L-1011 Entered Service 40 Years Ago

avnut43 · Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:37 am

It was 40 years ago, April 1972, that the L-1011 entered commercial service. Eastern was the first to use it commercially.

Flight Global did a “look back”.
http://www.flightglobal.com/Features...ckheed-tristar/an-iconic-airliner/

zippyjet · Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:25 am

One of the best looking airliners! It's a shame it only had a 30 year run. I always liked the looks and of course those RR engines rumbling and shaking the glass as they spooled up. I got to tour some of them but sadly never had the chance to fly on one.

F9Animal · Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:49 am

Oh how I wish Lockheed would jump back into building commercial jets. The L-1011 is a sexy looking machine, and so hard to see anymore. I loved TWAs striking paint on those birds.

BoeingGuy · Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:57 am

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 2):
Oh how I wish Lockheed would jump back into building commercial jets. The L-1011 is a sexy looking machine, and so hard to see anymore. I loved TWAs striking paint on those birds.

Nothing beat PSA's paint on the L-1011s. I actually flew on one during the very short time they were in service SFO-LAX.

The EA accident in the Everglades is, I believe, the basis for instructions in Boeing's manuals (and would assume everyone else's) about fly the plane first during any emergency. Never forget that is the first priority is keeping the flight path under control.

From what I understand the L-1011 was an incredibly well designed and well built airplane. I personally far prefer it over the DC-10.

zippyjet · Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:24 am

If only the L1011 rolled out even a year earlier! It was a victim of the RR financial debacle and the crappy economy of the time. And the Arab Oil Embargo really tightened the screws. I too wish Lockheed would get back in the commercial airliner business. I really liked the white Eastern and DL L1011's. Did LY ever look at or consider the L1011 along with the 747?

GCPET · Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:22 am

The start of the RB211! Definitely my favourite jet engine by far, the sound's incredible.

GCPET

Type-Rated · Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:32 am

"The Most Advanced Airliner In The Sky" and it really was.
The thing I liked most about it was that "shimmy time is takeoff time". I only saw this in the later years of operation, but when you were taking off all the ceiling and wall panels would vibrate and shake just before liftoff.

A great airliner, I will miss her.

planemaker · Fri Apr 27, 2012 7:47 am

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 2):
Oh how I wish Lockheed would jump back into building commercial jets.

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 4):
I too wish Lockheed would get back in the commercial airliner business.

At least NASA keeps including them in their commercial airliner studies...

.

L1011TGU · Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:50 pm

I'll never forget that flight on a DL L1011 from ATL to SFO. It was the summer of 1997 and I was 8 years old. We were flying out with my mother to meet my father who had flown out a few days before on business for a family vacation. I stood at the gate at Hartsfield and looked out at the plane with the black nose and thought that the plane looked like it was wearing glasses. I remember that the flight was very turbulent, the plane's interior was shabby, but I instantly fell in love with the plane and aviation. We also got to fly DL's other three engine, the 727, on the way back through SLC and PHX. What a memorable trip.

Type-Rated · Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:21 pm

Way back in 1972 I flew on an EA L1011 for the first time. Prior to that I had only seen photos of the plane.
I was amazed at how beautiful it looked. Once we got onboard I was immediately impressed by the interior with the true "never more than one seat from an aisle" seating and the dimming window shades.
One thing I noticed was that it seemed the interior lighting was not as bright as on other airliners, but it seemed to be more evenly distributed throughout the plane.
And you could tell the crew was proud of her too!

SouthernDC9 · Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:27 pm

One of my earliest childhood memories is boarding a DL L1011 (my first-ever widebody) in Atlanta on a family trip to Disney World. As you can imagine I was pretty het up to begin with, just with the whole Disney thing, and then getting on this (to my young eyes) incredibly enormous plane that was like nothing I'd ever seen before in my entire life was just amazing. At the check-in counter in JAN the nice lady had given me a little white plastic model of an L1011 because I was excited about flying on it... man, that was an awesome trip.

falstaff · Fri Apr 27, 2012 4:48 pm

I flew on TW L1011s several times including once in 1991 flying ORD-STL. Difficult to imagine a wide body on a flight that short these days.

The L1011 is my favorite wide body and I just love how it looks.

A few months ago I found this cardboard DL L1011 at a antique shop, in St. Louis, for $6. I couldn't pass it up.

ghifty · Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:29 pm

I remember flying a Hawaiian L-1011 to Honolulu. I was bewildered and made a big deal about the airplane "having an engine in the tail" and my dad explained why. I'm pretty sure I was dissapointed it didn't have four instead..

Quoting type-rated (Reply 6):
"The Most Advanced Airliner In The Sky" and it really was.

"it really was..."

...

"It's been 40 years, and I can still smell the fresh paint.. The china had never been used. The seats had never been sat in.. they called the Tristar the plane of dreams and it was.. it really was."

zippyjet · Fri Apr 27, 2012 8:59 pm

Quoting falstaff (Reply 11):
I flew on TW L1011s several times including once in 1991 flying ORD-STL. Difficult to imagine a wide body on a flight that short these days.

Both DL and EA had a pick of the litter with wide body flights from ATL to MIA and even some to FLL! Back in the 70's
MIA was the big cahoona in South FLA. FLL wasn't yet what it is today!. I believe there may have even been wide body flights from IAD to BOS on either DL or EA!

Quoting planemaker (Reply 7):
At least NASA keeps including them in their commercial airliner studies...

I take it designs 2 and four are HSCT's. The one with the single fan tail mounted engine looks like a sea creature and what's with attatched tail and wing design?

pnd100 · Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:18 pm

A beautiful airliner & one of my favourites. My family flew on BA / AC L-1011s back in the late seventies & early eighties.

SouthernDC9 · Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:23 pm

Quoting falstaff (Reply 11):
A few months ago I found this cardboard DL L1011 at a antique shop, in St. Louis, for $6. I couldn't pass it up.

I dream of finds like this - that is amazing.

Reading about Eastern flight 401, a recurring theme is how much the flight crew, cabin crew and passengers loved the L1011, which just made the whole disaster even sadder somehow.

(But fairly soon before it was retired, a DL FA friend of mine said that among her colleagues L1011 stood for "Late 10-out-of-11 times" because of the constant mechanical issues the planes faced.)

planemaker · Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:34 pm

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 13):
The one with the single fan tail mounted engine looks like a sea creature and what's with attatched tail and wing design?

The "single fan tail mount" is actually a twin... there are two ultra-large bypass engines on two vertical tails but the photo perspective doesn't show the other vertical tail and engine. And a joined wing design has two benefits: reduced drag and structural rigidity/strength.

gilesdavies · Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:01 pm

How I miss them...

Probably my favourite aircraft of all time!

I had a chance to only fly with Caledonian flying LGW-PFO and back again, on a Tristar. But atleast their Tristar's were the best looking of them all! (In my opinion.)

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alistair Bridges

asctty · Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:10 pm

Hey folks, don't forget the UK Royal Air Force keep these beauites in regular use and don't they look just great?

http://tinyurl.com/cskvfws

When they are replaced, along with the last of the VC-10s, by the A330-MRTT it really will be the end of an ERA. The guys that keep these old planes in the air and looking their best will surely shed a bucket load of tears as they are paid off.

jfk777 · Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:49 pm

Flew several Eastern and many Delta L-1011's from Florida to New York and Boston. Too bad the -500 didn't come our in 1974 or 75. By the time it did it was too late, mny customers had the Dc-10-30 and the 767 were just around the corner.

aaron1011 · Fri Apr 27, 2012 11:54 pm

The Tristar is/was my favorite airplane. I only got to fly on them three times. Once on the Caledonian/EI lease from DUB to SNN. The next time wasnt until 2004 on a charter to Barbados. We were ment to fly EuroAtlantic so Imagine my happiness to see one of the Luzair TriStars waiting for us @ Dub. I was seated next to door 2L so could see how the door opened and closed. We flew back on the EuroAtlantic tristar and even though it was older inside it was in much better conditon. I doubt I will ever get to fly on one again. A truly amazing aircraft and one of the most photogenic as well.

Type-Rated · Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:02 am

That Caledonean livery is one I have never seen before on an L10. It looks fantastic on it.

aircanada014 · Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:30 am

I really missed flying L1011s.. I lfew from YYZ-LAX, LHR-YWG and if i recall YYZ-LHR on AC.

avnut43 · Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:07 am

The TriStar is just a beautiful aircraft. How the intake was incorporated into the tail is very pleasing to the eye. Sounds corny. I always liked the Delta livery on it. It looked stately.

I wonder how history would have gone if Lockheed would have also put the CF6 in it?

bellancacf · Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:32 am

Going back and forth to Europe it seemed I was often in the rear seat of either an L1011 or a DC-10, and what a difference!

The L1011 would start its descent and the airplane would take up a new attitude, but without any shaking or rumbling: it would just start slowing and coming down. Landing was the endpoint of a very smooth process.

The DC-10 would start its descent, and the airflow around the aft fuselage would change: loud rumbling and shaking, as the air tried to find some way to fill that great honking notch between the fuselage and the tail nacelle. It was just not nice.

I always thought that these two planes were a great example of a job finished to the last detail and one not -- sorry, but that was just my impression as a back-back-seat passenger.

ltbewr · Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:42 am

Quoting type-rated (Reply 6):
The thing I liked most about it was that "shimmy time is takeoff time". I only saw this in the later years of operation, but when you were taking off all the ceiling and wall panels would vibrate and shake just before liftoff.

I was on a couple of them with TWA domestic (JFK-PDX), international (JFK-LHR), an ex-DL with ATA charter MXP-JFK in June 1985. Indeed they did have that unique interior 'shimmy' during takeoff and sometimes landing, but they did fly smoothly, were roomy and were pax as well as crew friendly, perhaps better than the DC-10.

Lockheed had stuck with prop/piston a/c too long, not really going into true commercial jets until the L-1011. Then they had the L-1011 but no smaller a/c to sell. If they had a 727/737/DC9 equivalent model, it would have helped for more sales of the L-1011 but also kept them in the commercial side a lot longer. I suspect the problems with the RR engines, (which not only hurt Lockheed but bankrupted RR, leading to a split of it's aircraft engine from its exclusive class car business) also caused a dry up of lending by banks that along with the jack up in fuel prices, competition from Boeing, Douglas (later MD) and some pre-Airbus Euro aircraft makers.

Sadly, we are pretty much seeing the end of significant use of the L-1011 and its disappearance from the skies very soon. I am sure Lockheed wants to move out of support of them. Few if any were used as freighters as the DC-10 would become. It had a comparatively small production run. Most of the recently and to be scrapped probably are near way too expensive mx checks. Thus a mix of issues are quickly making them museum pieces or ending up scrapped and recycled. Of course for many of us, it will fly forever in our minds.

baje427 · Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:51 am

Remember flying BW Tristar BGI-LHR-BGI great memories those were the days of flying now every thing seems so generic

mayor · Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:07 am

I can remember non-revving ORD-ATL on a DL DC-10 and returning on a L-1011 (or it may be reversed) in 1974. We were finally taking delivery of the Tristars and still had the interim DC-10s that we sold to UA and leased back, pending the Tristar deliveries. I always liked the Tristar, but, sadly, at the end, there were many, many mechanical delays. We still had our 747s at the time, too.

I think many pilots (who had flown both) would tell you that the L-1011 was a pilots' airplane, while the DC-10 was an "appliance". It was over engineered, but that's what endeared it to the pilots.

zippyjet · Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:15 am

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 25):
Lockheed had stuck with prop/piston a/c too long, not really going into true commercial jets until the L-1011. Then they had the L-1011 but no smaller a/c to sell. If they had a 727/737/DC9 equivalent model, it would have helped for more sales of the L-1011 but also kept them in the commercial side a lot longer.

I've always felt that way myself!
As a matter of fact I started a thread almost 10 years ago wondering why Lockheed did not produce a "first generation pure jet" to compete against the 707, DC-8 and Convair 880/890.

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eed+First+Generation+Jet#ID1298549

BestWestern · Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:25 am

Old timers on this site will remember the scottish gentleman on this site who thought happiness was a warm L-1011.

His fantasies resulted with him in prison, and his Tristar plans in tatters.

RayChuang · Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:58 am

I think Lockheed--had it designed the L-1011 so it could accept an engine besides the RB.211--would probably have built the plane a lot longer.

kaitak · Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:18 am

Quoting zippyjet (Reply 1):
One of the best looking airliners! It's a shame it only had a 30 year run

Actually, it was only a ten year production run - production ceased in '82.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 12):
"It's been 40 years, and I can still smell the fresh paint.. The china had never been used. The seats had never been sat in.. they called the Tristar the plane of dreams and it was.. it really was."

Ah, but it never flew into an iceberg! (A swamp, maybe, but not an iceberg!)

Quoting asctty (Reply 18):
Hey folks, don't forget the UK Royal Air Force keep these beauites in regular use and don't they look just great?

Yes, I had the pleasure of a KC1 flight back in 2004, with the good gentlemen of Brize Norton; managed to get the jump seat for landing as well; the Tristar has served the RAF well.

It really was a great airliner; I've very rarely heard bad things said about it (well, apart from its economics in later years). It was a pity it was such a loser, financially, for Lockheed, but I guess they can still look back on it with pride. Even though it might have lost them financially, it was widely admired - and loved by flight crews. Unlike its main competitor, the DC10, it never had a fatal accident which could be traced back to a design fault;

December 1972 (barely eight months in service) - Eastern 401: crew fiddling with landing gear light; forgot about altitude.

1980: Saudia. Stove used on board; fire spread on ground - all 301 on board lost.

1985: Delta 191. Windshear.

There was also a terrorist attack on an Airlanka Tristar and TWA lost one at JFK in 1992 during an aborted takeoff. Again, neither due to a fault with the aircraft.

ncelhr · Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:00 pm

My first trip across the Big Pond was on a TWA L1011 and several after that. I recall they appeared to often have issues with the tail engine.
One of my worst delays was on a BA L1011 from Nice where we sat in the aircraft for 6 hours, all doors open (they used to slide up) with a rope across the doors to stop pax from falling off, whilst there was a leak in the brake system. When we heard drilling going on, the Captain informed us that they had trouble unscrewing panels because "bolt had sheared off". They eventually managed to fix after nearly as many hours of hard work and spare parts flown in from London. Still this was the last year of operation for BA because wear and tear made them increasingly difficult to maintain.
BTW best ever "art" painted on the BA cabin panels from artist Frederick Rowland Emett.
BA L1011 Cabin Art (by Ncelhr Nov 14 2008 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=4213014&searchid=4214422&s=tristar+art#ID4214422

And for an example of the artwork, check out the Featherstone-Kite Flying Machine, seen from:
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/185208

PM · Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:18 pm

A really classy plane. I got to fly on British Airtours and Delta. That it wasn't more successful is down more to bad luck than bad design.

RWA380 · Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:44 pm

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 25):
I was on a couple of them with TWA domestic (JFK-PDX),

That TWA flight would have stopped in SEA, IIRC they never flew JFK-PDX non-stop, but did as a tag from SEA for many years. My first L-1011 experiences were flying PDX-SEA-PDX, just on this tag alone I've flown DL, EA, HA & TW L-1011's.
The L-1011 was a great plane to enjoy a short hop on, with a powerful take off and steep climb out for the 30 mins to PDX.

Since those days I've flown to HNL from LAX/SFO/SEA/PDX/ATL on L-1011's, as well as many routes all over the DL map.
I loved flying in these wonderful planes, and wish I had known then, that my last L-1011 was a HNL-LAX flight on DL, I would have taken pictures and enjoyed myself more, even though I was in F, I still remember it being pretty average.

richiemo · Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:12 pm

DC-10 and L1011 remain my two all-time favorites (with due respect to the now great 757. But the L1011 always was a notch above. Something about the S-curve in the tail engine and those big fat cockpit window. Nothing like her will ever exist again.

tymnbalewne · Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:01 pm

Back in 1986 I was going from NY to London to spend a year. I could've just as easily taken one of many BA/TW/PA etc. flights but because I was (and am) an airplane nerd I chose to fly AC from LGA to YYZ (DC-9) and then an AC L-1011 from YYZ-YHZ-PIK-LHR. Good fun! Good memories.

Viscount724 · Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:19 pm

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 25):
they did fly smoothly, were roomy and were pax as well as crew friendly, perhaps better than the DC-10.

I flew on quite a few L-1011s (BA/AC/EA/TW/PA/CX) but always preferred the DC-10, if only due to the much larger (and better-positioned) windows which made the cabin seem brighter. Apart from the size, I always found the L-1011 windows positioned too high on the fuselage (I have the same problem with A320 windows compared to the somewhat larger and lower 737 windows). The L-1011 also seemed to cruise with a more pronounced nose-up attitude than other widebodies.

mayor · Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:45 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 37):
The L-1011 also seemed to cruise with a more pronounced nose-up attitude than other widebodies.

Probably for the same reason that we preferred the 727-200 to be mostly tail heavy....if flew more efficiently that way.

WA707atMSP · Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:22 pm

Quoting avnut43 (Reply 23):
I wonder how history would have gone if Lockheed would have also put the CF6 in it?

John Newhouse's excellent book "The Sporty Game" says that UA asked Lockheed to offer the L-1011 with the CF6. It would have cost Lockheed about $100 million to re design the TriStar to accomodate both the CF6 and the RB211. Lockheed's then-president Dan Haughton chose not to meet UA's demands, because he thought UA would choose the TriStar even if the CF6 wasn't available.

It was the wrong decision. Haughton later said that not offering both the RB211 and the CF6 was one of the two biggest mistakes of his life; the other being his decision not to purchase Douglas.

According to the book, Delta also preferred the CF6 over the RB211, but felt the TriStar was enough better than the DC-10 that they chose the TriStar even with their 2nd choice engine.

The book also says that, if UA had chosen the L-1011, the DC-10 would not have been built as a trijet; McDonnell Douglas would either have cancelled the program, or re designed it as a smaller twinjet. Had the DC-10 been built as a twinjet, the A300 would never have been built.

I would highly recommend The Sporty Game to anyone who wants to learn more about the rise of Airbus and the decline of Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas. Although it is 30 years old, it is still every bit as interesting as it was when it was published.

Dano1977 · Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:22 pm

First and only trip in a tristar was on BA from London to New York, to watch my dad run the marathon.

I narrowly missed out on a trip on an RAF one when I was in the Air Training Corps, although they made up or that with a trip in the nimrod around the bay of biscay.

longhauler · Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:05 am

I have fond memories of the L1011, as it was the first time my parents allowed me to travel alone, just for the sake of flying!

I flew on Air Canada's inaugural L1011 flights YYZ-YVR-YYZ, AC105/AC148 as a young lad of 13, in March 1973. It operated out of Toronto Terminal One (old) just before AC moved to Terminal Two, and it was the last time I had ever seen seat assignment using the big chart of stickers.

B595 · Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:37 am

Quoting tymnbalewne (Reply 36):
nd then an AC L-1011 from YYZ-YHZ-PIK-LHR.

Why the stop in PIK?

YHZ-LHR is only ~2800 mi. This should've been within the range of even the L1011-1.

Was this a cargo stop in PIK? Or was YHZ's runway was too short for an L1011 to do a high gross weight takeoff? Those are the only things that come to mind...

TrijetsRMissed · Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:09 am

As fond as our memories are for the L-1011, it's equally unfortunate that it's useful service life was so short. From the production run, to the number of airplanes built, and to it's retirement from service...already some 10+ years ago. All of it seems unfairly brief, compared to the 747s and DC-10s of the same era and the widebody twins of today.

As a Chicagoan, Tristars were few and far between, post 1980s. (ORD was DC-10 heaven, even into the late 90's). A big regret of mine is missing one in 2000/2001 before DL retired them... even if it meant taking two extra legs to catch one. As it is, my last Tristar was circa 1988.

I won't make the same mistake again, which is why I flew ORD-DTW-MCI to catch a couple D95s last week.

longhauler · Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:29 am

Quoting B595 (Reply 42):
Why the stop in PIK?

This was a scheduled stop, and a part of AC's (and BA's) Canada-UK network. PIK was eventually replaced with GLA, then eliminated all together.

YVRLTN · Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:30 am

My first ever flight was in an L1011 with British Airtours from LGW to NAP in 1987 - I dont really remember it as I was only 6 years old, but I do remember the wonderful crew. I also remember being stuck in our resort in SOrrento as there were the huge hurricanes going on in SE England. We came back to LGW to find most of the area without power and many of the BCP busses has been crushed by trees or had their windshields smashed in with debris.

Quoting baje427 (Reply 26):
Remember flying BW Tristar BGI-LHR-BGI great memories those were the days of flying now every thing seems so generic

This was my second L1011 flight in 1990, and turned out to be the last. Even then (22 years ago!!), the L15 was a little different than most of the other widebodies at LHR. The next time I took BW, they had the A340.

ContnlEliteCMH · Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:24 am

I'm pleased to say that I got to fly on a TWA L1011 in 1995 or 1996 (can't remember which) STL-LAX. I was in a port side window seat right around the trailing edge. WhisperJet my backside. It was *thunderous* right there.

I greatly enjoyed it.

tymnbalewne · Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:37 am

Quoting B595 (Reply 42):
Why the stop in PIK?

YHZ-LHR is only ~2800 mi. This should've been within the range of even the L1011-1.

Basically the flight was for YYZ-PIK pax, YHZ-PIK pax and YHZ-LHR. I was the only person flying YYZ-LHR...to the point that my luggage was offloaded at PIK. When I got to YYZ, AC tried to put me on a nonstop YYZ-LHR but I didn't accept.

baje427 · Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:47 am

What where the longest routes operated by the Tristar?

connies4ever · Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:54 am

EA and AC used to have what was then an innovative scheme for adjusting capacity seasonally. EA had 2 'surplus' L-1011-1 a/c in summer which AC took on lease. Kept basic EA colour scheme but AC titles above the cheat line. In the winter the a/c reverted to EA to, one supposes, support Caribbean/Florida ops. Not sure how long this arrangement persisted but certainly it was in effect during the mid-70s as I recall seeing one or other of the a/c at YWG several times during the busy summer season.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net