irishpower
Posts: 370
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:18 am

What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Mon May 21, 2012 3:47 pm

So, looking beyond just the total numbers built do you think the DC-10 or L-1011 was a greater success. I know Lockheed and McD were expecting to sell many more than they actually did but as the history of these two planes is told which do you think will be held in a stronger light?

If you look at numbers sold, impact of the airplane on the manufacturer, safety, history and airframe development, what the airlines themselves thought about the plane etc.. I think you will find there are many different angles to this question.

Let me know your thoughts.
 
Delta777Jet
Posts: 1224
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2000 6:19 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Mon May 21, 2012 3:52 pm

Of course the DC-10 with 446 sold planes was more sucessful than the 250 build L1011 !

But from the Safety Point of view , the elegance of the plane and the comfort of the plane the L-1011 wins over the DC-10 !
B-717/722/737-200/300/400/500/600/700/800/900/B-747-100/200/400/SP/8i/B-752/3/B-762/3/4/B-772/LR/300ER/B-788/DC-10-10/30/L-1011-1/500/MD-81/82/83/90/A-319/320/321/AB6/312/313/332/333/342/343/346/359/388/TU154/IL-18/ATR-42/72/DH4/DH3/E145/E170/190/CR2/7/9
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3081
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Mon May 21, 2012 4:21 pm

As a Plane the L1011 was years ahead of anything on the market, too bad it came out while a big economic downturn. Also RR went bankrupt and delayed/put in jeopardy the whole program...making it a huge money sucking black hole.

The Tristar is easily the biggest money loosing program ever undertaken by any AC manufacturer.... so saying the DC was better is a moot point.

Both AC are my favorites and had the pleasure to fly in both...

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 4717
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Mon May 21, 2012 4:22 pm

Quoting Delta777Jet (Reply 1):


Of course the DC-10 with 446 sold planes was more sucessful than the 250 build L1011 !

But from the Safety Point of view , the elegance of the plane and the comfort of the plane the L-1011 wins over the DC-10 !

Most would agree that the L-1011 was technologically superior to the DC-10, but the sales numbers are with the MDD. Add in the MD-11 as an outgrowth of the DC-10 and the sales numbers increase even more.
Next up: STL-OAK-RNO-LAS-ICT-STL
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Mon May 21, 2012 4:43 pm

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 3):

I would think that despite the D10 being a better seller, the L10 had far less fatal incidents.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
Type-Rated
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 1999 5:18 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Mon May 21, 2012 4:48 pm

Actually the L1011 was a very safe aircraft with an outstanding safety record.

The reason the DC-10 won the market share over the L1011 was that the L1011

Had problems with the Rolls Royce engines which delayed production
The way it was designed made it difficult to "stretch" the fuselage into other models, the DC10 could do that.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
 
irishpower
Posts: 370
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:18 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Mon May 21, 2012 6:03 pm

If you look at sales, does the 62 KC-10's that the USAF ordered count towards the 446 sold? If so that narrows the margin quite a bit.

I know the DC-10 outsold the L-1011 and if you are looking only at the bottom line then the DC-10 is the winner but what about efficiency, technical specs. and market flexibility?

From a business perspective was the DC-10 still the winner?
 
User avatar
ClassicLover
Posts: 3936
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:27 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Mon May 21, 2012 6:09 pm

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 2):
The Tristar is easily the biggest money loosing program ever undertaken by any AC manufacturer.... so saying the DC was better is a moot point.

Did you forget the Convair 880/990 and Concorde? Massive losers financially, moreso than Lockheed lost on the amazing Tristar.

The L1011 was easily more technically superior and safer even though it sold less.
I do quite enjoy a spot of flying - more so when it's not in Economy!
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 4717
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Mon May 21, 2012 6:10 pm

Quoting Irishpower (Reply 6):


From a business perspective was the DC-10 still the winner?

Take a trip to MEM sometime. DC-10's all over the place in active cargo service. Not many L-1011's earning revenue these days (if any).
Next up: STL-OAK-RNO-LAS-ICT-STL
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Mon May 21, 2012 11:17 pm

The BA experience might be relevant here. They bought the TriStar 1, 200 and 500 but never bought the DC-10.

However they wet leased the DC-10 from NZ from May 1975 to 1979 initially to operate their LHR-LAX flights because of its excellent long-range capabilities.

Much later in May 1988 the first DC-10 was rolled out in BA livery after the airline purchased British Caledonian and their small DC-10 fleet. It remained in service with BA until March 1999 . By then all BA's TriStars had left their fleet.

I believe the last revenue flight of a Tri Star in BA livery was probably in April 1992, seven years before their retirement of the DC-10. (Here I choose my words carefully because as at April 1992 BA had Tri|Stars on lease tio KU. But when they were returned at a later date BA never returned them to service. Further BA subsidiary, Caledonian Airways, still operated five TriStars in their own livery when BA sold the airline in April 1995.)

It was the delivery of BA's 763 fleet that killed off their L-1011 operations. It was the delivery of their 772 fleet that resulted in the sale of the DC-10s they inherited.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 18831
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Mon May 21, 2012 11:25 pm

Quoting VV701 (Reply 9):
It was the delivery of BA's 763 fleet that killed off their L-1011 operations.

The 6 BA L-1011-500s were sold to the RAF in 1983 or thereabouts, 7 years before the first 763 was delivered. The -500s were disposed of as part of major BA route cutbacks then in an effort to cut heavy losses. Some of the routes being operated by the -500s were also cut then.
 
jfk777
Posts: 5816
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 pm

The L-1011 was a flying Porsche 911, it had to be a certain way and only that "way". The DC-10 was more like " chevy", as long as it was "good enough" that is all it had to be. The DC-10 was more accomodating to different engine types which the L-1011 was only going to be a "Rolls" plane. What realy differentiated the two was the DC-10-30 which was of course a full size almost 6,000 mile DC-10, the L-1011-500 was shorter kinf of a L-1011 SP.
 
ghifty
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:12 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 12:14 am

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
Had problems with the Rolls Royce engines which delayed production
The way it was designed made it difficult to "stretch" the fuselage into other models, the DC10 could do that.

Can you expand (haha) on that? I've never heard that the L-10 was harder to stretch than the DC-10..
Fly Delta Jets
 
Type-Rated
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 1999 5:18 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 1:04 am

Certainly. Read this report:

http://www.estg.ipleiria.pt/files/350738_BREAKEVE_4628e59997e2a.pdf

Lockheed had wanted to produce an stretched version of the L10, but the cost would have been prohibitive. It's explained in that report.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6409
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 1:14 am

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 8):
DC-10's all over the place in active cargo service. Not many L-1011's earning revenue these days (if any).

Yup, very right! But it doesn't necessarily need to be because the L-1011 is an inferior plane. It might be service related.

When L-1011 production ended, then Lockheed also stepped out of the airliner business. While they still provide technical service to this day.

When MDD "merged" with Boeing, then Boeing took over technical service of the DC-10 - hardly the worst service provider in that business...  

There is probably a significant gap between the service levels provided to civil operators by Boeing and Lockheed. A gap which has existed since Lockheed ended airliner production, and during that time has made it considerably more cumbersome to operate an L-1015.

Need a spare part?

Boeing: Your request has been forwarded to our nearest spares stock. Expect delivery by UPS tomorrow.

Lockheed: Your request has been forwarded to our spares support dept. When they have found the blueprints, you will be notified about production schedule.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
Okie
Posts: 3528
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:30 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 1:48 am

Quoting type-rated (Reply 5):
Had problems with the Rolls Royce engines which delayed production


I think the actual delay was less than 6 months according to what I have read lately.

However, Okie was travelling very extensively at the time and every magazine, business paper, and TV newscast in existence at the time were really playing up the RR bankruptcy situation to the hilt. Often giving the perception that it was the end of the world for the L-1011 and the 747. The concept at that time of a government "bailout" for a corporation gone bankrupt was untested and lead to the call of "foul" by many as an unfair business practice.


Okie
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 3:47 am

The Lovely L1011 Tristar was technically in a different category than the DC10.


Way ahead of it's time.


And it never had a design caused accident.


A very special Aircraft, openly admired by Boeing.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19593
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 4:23 am

I've often heard an analogy drawn between the DC-10 and VHS and the L1011 and Betamax. The two latter are the technically superior options, but for a number of reasons (many of them related to happenstance), the former won the contest.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
flyabr
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:42 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 7:37 am

Does someone care to expound about exactly why the L-1011 was a superior technological achievement vs the DC-10? I read this all the time, but have no idea what about the Lockheed plane makes it so special and ahead of it's time.  
 
Type-Rated
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 1999 5:18 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 7:54 am

Here you go, a brochure from Lockheed explaining the advanced features of the Tristar.

http://www.tristar500.net/features/l10features.pdf
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
 
ACEregular
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 8:00 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 8:10 am

I have only had two return holiday charter flights on the Tristar, totalling five sectors in total. (Caledonian Airways G-BBAI and Air Atlanta Icelandic TF-ABV). I can recall all sorts of details about these flights, whereas I often confuse details about various A320/757 flights I have been on because they are so commonplace. I feel the L1011 was always the more graceful looking and the cabin interior was cavernous. I felt priviledged to have flown on the Tristar because even then in the late 90's there were few around. Again comparing to the DC-10 for aesthestics. I always found the DC-10 strangely to my eye the more aggressive looking one. I hate the flap farings on the DC10, the through tail engine. To me the Tristar had a friendlier profile, perhaps due to it's dolphin nose.

I remember whilst working for a tour operator in Tenerife and we were awaiting a flight from Manchester, a colleague remarked "oh this one coming in is on the Death Cruiser" I was astounded that someone who I had thought would not have had an inkling about the aircraft operatied would say something like that, and I think for many the DC-10 has always had the 70's blip blighting it in people's mind forever after. However sales did outstrip the Tristar so really the DC-10 did something right. Does that really make it the better aircraft? I myself never flew on it, and I am not too bothered that I didn't. I would have kicked myself however if I had not logged at least one flight on the Tristar.
 
DL_Mech
Posts: 2061
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:48 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 8:18 am

Quoting flyabr (Reply 18):
Does someone care to expound about exactly why the L-1011 was a superior technological achievement vs the DC-10?

A lot of that stuff in the brochure is fluff. Two big advantages that the L-1011 had were a superior autopilot and DLC.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/72625/

Here you can see DLC in action when flaps are lowered to 30 (go to 3:50)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf2nFYHKGuU





.




[Edited 2012-05-22 02:07:25]
This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
 
slinky09
Posts: 590
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 5:03 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 8:41 am

Did any airline have the optional lower lounge fitted on the L-1011?
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 8:52 am

Quoting ACEregular (Reply 20):
"oh this one coming in is on the Death Cruiser" I was astounded that someone who I had thought would not have had an inkling about the aircraft operatied would say something like that, and I think for many the DC-10 has always had the 70's blip blighting it in people's mind forever after

In all honesty, the DC10 and it's successor the MD11 did kill a lot of people due to poor design.


No way around that, it's just a fact.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
DL_Mech
Posts: 2061
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:48 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 8:57 am

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 22):
Did any airline have the optional lower lounge fitted on the L-1011?

Only PSA ordered the lounge, but IIRC, Aeroperu (and LTU?) also operated them on ex-PSA planes.
This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 8:59 am

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 21):

A lot of that stuff in the brochure is fluff. Two big advantages that the L-1011 had were a superior autopilot and DLC.

Direct Lift Control (by Mlsrar Nov 5 2003 in Tech Ops)

Here you can see DLC in action when flaps are lowered to 30 (go to 3:50)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf2nFYHKGuU

Couple of contributors in that thread are no longer with us and sadly missed.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
DL_Mech
Posts: 2061
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:48 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 9:02 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 25):
Couple of contributors in that thread are no longer with us and sadly missed.

Yes, there has been a lot of loss to the A.net community the past couple of years...............
This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
 
xdlx
Posts: 676
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 10:08 am

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 26):

When I look around... my coleagues are falling and I am one of the few left standing!

It is called getting OLD   
 
flyabr
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:42 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 10:08 am

Quoting DL_Mech (Reply 21):
Here you can see DLC in action when flaps are lowered to 30 (go to 3:50)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf2nFYHKGuU

Thanks for the links! Really informative. One can't help but wonder if DLC would have greatly helped with all those botched MD-11 landings that resulted in tailstrikes/bounces and even some crashes. I'm not bashing the MD-11, just wondering aloud...  
 
ghifty
Posts: 885
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 9:12 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 10:39 am

Quoting flyabr (Reply 28):

If it minimsed need for pitch changes... possibly?
Fly Delta Jets
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 10:49 am

The problem with the Tristar was that the basic design was very difficult to adapt to a longer range variant .
Space for additional fuel tanks and more engine thrust as required by a longer range version were available but the increased take-off weight could not be absorbed by the L-1011's existing undercarriage.

Lockheed proposed the L-1011-8 in which six-wheel main undercarriage bogies (trucks) were to replace the four-wheel units of the original Tristar design, the wing was to be redesigned to house the larger undercarriage, requiring also relocation of many other aircraft systems.

As a result of this extensive modification, the price of the L-1011-8, however, exceeded that of the more straight forward long-range versions of the DC10 (DC-10-30/40) and Lockheed could not find a launching customer for this version.

In the Douglas DC10 basic design an additional ,two wheel, center-gear could be included, to satisfy the weight increase for a long range version, without an expensive re-design.
This early design decision, later justfied by sales results, stemmed from the company's awarness to design commercial aircraft with substantial growth potential both in terms of payload- through fuselage stretch- and in terms of range.
This played a significant role in prompting the KSSU (KLM,SAS,Swissair and UTA) and later other airlines to select the DC10-30 in preference to the proposed long range L-1011-8.

In service the Tristar proved to be an extremely reliable aircraft an its limited sales cannot be traced to technical difficulties.
However, the timing of the financial difficulties experienced by both Lockheed and Rolls-Royce, together with the initial inability to launch a long range version, killed in effect most of the potential sales in the critical period that airlines were ordering medium capacity long range aircraft (smaller than the 747)*. Due better pricing Douglas could walk away from its old rival. Lockheed was never able to catch up, despite the technical difficulties of the DC10 series.

* The L-1011-500 came to late and with reduced seating.

For more detailed info :
Lockheed Aircraft since 1913, René J. Francillon, ISBN 0-87021-897-2 , page 456-464.
MCDonnell-Douglas Aircraft since 1920 : Volume II, René J. Francillon, ISBN 1-55750-550-0, page 277

[Edited 2012-05-22 04:26:55]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
DL_Mech
Posts: 2061
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:48 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 12:44 pm

Quoting ghifty (Reply 29):
If it minimsed need for pitch changes... possibly?

Spotters always noted the nose-high approach of the TriStar, this was because DLC minimised pitch changes.

As a passenger, I always enjoyed watching lightly asleep passengers get startled awake when the wheels touched the ground. It seems that no noticeable pitch changes and few power changes on approach gave no indication that you were near the ground.......

To correct what I said earlier, DLC became active at 33 flaps......there was a 30 degree flap switch that activated it. I could hear 411a and 474218 both screaming at me from up above.........Miss their posts and knowledge.

[Edited 2012-05-22 05:51:33]
This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
 
n318ea
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:56 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 12:51 pm

L-1011 sounded better!  
Red Red Red Red Red Neck!
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 4941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 2:02 pm

Quoting slinky09 (Reply 22):
Did any airline have the optional lower lounge fitted on the L-1011?

In addition to the ones noted, Worldways Canada, a Canadian charter company also operated the aircraft with the lounge still installed. Whether it was used, is up for debate, as I have heard both yes and no.

I have heard the seats were sold. Or that is was used only during in-flight. Or it was never used at all, and only crew used it.

However, the aircraft was certified for its use. And every now and then when a Worldways L1011 safety card comes up on eBay, you can see it includes the lounge and exits. (There are two with the lounge installed).

Here is a pic, showing the left side lounge exit. The right side exit was standard, and used for galley service in non-lounge aircraft.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alastair T. Gardiner - WorldAirImages

Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3184
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 7:20 pm

Quoting ACEregular (Reply 20):
I feel the L1011 was always the more graceful looking and the cabin interior was cavernous.

The cabin was cavernous because the stow bins were not.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
vv701
Posts: 5773
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 7:29 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 10):
The 6 BA L-1011-500s were sold to the RAF in 1983 or thereabouts, 7 years before the first 763 was delivered.

These disposals were far from the death of the L-1011 in BA service. Out of a total fleet of 23 only six aircraft were sold to the in the first quarter of 1983. This sale met two needs. BA needed to raise cash following a significant loss in their previous financial year. The Falkland's War had exposed the RAF's paucity of refuellers and of air transport capacity.

However the resulting fire sale left BA themselves short of capacity. As a result they were soon in the market for some replacement TriStars. The result was the lease of two aircraft from Air Lanka. L-1011 500 4R-ULA was leased as G-BLUS. Sister ship 4R-ULB was reregistered G-BLUT.

BA continued to operate the L-1011 into the 1990s. At that time they had a fleet of 13 aircraft in their own livery with the remainder of their aircraft being operated by Caledonian Airways.

Of these 13 aircraft two were based at LGW. They operated on holiday routes like LGW-FAO.

Two L-1011s, G-BEAK and G-BHBR, were being operated by British Airways Regional on flights to JFK from provincial airports including GLA. Once the long haul configured 763s were delivered from mid 1991 onwards two were swapped for the British Regional L-1011s. Those two 763s, soon supplemented by a third, continued to operate to JFK from provincial airports . In January 1995 two of three 763s operated by BA Regional were replaced with long haul configured 752s. The third 763 continued to operate MAN-JFK for a further 10 years. The operation was finally discontinued at the end of Summer 2008.

The remaing nine L-1011s were operating on short haul trunk routes in 1990 and early 1991. Prime amongst these were LHR-CDG where ~I believe every flight across the day was flown by the L1011 .

BA's initial batch of 763s were delivered in 1991. The first six aircraft, G-BNWB, 'WC, 'WD, 'WE and 'WF followed by 'WA on 25 April were all configured for short haul operations. They directly replaced on a one-for-one basis six L1011s. The first of these was parked up at MHV in May 91. It was soon followed by the rest of the fleet save for three aircraft that were transferred to Caledonian Airways. The last retirement was G-BHBM, one of the aircraft that had been operated by British Airways Regional. It was parked at CBG on 14 November 1991. This thirteenth retirement since the start of the 763 deliveries was soon after the 14th 763, G-BNWN, was delivered just a few days earler on 30 October Coincidence? I do not think so.

As far as I know every route that was operated by those short haul L-1011s is still operated today. The only routes that I know of that were operated by this type in the early 1990s and have since been discontinued are those from BHX , GLA and MAN. But, as we have seen, the discontinance of those routes was after years of subsequent operations by 763s or 752s.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 8:12 pm

Actually, the title of this thread is completely misleading. It is like asking which leader had a bigger success, Napoleon at Waterloo or Cornwallis at Yorktown? The L-1011 drove Lockheed out of the commercial market for good, while the DC-10 (with help from the MD-11) ultimately drove McDonnell-Douglas into oblivion. The L-1011 was by all accounts the superior plane, but it did not succeed commercially; while the DC-10 had a few problems that lead to its having a decidedly subpar safety record, and then the MD-11 did not meet expectations, as well as being outclassed by the A340 and 777. The DC-10 might have ultimately broke even financially (if you exclude the MD-11, which I am sure never did, and probably by enough to put the overall program in the red); while the L-1011 lost barnfulls of money. From that standpoint the DC-10 was probably the lesser disaster (unless you were a victim of one of its accidents.)
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
zippyjet
Posts: 5077
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2001 3:32 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 9:19 pm

Quoting Delta777Jet (Reply 1):
Of course the DC-10 with 446 sold planes was more sucessful than the 250 build L1011 !

But from the Safety Point of view , the elegance of the plane and the comfort of the plane the L-1011 wins over the DC-10 !



  

Safety wise and overall quality the L1011 was the stand out. However on an economical point of scale the DC-10 which led to the MD 11 won by a landslide. Also, the L1011 was supposed to fly earlier but, that little economic situation that was Rolls Royce made them the hare and the DC 10 the tortoise. Interestingly enough AA went to Lockheed with their requirements for a large sized bird that would be perfectly suited for their ORD LAX flights. Sure enough due to the time factor and Rolls Royce AA dropped Lockheed like a bad habit and went with the DC 10! Another should of, would of, could of in commercial aviation history.
Even with Eastern and TWA and DL going with the L1011 the die was cast.
I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 10:37 pm

Actually, the fact that the DC-10 and L-1011 were competing for the same market meant that both were doomed to commercial failure. There just was not enough demand at the time for two planes that size. And both of them drove their makers out of the market. By the time that there was enough demand, newer and more efficient planes filled the bill.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19593
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Tue May 22, 2012 11:05 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 30):
The problem with the Tristar was that the basic design was very difficult to adapt to a longer range variant .
Space for additional fuel tanks and more engine thrust as required by a longer range version were available but the increased take-off weight could not be absorbed by the L-1011's existing undercarriage.

IIRC, there is also the fact that increasing the fan diameter for the #2 engine on the DC-10 was relatively straighforward, as was done for the DC-10-40's JT9D's and subsequently the MD-11, giving the #2 engine pipe the "wasp-waisted" appearance that it did. By contrast, the location of the L-1011's #2 fan in the tailcone made this a more complex prospect.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve D Hall

-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Wed May 23, 2012 3:30 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 39):
IIRC, there is also the fact that increasing the fan diameter for the #2 engine on the DC-10 was relatively straighforward, as was done for the DC-10-40's JT9D's and subsequently the MD-11, giving the #2 engine pipe the "wasp-waisted" appearance that it did. By contrast, the location of the L-1011's #2 fan in the tailcone made this a more complex prospect.

The DC10 straight-through duct, adopted for the centre engine (#2) was specially designed to facilitate the installation of different power plants (JT9D series, CF6-6 series and CF6-50 series.)

Douglas (Later MCDonnell Douglas) left the engine selection to the customer. Even the RR RB211 was offered, but not selected.
Especially the difference in length between the competing engines could be easily corrected with this type of duct.

The Tristar's S-duct was modified for the larger diameter -524 version of the RB211 at the L-1011-200 and -500 series.

Delta converted six L-1011-1 aircraft to the new L-1011-250 version , incl. after production S-duct modification to allow installation of the higher thrust RB-211-524 engine.

[Edited 2012-05-23 08:43:12]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Wed May 23, 2012 3:50 pm

Quoting Delta777Jet (Reply 1):
But from the Safety Point of view , the elegance of the plane and the comfort of the plane the L-1011 wins over the DC-10 !

I will agree the L-1011 was superior from a safety point of view, i.e., no cargo door problem, and the extra hydraulic system and the actual location of the plumbing of the hydraulic system, but to say it was a more comfortable airplane is simply not true. Both aircraft started out with spacious 8 across seating in coach, but the L-1011 had those "mini dividers" in the middle of the cabin, and those useless overhead bins that were designed for blankets.

As far as a financial success, the DC-10 was more successful. And as technologically advanced as the L-1011 is made out to be, it was designed with an undercarriage that could not handle much more weight, a stretch, so to speak, and a center engine compartment that could not accommodate any engine except the RB-211. A poor design if you ask me. I always preferred riding in the DC-10. What did both planes in, and especially the DC-10 based MD-11, was ETOPS, Once you could fly the oceans with two engines, three engine aircraft were doomed.
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2724
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Wed May 23, 2012 3:59 pm

Versions of the L1011 were planned with engine options:

The L1011-8 would of been a prime DC10-30 competitor and had the CF6-50 and JT9D-20 as engine options along with an uprated RB.211 or possibly the RB.207 that never got built.

The original documentation for the L1011-500 also shows options for GE or PW powerplants, but this was dropped at some point?

The never built L1011-400 twin would of had the CF6 as the primary powerplant.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 695
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Wed May 23, 2012 4:45 pm

Why did neither Lockheed nor McDonnell Douglas develop twin engined variants of their tri-jets, especially once the 767 came on the market in the early eighties.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Wed May 23, 2012 5:02 pm

Quoting flyingclrs727 (Reply 43):
Why did neither Lockheed nor McDonnell Douglas develop twin engined variants of their tri-jets, especially once the 767 came on the market in the early eighties.

First, that would be a new plane, as the structure supporting the tail engine is a massive part of the airframe, and shifts the CG considerably. Second, Lockheed had already pretty well given up on the civil market by the time the 767 appeared, and MD was never interested in doing an all-new plane after McDonnell took the reins.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
dash500
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 4:14 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Wed May 23, 2012 5:28 pm

I always wonder what McDonnell Douglas' engineers were thinking when they designed the DC-10's slat actuation system...

http://i893.photobucket.com/albums/ac139/LisbonJet/305609_371826196196771_100001081807054_1021514_1687726312_n.jpg
Flying all Across the World
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Wed May 23, 2012 5:37 pm

Here are two 1977 design studies for L-1011 twins. (called : TwinSTAR)

L-1011-600, a minimum-change two-engine L-1011, with L-1011 outer-wings and tail, the S-duct and nozzle for the 3rd engine being simply blanked off.

L-1011-600A, a better optimised twin derivative, with new active-control supercritical outer-wings and smaller elevators and new tail-cone. But a larger investment, of course.

Wing area 210 m², OEW 71 tonnes, ZFW 101,15 T, max. payload 30,1 T, MTOW 112,3 T.
Both for 174 to 200 pax over 2700 Nm
Fuel consumption 16% (-600) to 27% (-600A) per km/seat than a Boeing 727-200Adv.


See : http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1977/1977%20-%203002.html
And : http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1977/1977%20-%200801.html
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
SEPilot
Posts: 4913
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Wed May 23, 2012 7:20 pm

Quoting dash500 (Reply 45):
I always wonder what McDonnell Douglas' engineers were thinking when they designed the DC-10's slat actuation system...

In spite of it appearing to have been designed by a Rube Goldberg wannabee, it actually is a very efficient way to transmit coordinated motion over a distance. The slats all need to move together by slightly different amounts, and this mechanism accomplishes it with very little weight and one actuator. It is actually an extremely clever mechanism, and I cannot think of anything that would accomplish the task better with less weight.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
User avatar
dash500
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 4:14 am

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Wed May 23, 2012 11:33 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 47):
It is actually an extremely clever mechanism, and I cannot think of anything that would accomplish the task better with less weight.

I believe that but if I'm not mistaken, they had to route hydraulic lines through the wing for the outboard slat drive mechanism assemblies. And that costed lives in the American Airlines' crash at Chicago-O'Hare Intl.



I think Lockheed's solution with torque shafts (driven by a Power Drive Unit located in the left wing root) and screw jacks was more simple and sturdier. And I'm not even talking about slat position locking mechanisms (the L-1011 had two redundant ways for that)...

Anyway, without weight considerations, all those cables and rods do seem a weird design and you gave me a laugh with your description  

[Edited 2012-05-23 16:34:27]
Flying all Across the World
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: What Was A Bigger Success DC-10 Or L-1011?

Thu May 24, 2012 4:18 am

Quoting dash500 (Reply 45):
Quoting dash500 (Reply 45):


I always wonder what McDonnell Douglas' engineers were thinking when they designed the DC-10's slat actuation system...

I flew the MD80 for four years and simplicity in design was a Douglas trademark.



The joke used to be that 'DC' stood for 'direct cable'


There is a lot to be said for that philosophy, but there were some glaring deficiencies in the DC1O (and MD11) that cost a lot of lives.



I think the merger did them in, all the 'DC's' up to the -9 were oustanding. The engineering shortcuts started on the DC10 and continued with the -11.



A simple asymmetric slat lock out system would have saved AA in Chicago, regardless of all the other issues.



The MD11's engineering was really a disaster, it is hard to believe, in this day and age, with it's extremely significant stability issues that it could have been certified at all.


A great shame.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 76er, AApilot2b, aaway, Baidu [Spider], BeachBoy, BlueSky1976, BobMUC, deltal1011man, flyingclrs727, Google [Bot], iahcsr, Jetstar315, LXM83, PanAm_DC10, SCQ83, SGAviation and 232 guests