tristar4ever
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2000 2:00 am

Another Tristar Question.

Sun Jan 07, 2001 10:21 pm

My only experience of the tristar is flying those dreaded charter flights from the uk to canada on Air Transat, actauly they`re a great airline with really good service, just no leg room!
specificaly several trips from Belfast to Toronto, much as I love the tristar it seems that when stuffed with 360 pax and loads of baggage they really strugle to get off the ground, I remember the aircraft on all flights seemingly unsing all of the available runway then finaly begining to climb, however the climb rate seemed incredibly slow, the nose was pitched up but the aircraft appeared to be hardly climbing at all. I remember seeing an ATA tristar at gatwick, it used all the runway climbed away pitched up but not climbing that fast compared to other aircraft. I hve flown on Air Transats tristar 500`s and they understandably have much better take off performance.
Is this just my imagination, or does the tristar in charter config have poor take off performance???????


mike.
 
Guest

RE: Another Tristar Question.

Sun Jan 07, 2001 10:54 pm

Nope, it's down to the amount of thrust put out by the RB211-22Bs on the Air Transat 'longbodies' versus the higher thrust of the RB211-254B4s on the L1011-500s at MTOW.
 
hmmmm...
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:32 am

RE: Another Tristar Question.

Mon Jan 08, 2001 1:01 am

Of course the L-1011 "in charter configuration" is going to climb slower than if the seats had more pitch. Quite simply, such a sardine can flight is operating closer to the MGTOW of the aircraft. It is heavier. A heavier aircraft will take more runway to get airborne and will climb slower.

Hmmmm...
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
 
airlineguy
Posts: 343
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Another Tristar Question.

Mon Jan 08, 2001 1:04 am

Somewhat off the subject...but how much floor space is aviable on a -200 or -500 L1011?
 
Guest

RE: Another Tristar Question.

Mon Jan 08, 2001 1:37 am

To answer your question TriStar, yes the TriStar -1 is underpowered at max T/O weight compared to the newer jets. I have flown the -1,-200 and -500 and the bigger engines on the latter 2 models make a world of difference! The configuration of the plane has nothing to do with it, a 1011 on a cross Atlantic flight will always be right at Max Weight, regardless of pasenger seating (more or less). It uses a tremendous amount of Rwy compared with a 747-400, its initial climb is rather weak (especially on a hot day!), and once it passes on the high 20's upwards, its rate of climb can best be described as anemic! Once it levels off though, it sure loves to cruise at .84 plus, blowing by most others (especially any Airbus tooling along up there!). The later 1011s though with the extra 8,000 lbs per engine are awesome planes powerwise!
Still, the Tritanic will always have the prime real estate in my heart!
T.A.
 
Guest

RE: Another Tristar Question.

Mon Jan 08, 2001 6:38 am

Delta73Spilot - did you notice much difference (either in terms of fuel consumption or performance) between the -524B4 and the -524B4Is as currently used by DL?

The L1011-500 is a very nice performer - rockets off the runway and has good climb performance.
 
Guest

RE: Another Tristar Question.

Mon Jan 08, 2001 10:12 am

Sorry Ceilidh,
I flew the bigger motor TriStars back in 95 for an outfit that is no longer with us...., we had only one type -524's and for the life of me I can't remember a whole lot of numbers!
Sorry I couldn't help you!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AirIndia, azstar, Baidu [Spider], bohica, BreninTW, cvgComair, Google Adsense [Bot], jpetekyxmd80, Kiwirob, SXDFC, ttm, Whiteguy and 208 guests