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

If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:17 pm

If the L1011 was a twin do you think it would have been a big success?Would Boeing be what it is today if the L1011 twin was a success?I don't think the 767 would have been as big of a hit if the L1011 was a big hit. I think we could have seen Lockheed make different aircraft types with their added money the L1011 would have made.I know we will hear that the A300 was a twin and was not that successful but if they would have put more range in it I think it would have been.more sucscessful
 
KensukeAida
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:37 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:55 pm

The L1011 was originally planned by Lockheed as a twin, but it was determined in the design stage that it would need three engines to push it along.

I don't think this was done out of decision, but rather necessity. The Douglas
engineers evidently ran into the same problem with the DC-10. Both the L1011 and DC-10 were designed to specifications laid down by American Airlines, which explains the similarities.

So, no. There is nothing to suggest it would have been "more successful" because it wouldn't really have been the same airplane. Lockheed "lost" because their heart was never really in it to begin with.

- John
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:18 pm

And had it been a twin, or the DC10 for that matter, they wouldn't have been able to run the longer routes they ended up running during the 70s, as engines weren't powerful enough at that time for twins to have the same abilities.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
DLKAPA
Posts: 7962
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2003 10:37 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:28 pm

Quoting CO737800 (Thread starter):
If the L1011 was a twin do you think it would have been a big success?

No, it would have fallen out of the sky, literally. The engines at the time were not powerful enough for a twin of that size.

Quoting CO737800 (Thread starter):
I know we will hear that the A300 was a twin and was not that successful but if they would have put more range in it I think it would have been.more sucscessful

The A300 was and still is a very successful airplane. New orders are still being placed on the 600F version (FedEx). It's selling like hotcakes right now on the 2nd hand cargo market.
And all at once the crowd begins to sing: Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same
 
User avatar
PM
Posts: 4820
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 5:05 pm

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:40 pm

Quoting CO737800 (Thread starter):
I know we will hear that the A300 was a twin and was not that successful...

Really? It has been in production for 30 years and is still selling. Include the A310 as a variant (they come off the same production line) and sales are 858, just a hundred shy of the 964 767s Boeing have sold. Yes, Boeing sold those in a shorter time scale but remember that Airbus was starting from zero with the A300. They had no track record, no after sales support network, no established customer base or anything. Moreover, it appears that the A300 will still be in production after the last 767 has left Seattle. Albeit at a low rate and for freighters only but we could see the A300 in production for 40 years! "...not that successful"?

Quoting CO737800 (Thread starter):
If the L1011 was a twin do you think it would have been a big success?

Where Lockheed came unstuck was in having only one plane to offer airlines. A twin TriStar (a BiStar?!) might have been no more successful than the tri-jet. We'd then be asking, "If Lockheed had put a third engine on the L-1011..." Now, if they'd somehow done both and could begin to offer airlines a family, that might have been more attractive. They'd have needed a narrowbody pretty quickly (as Airbus followed the A300/A310 with the A320) but satisfying more than one market segment had become essential by the time the TriStar flew. On the other hand...

Quoting KensukeAida (Reply 1):
Lockheed "lost" because their heart was never really in it to begin with.

I'm too far away (geographically and in time) to know if this is true but I can't help feeling that you've hit the nail on the head. In the 1970s and into the 'eighties, Airbus had the will to succeed whereas Lockheed seemed to lose interest.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sat Oct 22, 2005 6:06 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 2):
And had it been a twin, or the DC10 for that matter, they wouldn't have been able to run the longer routes they ended up running during the 70s, as engines weren't powerful enough at that time for twins to have the same abilities.

No, that is not true. Remember, the A-300-B2/B4 had the same GE CF-6 engines the DC-10-10 had. The RR RB-211 engines on the L-1011s had about the same amount of thrust. Both of these engines were in the 45,000+ lb range for thrust, as was the competing P&W JT-9Ds. Additionally, a wide twin L-1011 or DC-10 would have been a lot lighter than its 3 hole sister.

The A-300B2/B4 had no where near enough range, so wide body twins, were not able to fly most missions the airlines wanted them too (at the time, they were bearly transcontinential). Additionally, there was no such thing as ETOPS in the 1970s, so they could not fly over oceans or very large deserts or mountain ranges. ETOPS didn't start until twin jets could demonstrate more reliability, when more than 90 minutes from an alternate airport. It was the B-767-200ER/300ER that began ETOPS.

If the L-1011 had been offered as a twin (L-1012?), it would have been even longer before any US airline bought any Airbus aircraft. Remember, EA was the first US customer for the A-300B4 (and for many years, they were the only US customer). EA would have prefered to by these airplanes with RB-211 engines, but they were not offered. Had a twin L-1011 been offered to EA, with RR engines, they would have bought them. DL would have also bought a twin L-1011, if they had enough range.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sat Oct 22, 2005 11:15 pm

Lockheed proposed a two engine L-1011 early in the program. However, when Rolls Royce went bankrupt and left Lockheed without and engine to power the basic L-1011, it cost Lockheed millions of dollars. There was just not enough cash available to pursue additional models. Pictures of the twin engine L-1011-600 are available on the internet, in fact about three months ago one of Lockheed's promotional models of the -600 was sold on e-Bay.
 
waterpolodan
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 3:46 pm

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:03 am



This may be a false rumor, but apparently there was even a 4 engine version considered, with two engines in the tail for better hot/high performance, I have no idea how that would look...
 
socalfive
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2001 5:37 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 12:15 am

BAck in the days of early jumbo development, true the engines weren't as powerful for one thing, although that might have been able to be overcome, I don't know, but I do remember when studying the early development stages of Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed that there was a psychological factor in the 60's about an airplane that big with only two engines and since Jet A was about 14 cents a gallon.... Nobody cared, go three! This certainly wasn't the only reason but it was a factor from a marketing standpoint. The A300 came along later.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:01 am

The real question should be "What if the DC-10 was a twin". The L-1011 program was over a year ahead of the DC-10 when it was lunched. Airlines pleaded with Douglas to build a twin, let Lockheed have the three engine market, Boeing the four engine market. Douglas said he would beat the L-1011 into the air, which he did, but the DC-10 suffered, as there early problems showed. See a book called "The Sporty Game" by John Newhouse for the real story on the L-1011/DC-10/B747 sales wars.
 
jetdeltamsy
Posts: 2688
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2000 11:51 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:22 am

Quoting KensukeAida (Reply 1):
but it was determined in the design stage that it would need three engines to push it along.

I read somewhere years ago that the third engine was added due to customer perceptions that a tri-jet was safer than a twin.

There are certainly engines available (at least today) that could safely handle the Tristar.
Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.
 
Amy
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:48 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:26 am

These aircraft were three holers because, at the time, the most powerful engines dictated that an aircraft of the required MTOW would need three. Now we have such engineering feats as the Rolls Royce Trent and GE90, this no longer applies.

This, along with the introduction of ETOPS is why I confidently predict that there will not be another 3-engined comercial airliner designed.
A340-300 - slow, but awesome!
 
cs03
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 9:56 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:33 am

Lockheed also had problems with producing airliners after the Constellation, in that the Lockheed Electra was a costly failure due to structural problems and timing. Lockheed returned to focus on military business after the outlook for the L1011 became clear.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:41 am

I think Lockheed should have jumped at a chance to build a twin-engined L1011 derivative in the late 1970's powered by higher-performance RB.211-524 engines then under development for higher-MTOW 747-200's.

If they had actually done that it could have severely cut into 767 and A300B/A310 sales.
 
KensukeAida
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:37 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:46 am

The A300 and the DC-10/L1011 were designed with two different rolls in mind. So, it's not really fair to compare them. The former was primarily built for intra-contenental medium range routes (primarily in Europe), while the latter were designed for inter-contenental and trans-contenental routes based on a request by AA. The range of the A300 was much shorter than the DC-10/L1011, and the pax capacity was less.

Sure, you can say that a twin engined DC-10/L1011 would have kept Airbus at bay for awhile, but remember that in the 1960s the engines available weren't as powerful, the pax capacity on the two was heavier, and they had very specific guidelines by an airline customer. In the TriStar's case, the selection of the RR engines was kinda touch and go there for awhile because RR went bankrupt.

- John
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 1:55 am

In the late 1970's Lockheed proposed the L-1011-400. Is was to have a further shortened -500 fuselage (8 feet shorter) powered by three de-rated RB-211-524's, for short to medium stages. No airlines were interested and the program was dropped.
 
GQfluffy
Posts: 3072
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:25 pm

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:29 am

Quoting KensukeAida (Reply 1):
Lockheed "lost" because their heart was never really in it to begin with.

Not exactly. Lockheed actually had a lead over the DC-10, but that was shattered when Rolls went under...then RR had issues with engine development...delays happened...and the DC-10 got out ahead of the L-1011...and that is that...
This isn't where I parked my car...
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2453
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:38 am

The L-1011-600 doesn't even look like it could fly. I may be wrong, but it just looks too fat for a twin-engine.....
The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:18 am

FYI:

I'm looking at a picture of a model of Lockheeds proposed twin-engined L-1011. Sorry I could not find it on the net, it's in a early 1970s book I have called "L-1011 TriStar and the Lockheed Story" by Douglas J. Ingells on page 169.

Anyhow it appears to have a regular L-1011 fuselage. Tail flying surfaces all appear to be smaller. The wing shape is vintage L-1011. The unusual bit is the engines, they are underneath the wings!! The leading edge of the inlets is a foot or two aft of the leading edge of the wing. Compensating for the CG shift with the tail engine missing I suppose.
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 5:49 am

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 18):

Remember the L-1011-600 never got past the proposal stage, no metal was bent, no wind tunnel tests, no wood mock-up, pen and ink on paper only.
 
bcbhokie
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 7:30 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:01 am

Man, if there was one aviation company that knew how to make beautiful flying machines, it was Lockheed. My all time favorite a/c was the Constellation, and the picture Waterpolodan posted is of the most beautiful looking twin-engine jet design I've seen so far...

Yeah yeah, I know the aerodynamic reasons for making a/c that look the same... but that -600 is gorgeous  Smile

Ben
 
legacy135
Posts: 966
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 11:06 pm

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:21 am

Remember also, things not only need to be proven, they also have to go in the people heads and been accepted.

I remember, working as a young flight attendant for the Swissair charter subsidiary Balair. We flew the DC-10 transatlantic and the A310-300 on other long range missions incl. ETOPS for example to the Maldives in the Indian Ocean. But transatlantic (the Americas) was the big mystery and caused all those discussions about feasibility of ETOPS, although it worked smooth to the Indian Ocean. Passengers were afraid going to ditch in the North Atlantic or may be have been made mad for by the media.

So early 1988 the DC-10 HB-IHK went into a D-check and wasn't available for some weeks. During this period they planned 8 pairs of flights on the route ZRH-GVA-JFK v.v. You can't imagine what discussions this caused. Finally we were instructed not to mention the type of aircraft to the passengers, they even wanted us to say that we didn't know what it was, if asked so. Can you imagine?

I also remember, when BSL based ASA (African Safari Airlines) needed to find a replacement for their two DC-8-63 in the late 80ties. Their owner stated officially that there was no twin in the fleet as long as he was. They went then for a DC-10 that was replaced 2 or 3 years ago with a A310.

So to come to the conclusion: I think, even if the L1011 or the DC-10 was a twin, the time wasn't ready those days to accept the design in the people mind. It may have accelerated the introduction of ETOPS but I think it was alright the way it was and those planes performed best as lovely Trijets what they indeed were.

Cheers
Legacy135 Wink
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:25 am

Quoting Amy (Reply 11):
These aircraft were three holers because, at the time, the most powerful engines dictated that an aircraft of the required MTOW would need three. Now we have such engineering feats as the Rolls Royce Trent and GE90, this no longer applies.

This, along with the introduction of ETOPS is why I confidently predict that there will not be another 3-engined comercial airliner designed.

I agree. For the same reasons, I think the WhaleJet will be the last all-new quad. From now onwards, I think all all-new airliners will be twins. Of course, B747s and A380s may continue in production for another ten years or more before being replaced by twins.
 
CO737800
Topic Author
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:53 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:30 am

Did Lockheed have a 737 or 320 type on the drawing board if so does anyone have any old pics of it
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 6:54 am

Lockheed could have built a twin much earlier if Rolls Royce had proceeded with the RB207.

The 207 was bigger than the RB211-22B used on the TriStar and was being developed specifically for the Airbus A300. However bankruptcy and funding got in the way, and the 207 was shelved. Airbus then went to GE for the CF6 and shortened the proposed A300 to compensate.

If the RB207 had been built it would have been ideal for a twinjet Lockheed design.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:05 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
No, that is not true.

What is not true. You agreed with everything I said!

The A300 had less range, and if the L1011 were a twin, it would have less range, too. It would not have had the SAME ABILITIES that it did. How is that wrong?

Quoting Amy (Reply 11):
These aircraft were three holers because, at the time, the most powerful engines dictated that an aircraft of the required MTOW would need three. Now we have such engineering feats as the Rolls Royce Trent and GE90, this no longer applies

Again, that's the crux. The L1011 and DC10 would have flown with only two engines. They wouldn't have been able to lift enough payload/pax/fuel with two engines to do the longer routes though, so that is the main reason they ended up with 3. Ultimately, it took many more years to get engines powerful enough to make twin-jet long range travel possible with a large jet.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
cha747
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:07 pm

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:44 pm

Quoting KensukeAida (Reply 1):
The Douglas
engineers evidently ran into the same problem with the DC-10. Both the L1011 and DC-10 were designed to specifications laid down by American Airlines, which explains the similarities.

So, I guess, American only bit with the DC-10 as I don't ever remember an AA L1011. Here are the only U.S. carriers I remember flying L1011's on were:

Delta
Eastern
ATA

Who else?
You land a million planes safely, then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it - Pushing Tin
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: If The L1011 Was A Twin

Mon Oct 24, 2005 12:47 am

Quoting Cha747 (Reply 26):
So, I guess, American only bit with the DC-10 as I don't ever remember an AA L1011. Here are the only U.S. carriers I remember flying L1011's on were:

Delta
Eastern
ATA

Who else?

TWA a launch customer
Pan Am
PSA

There were several second tier operators:

Air America
American International (Kalitta)
Arrow
Fine Air
Hawaiian
Millon Air
Rich International
Total Air
Tradewinds
United

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 717atOGG, 817Dreamliiner, a320211, Baidu [Spider], bzcat, eidvm, Google Adsense [Bot], Ideekay, jmw99ttu, keesje, klwright69, lcycs300, MAH4546, Mani87, MaxTrimm, MKIAZ, ODwyerPW, PZ707, qcpilotxf, SXI899, thomasphoto60, TR763, ty97, uka330, usairways85, weaglibrium, Yahoo [Bot] and 357 guests