DC10Tony
Topic Author
Posts: 991
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 9:51 am

Why?

Sun Jul 01, 2001 10:46 am

Why did MDC and Lockheed make the APU exhaust pipe point own towards the runway on the DC-10 and L-1011?


Also, don't any of you think that MDC and Lockheed (2 rivla companies at the time) produced two planes with a lot of commonality being that they're competitors? What's the answer to this?
 
tupolev154b2
Posts: 1269
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2000 9:01 am

RE: Why?

Sun Jul 01, 2001 11:19 am

No, the Lockheed plane was much more advanced than the Douglass one with the ability to land with low visibility.
 
JETPILOT
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Why?

Sun Jul 01, 2001 11:35 am

Why....why is the topic "why" ? This isnt the GA discussion board.

JET
 
XFSUgimpLB41X
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 1:18 am

RE: Why?

Sun Jul 01, 2001 1:54 pm

Supposedly there was some spying going on between the two companies.. thus you get two very similar airplanes, and the DC-10 beat the 1011 to the market in turn killing the L1011 sales and future.


As far as the exhaust from the APU-- it looks to me like it is due to the position of the horizontal stabilizer plane. I was standing right next to it in the NW heavy maintenance hanger last week.. and it is very very close to the stabilizer. I believe it is to keep it from blowing the exhaust all over the stabilizer. This is just from eyeballing it.. somebody please correct me if i am wrong.
Chicks dig winglets.
 
Minuteman
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2000 1:01 am

RE: Why?

Sun Jul 01, 2001 3:16 pm

I agree with JETPILOT.

Please try to use a descriptive Topic when posting.
 
DC10Tony
Topic Author
Posts: 991
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 9:51 am

RE: Why?

Sun Jul 01, 2001 10:58 pm

XFSUgimpLB41X-

Thanks for the response, it helped.

Minuteman and JETPILOT-

The reason why I titled it "Why?" was because I knew everyone would wonder what it was and maybe I'd get a fast response if more users viewed it. How is this not a descriptive topic? I just asked a question and wanted a simple answer, what do you want, a dissertation next time?
 
JETPILOT
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Why?

Mon Jul 02, 2001 2:05 am

The whole point of a descriptive topic is to help members decide weather they would like to open the thread.

Second I suggest you read the rules of the forum...One of those rules concerns descriptive titles.

No dissertation required....just a topic.

JET

 
Guest

RE: Why?

Mon Jul 02, 2001 3:02 am

I'm curious to know how the L-1011 was more advanced since the ability to land with low vis. is primarily a matter of the avionics package that is installed.
 
JETPILOT
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Why?

Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:04 am

The L1011 had the most advancd autopilot of its time allowing CAT III landings with 0/0 weather criteria. No other plane at the time could do that.

The L1011 alos had something called DLC (direct lift control) that enabled th aircraft to stay on the glideslope at a constant body angle while climbing or descending to maintain glidepath. This system used the spoilers to control climb or descent instead of using the stabilator. Its the only airplane to be built with DLC.

The L1011 also uses an all flying stabilator instead of an elevator to control movement around the lateral axis. No other airliner incorporates an all flying stabilator.

JET
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6430
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Direct Lift Control

Mon Jul 02, 2001 8:44 am

Dear JETPILOT,
The DLC, wasn't it something which was added on later L1011 versions only?

Or am I mixing it up with the automatic anti-gust system, which was either implemented on later models, or never made it before the L1011 program ended?

Do you know this anti-gust system worked or should have worked? Did it also use spoilers, or was it the aileron, or both?

It is a real shame that Lockheed stepped out of the airliner business. They have always been all way up from when it comes to innovation.

Best regards, Preben Norholm
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
JETPILOT
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Why?

Mon Jul 02, 2001 11:27 am

Gust aleviation was achieved with the active aileron system on 500 models with extended wing span.

All L1011's had DLC.

JET
 
Monocleman
Posts: 133
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 10:21 am

RE: Why?

Mon Jul 02, 2001 12:19 pm

Just what is an all-flying spoiler?
 
UA752
Posts: 144
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 3:30 pm

RE: Why?

Mon Jul 02, 2001 12:58 pm

Im no mechanic or anything...but Ill take a stab at this one. I believe that an all flying stabalizer(not spoiler) is where the entire hrizontil stab. moves rather than just the trailing edge. I think that this is similar to what you'd see on a fighter such as an F-14, F-16, etc. Correct me if Im wrong.

MSN
 
ejaymd11
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Why?

Mon Jul 02, 2001 1:37 pm

The DC-10 also had CAT III landing capability. Its on the Boeing web site.

Ejay
 
JETPILOT
Posts: 3094
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:40 am

RE: Why?

Tue Jul 03, 2001 5:43 am

Lots of aircraft at the time had CAT III capability. CAT III can be further broken down into CAT A,B,C,D. Only the L1011 had 0/0 CAT III A capability.

An "All Flying Stabilator" is an stablizer that moves in conjunction with the elevator when the yoke is moved foward or back. The L1011 has a conventional elevator that moves in conjunction with the stabilizer simultaneaously to control pitch. It's the only aircraft using this method.

JET
 
beechbarron
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 9:46 am

RE: Why?

Tue Jul 03, 2001 5:56 am

The L10 was just simply a much better airplane overall than the 10. Safer, better designed, more advanced, and easier to keep trimmed. Am I right? Not knocking the 10, because it did evolve into a wonderful airplane, but it had way too many teething problems that the L10 didn't.

I watched a Delta L10 on climbout from ATL driving on the interstate today. What a sight to behold. Damn, I'm gonna miss seeing them....  Crying
 
philb
Posts: 2645
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 5:53 am

RE: Why?

Tue Jul 03, 2001 7:13 am

From December 1971 the HS Trident 3 was certified for CAT 3A both for take off and landing in BEA service, the aircraft entered service with the company on April 1 1971.

The limits at the time were defined by the UK CAA (then the only authority certifying so called "total blind landing" for civil airliners) as RVR 270 metres, decision height 12 feet. Take off RVR had to be a minimum 90 metres.

By December 1971 Lockheed had just 5 Tristars flying - due to the RB211 problems. FAA type approval (let alone CAT 3A approval) was not forthcoming for the L1011 until 14 April 1972, the type entered service on April 26 1972 with Eastern.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests