Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5715
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

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

Thu May 24, 2012 1:53 pm

Quoting dash500 (Reply 48):

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.

You are quite right in the routing of the hydraulic lines, which could have been routed so that the departing engine would not have taken them out, but weren't because of cost.

Quoting dash500 (Reply 48):
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)...

I suspect you are right about this being simpler and sturdier, but I'm sure that it is also heavier. That is what struck me about the DC-10 design, how light it is. And of course you are right about the locking mechanism; the DC-10 could have easily had one but didn't.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 49):

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.

I absolutely agree with this. I read an article in the New Yorker many years ago (maybe even the late 70's) about the design of the three jumbo jets; it went into the fact that Douglas, Lockheed, and Boeing had been in the commercial business long enough to know that when you design an airliner you make it as safe as you know how; the FAA requirements are only the starting point. McDonnell, on the other hand, had only built military planes, and there, once you have met specifications, you are done. McDonnell took over the reins after the merger (which was fairly early in the design of the DC-10), and their design philosophy was the controlling one. From what I have read, it is likely that none of the three high profile DC-10 crashes would have happened had it been designed by Douglas (pre-merger), Boeing, or Lockheed. In fact, I think the merger was about the worst thing that has happened in the commercial side of the aviation business, period. McDonnell was totally uninterested in investing in a new airframe; hence the succession of warmed-over designs that emerged, and they never did get back to the safety consciousness that all of the others adhered to. And when they bought Boeing with Boeing's money they nearly brought Boeing down.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

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

Fri May 25, 2012 7:38 pm

One of the big stories on the L-1011's marketing was the bribery scandals that helped end Lockheed's place in passenger aircraft, forcing to stay in military aircraft market and eventually merge with Martin.

I liked the L-1011 in its design and looks over the DC-10. Two big DC-10 crashes in the 1970's (Turkish in 1974 and AA in 1979) were huge blows to the DC-10's credibility.
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5715
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

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

Fri May 25, 2012 8:21 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 51):

I liked the L-1011 in its design and looks over the DC-10. Two big DC-10 crashes in the 1970's (Turkish in 1974 and AA in 1979) were huge blows to the DC-10's credibility.

And had the same things happened to the L-1011 it is almost certain they would have landed safely. Certainly an engine falling off would not have caused the slats to retract, which is what caused the AA crash. The Turkish crash was caused by the floor buckling and taking out all the hydraulics; I believe that the hydraulic lines in the L-1011 were routed in a way that that would not have happened.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

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

Sat May 26, 2012 12:21 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 52):
The Turkish crash was caused by the floor buckling and taking out all the hydraulics; I believe that the hydraulic lines in the L-1011 were routed in a way that that would not have happened.

I think it was the flight control cables...you don't typically run hydraulic tubes longitudinally in the floor but it's really common to run control cables there.

Tom.
 
User avatar
SEPilot
Posts: 5715
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 10:21 pm

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

Sat May 26, 2012 12:25 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 53):

I think it was the flight control cables...you don't typically run hydraulic tubes longitudinally in the floor but it's really common to run control cables there.

I thought it was the hydraulic lines; I did not think that the DC-10 used control cables. It certainly does not have manual reversion; the forces required would be too high, and if it did then UA232 wouldn't have happened. But I could be wrong.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8573
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

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

Sat May 26, 2012 5:17 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 54):
I did not think that the DC-10 used control cables.

It definitely had control cables (as did all the DC-x jets, the 707 through 767, and the A300/A310). The non-FBW large airliners all use irreversible hydraulic controls; the power comes from hydraulics but the command to the actuators comes through cables and pushrods. As a result, there are steel cables all over the place running from the flight deck out to all the hydraulic actuators.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 54):
It certainly does not have manual reversion; the forces required would be too high, and if it did then UA232 wouldn't have happened. But I could be wrong.

You're correct that it doesn't have manual reversion but that's a completely separate thing from having control cables. With respect to the DC-10 floor collapse issue, you try to keep all runs (hydraulic or cable) as short as possible for weight reasons, but you don't have a choice but to run cables extensively inside the fuselage because they all have to end up at the flight deck in a non-FBW airplane. Hydraulics tend to just run from the pumps (usually the engines/struts and somewhere in the wing/body fairing or gear well) to the actuators (wings and tail, gear wells). This means you usually have one small line running forward to the nose gear and several big ones to the tail, and a ton going out on the wings.

The DC-10 wasn't exposed to this problem due to an inherent routing problem but, rather, it was the first to discover that cargo bay decompression loads on the floor of a widebody need to be treated differently than on a narrowbody due to the much larger floor area. This problem is why you have blowout panels by your ankles on all modern designs.

Tom.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

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

Sat May 26, 2012 5:41 pm

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 52):
The Turkish crash was caused by the floor buckling and taking out all the hydraulics; I believe that the hydraulic lines in the L-1011 were routed in a way that that would not have happened.

Actually it was the cargo loading door that wasn't properly locked, a flaw in the design in the locking mechanism. The rapid depressurization in turn caused the floor to buckle and the flight-control lines to break.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Airlines_Flight_981#Cause

[Edited 2012-05-26 10:43:43]
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
mark777300
Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 3:30 pm

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

Sun May 27, 2012 8:15 am

neither of these aircrafts were very successful, but in terms of sales, the DC10 obviously won. The L1011 while perhaps more advanced than the DC10, never really stood a chance to be successful. with the amount of money that Lockheed pumped into this program and into the C5A, along with RR's bankruptcy, any real chance of making a more advanced L1011 went out the window. In addition to that, the inability to increase the weight of the L1011 without a costly redesign of the landing gear, made the DC10-30 more appealing to airlines who wanted a long range tri jet, and cost them potential sales. The lack of a family of aircrafts also contributed to this as well. The DC-8 and DC-9 gave Douglas and then MCD a family of aircrafts to compliment the later DC10 line as well as the MD80. Lockheed only had the L1011 to offer with a turbo prop to preceed it. A twin L1011 would have made things interesting..

The DC10 found better success, even more so in the after markets as a freighter, where the L1011 did not. The tri jet in general became obsolete with A300/ A310 and 767, and this, along with the MD11s short fall in performance, put an end to MCD. Even today, twins are replacing quads at a very rapid pace, leaving quads for VLA such as the 747 and A380.

I had the chance to fly on both on several occasions, and I felt that both aircrafts were a pleasure to fly on. ( from a passengers point of view). It is still an awesome sight to watch a FedEx DC10 come in for a landing with its high angle of attack. Sure do miss those trijets that were so dominant back in the 80s!!
 
User avatar
Spacepope
Posts: 5206
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

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

Sun May 27, 2012 2:58 pm

Are there any DC-10 parts still in use in the C-17? The cockpit areas are similar, and the DC-10 forward section was used on the forerunner to the C-17, the YC-15

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Oliver Brunke


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michel Van Bokhoven

The last of the famous international playboys
 
User avatar
dash500
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 4:14 am

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

Sun May 27, 2012 7:50 pm

If we compare the comparable, Lockheed sold 199 L-1011-1/-100-/200s against 138 DC-10-10/-15s. The DC-10-30 was another league in which Lockheed was never able to play. And Douglas did it since early 70s.

[Edited 2012-05-27 12:52:05]
 
B757Forever
Posts: 920
Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 3:23 am

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

Sun May 27, 2012 8:54 pm

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

Like the previous genereations of Douglas aircraft it had the highly reliable Fly By Wire system, it's just that Douglas used 7 x 19 wire!  
The Rolls Royce Dart. Noise = Shaft Horsepower.
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 5787
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

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

Sun May 27, 2012 11:19 pm

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

And those really cool passenger doors, lowering down from the roof of the plane and locking, it was my favorite thing about riding the L-1011 from a passenger standpoint, oh and the incredible ride and feel of the aircraft, take offs and landings!
707 717 720 727-1/2 737-1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 747-1/2/3/4 757-2/3 767-2/3/4 777-2/3 DC8 DC9 MD80/2/7/8 D10-1/3/4 M11 L10-1/2/5 A300/310/320
AA AC AQ AS BA BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HG HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN WP YS 8M
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

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

Mon May 28, 2012 12:51 am

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 61):
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

And those really cool passenger doors, lowering down from the roof of the plane and locking, it was my favorite thing about riding the L-1011 from a passenger standpoint,

Same type of doors were used on the DC-10 and MD-11, also on the 767 which I think is the only Boeing type to use the upward-opening doors.
 
User avatar
dash500
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 4:14 am

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

Mon May 28, 2012 1:49 am

With the difference that all type A doors on the L-1011 were provided with an electrical opening/closing system and had big titanium springs for emergency/mechanical opening instead of CO2 bottles for opening assistance.

Opening the L-1011 doors with passengers nearby was a funny exercise. Especially if one didn't advice them. The noisy and inwards (before going up) opening door would often scare them!
 
747400sp
Posts: 3900
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

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

Mon May 28, 2012 12:06 pm

Well as said before, the DC-10 has a better sales record, but the L-1011 has a better safety record.


This may go off the subject a little, but both these airliners, where built like tanks. As much as I love the Boeing 747, I would say that these two planes, had a stronger more rigid airframe than a 747, thank to the high landing and take off cycle time that was design for, remember, the DC-10 and L-1011, was design to fly routes the 727s would normally fly.

I remember both of these jets, coming into LAX from the from the southern part of the US, in the after noon, thank to DL and AA. Also, I have seen both of them come into LAX from different cities in Hawaii.


Now my favorite first gen wide body, will always be the Boeing 747, but these two trijets will have a place in my heart.
Also, both these big trijets sound great at taxi, in the L-1011 case, start up, and when they throttle up for take off, you want to lissen up!
 
User avatar
dash500
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 4:14 am

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

Mon May 28, 2012 6:48 pm

Despite not having the biggest passenger windows in the market, one thing I liked in the L-1011 was that, due to its fuselage construction, the thickness of the sidewalls was much less and you had better vision to the outside (I mean, you didn't have to put your head inside a "hole" 5/6 cm deep made by the window panels to get closer to the window or you didn't have a big gap between the plastic cover and the acrylic window.. That's one thing I don't like in the B747/B777 and A380 windows and maybe the DC-10 also (but I can't remember properly when I flew it a long time ago).
 
ZaphodB
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 2:56 am

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

Mon May 28, 2012 7:50 pm

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 61):
And those really cool passenger doors, lowering down from the roof of the plane and locking, it was my favorite thing about riding the L-1011 from a passenger standpoint, oh and the incredible ride and feel of the aircraft, take offs and landings!

And before they put the center overhead bins in it had a very cool 70's sci-fi look to the cabin.
Even when they were old and tatty DLs 1011s felt rock solid and by today' standard's the Y seating was very comfortable. I have very fond memories of TATL crossings and especially ATL-FLL runs on those old warhorses. They may not be missed by the accountants but they are by me ... same for the VC10.
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 7892
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

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

Mon May 28, 2012 8:03 pm

[quote=DocLig.htning,reply=17][/qamaxuote]
Could not agree more, and I still have Betamax working and running at home, great quality product.
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

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

Tue May 29, 2012 3:02 am

Quoting dash500 (Reply 65):
That's one thing I don't like in the B747/B777 and A380 windows and maybe the DC-10 also (but I can't remember properly when I flew it a long time ago).

No, the DC-10 (and MD-11) don't have that issue. They have the biggest windows of any of the early widebodies. I think they're about 25% larger than L-1011 windows and also somewhat larger than 747 windows.
 
User avatar
RWA380
Posts: 5787
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:51 am

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

Tue May 29, 2012 10:11 am

Quoting ZaphodB (Reply 66):
And before they put the center overhead bins in it had a very cool 70's sci-fi look to the cabin.
Even when they were old and tatty DLs 1011s felt rock solid and by today' standard's the Y seating was very comfortable. I have very fond memories of TATL crossings and especially ATL-FLL runs on those old warhorses. They may not be missed by the accountants but they are by me ...

When I lived in Hawaii from Jun 93 - Aug 95, I worked for the largest locally owned travel agency chain in the state, I was their VIP/INTL agent, so my sales were so far ahead of everyone in the company of 9 offices (which sold mainly Inter Island Coupons by bulk, Inter-Island packages and Vegas packages). DL awarded the largest dollar produceing agent in our company 2 free passes anywhere in the USA every quarter of the year, coach but upgradeable on day of departure with a love note in your PNR from the sales rep. Anyway, point was DL was exclusively L-1011's flying LAX, and DFW & ATL were 500 series. Needless to say I flew a ton of L-1011's on DL alone, not to mention HA, EA, TW to name a few. Loved the plane, not so much in the last row, in the middle section of 5 seats, under the center engine intake, in a non-reclining seat for nearly 6 hours. But most of the time I got to ride in F class and loved the great ride up front.
707 717 720 727-1/2 737-1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 747-1/2/3/4 757-2/3 767-2/3/4 777-2/3 DC8 DC9 MD80/2/7/8 D10-1/3/4 M11 L10-1/2/5 A300/310/320
AA AC AQ AS BA BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HG HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN WP YS 8M
 
User avatar
dash500
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 4:14 am

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

Tue May 29, 2012 10:14 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 68):
No, the DC-10 (and MD-11) don't have that issue. They have the biggest windows of any of the early widebodies. I think they're about 25% larger than L-1011 windows and also somewhat larger than 747 windows.

I searched for pictures and those aircraft seem to have that issue (I was not talking about size). The sidewalls seem to be pretty thick and there is a huge gap between the external and internal layers of the window:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/KLM--...McDonnell-Douglas-MD-11/0738798/L/

It is not comparable with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRbh6d8vzC4

As you can see in the following photo, the fuselage frames were much thinner at windows level (3" deep) than on the top or bellow (6" deep):
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Royal...ed-L-1011-385-3-TriStar/0182545/L/

And due to that, despite having a slightly smaller diameter than the DC-10, the L-1011 cabin was actually wider inside! This was a nice feature of the L-1011!

How I wish Carl Yelverton (474218) was still with us  Smile

[Edited 2012-05-29 03:29:02]
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1338
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

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

Tue May 29, 2012 9:18 pm

Flight International's archives contain a 1973 article about the Twin-Ten. http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1973/1973%20-%201582.html

Here is a comparison table from the article, although the formatting will be lacking.

DC-10 Twin A300B4
MTOW 153,770kg 150,330kg
MLW 146,513kg 133,000kg
OWE 94,800kg 86,790kg
Max payload 37,986kg 35,210kg
Max fuel 61,000kg 45,400kg
Length 51.2m 53.57m
Span 49.16m 44.84m
Height 17.56m 16.53m
Fuse dia 5.95m 5.64m
Wing area 335.4m^2 260m^2
Eng 2 x CF6-50C 2 x CF6-50C
or 2 x JT9D-59

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos