cut.

and

2. The only projects Lockheed promoted as far as I am aware were the same size or smaller than the -500. The ones I am interested in at the moment are the -600 or the -600A (so called "Bistar") as a modelling project in 1:144.

If anyone has any info on a larger L-1011 project (such as a "Quarterstar" or "Quadstar"??) by all means tell me about it as I think it too would make a great modelling project in 1:144!

Regards

Rob
"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos