CO737800
Topic Author
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:53 am

Lockheed Questions

Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:50 pm

Lots of people think the L1011 is a great aircraft, so my question is why did Lockheed not build a smaller plane like the 737/MD80 size?
 
ramerinianair
Posts: 1452
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 6:03 am

RE: Lockheed Questions

Thu Dec 23, 2004 2:09 pm

I believe for them, the L-1011 was not that profitable. A beautiful a/c yes but profitable, not too sure.
At the same time, there were many other competing a/c. The decided to go into the more lucrative military a/c industry instead.
SR
W N = my Worst Nightmare!!!!!
 
CO737800
Topic Author
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:53 am

RE: Lockheed Questions

Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:21 pm

If Lockheed had a smaller 737 type they might have had more orders cause many airlines like to have a family of aircraft. Boeing had the 747,737,727 Douglas had the DC-10 and the DC-9's
 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: Lockheed Questions

Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:21 pm

The 1970's spelled bad luck for Rolls Royce and Lockheed. There was a whole legal and financial affair which is convoluted and out of my field of expertise. The writing was on the wall for Lockheed at least for commercial aviation. It seems as if Lockheed had bad luck and or bad timing starting back in the 1950's when they put all their eggs in the nest of a bird which was the turbo prop Lockheed Electra L188. Meanwhile Douglass, Boeing and the smaller tier companies Sud, Convair etc. flew into the pure jet age. Lockheed went from the anachronistic Electra straight to the wide body L1011 Tri-Star. Due to all the legal and money stuff of the late 60's and early 70's, they got delayed rolling out the L1011. And Douglass flew right to the head of the three engined wide body class with their DC 10. And then along comes the Airbus invasion and as they say the rest is history. BTW, American Airlines approached Lockheed requesting a wide body efficient jet that would serve their ORD LAX lucrative routes. American ended up with the DC 10 due to all the delays.
I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 3940
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: Lockheed Questions

Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:41 pm

It is a shame, as it's generally considered that the Lockheed product is the better product from a technical point of view.

Rolls-Royce actually went bankrupt developing the RB211, and the British government had to bail them out. I've read stories where the L1011 was sold at below cost to make the sale, pushing out the breakeven figure even more. It was originally 250 frames, and they sold 250 frames, but the discounting meant they'd have to sell more to break even.

It is a shame, the L1011 is a beautiful aircraft.

I thought the Lockheed Electra was a successful aircraft? It was turboprop, not piston, and sold well around the world. I will admit that it is strange that Lockheed went down that road, rather than straight to pure jet...

Trent.
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
 
User avatar
zippyjet
Posts: 5089
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: Lockheed Questions

Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:04 pm

"I thought the Lockheed Electra was a successful aircraft? It was turboprop, not piston, and sold well around the world. I will admit that it is strange that Lockheed went down that road, rather than straight to pure jet...

Trent."


It was eventually successful and extremely reliable but, a structural design flaw in the engine nacelles caused several fatal accidents early in the plane's run. Once Lockhead rectified this situation it proved itself. Timing was wrong for this turbo-prop. Had it come on the scene 5 years earlier 1954 instead of 1959 then it would have been one of the classic airliner success stories. It would have whipped the tail of the ugly duckling ovoid themed slower Vicers Viscount turbo prop which was not much faster than the DC 7 and Super G Constellation. Eastern Airlines led by Eddy Richenbocker along with the powers to be at Lockhead felt the switch to pure jets would be a much more gradual change and, turbo props would be the thing of the day for several years. Lockhead however rolled out a successful biz jet that was even featured in the classic James Bond movie Goldfinger starring Sean Connery as James Bond 007.  Big thumbs up

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ellis M. Chernoff


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John F. Ciesla


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Howat



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe Fernandez - Aviation Photography of Miami


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Allan Rossmore

I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: afterburner, Alcaeus, alphonze, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], ikolkyo, LAX772LR, LH452, N14AZ, pdx, pompos, sassiciai, speedbored, speedygonzales, ZK-NBT and 211 guests