Tristar L-1011 FMS & Autopilot

[b377]

http://www.caricatureaircraftpictures.com/prints/bombers%20&%20transports/Tristar_216_RAF.jpg

[411A]

The L1011 did not need an FMS to provide fail/operational automatic approach/land (autoland) operations...it had the first dual/dual autopilot/flight director system (produced by Collins Radio) fitted to a wide body jet transport aircraft.
Yes, roll and pitch computers provided, straight out of the factory, from day one.

The FMS (manufactured by Hamilton Sundstrand) was added just slightly later on, to provide complete LNAV/VNAV and engine thrust management, in one neat (dual) package.
Those aircraft delivered to SVA had a moving map navigation display provided, as a standard fit.

The type is unsurpassed to this day in providing a very smooth operation during automatic approach/land maneuvers.
In short, it is the gold standard, to which others are compared.

Just ask the folks whom have flown this quite remarkable airplane.
Old?
Yes.
Superb?
Absolutely.

And, on the TriStar...it was all analogue.

Lockheed, simply designed and built to a higher standard....with proper RollsRoyce engines

[SOPS]

411A get over it.....it was a great aircraft..as was the 727 or 747 0r others..but its time has gone...please realease

[flash8]

strongly advise you not to discredit the Tritanic with 411A... it is however indeed a beast and a half. Last one I saw needed a good clean... but that was a few years back now.

[b377]

411A

can you say some more about the dual-dual configuration in the legacy Tristar.

[SOPS]

ok...the L1011 was a great aircracft for its time...I have flown (in airline ops) F27 F28 B737 (200-900) and the GODESS of the skies the B777...and I await 411A

[lckhdtrstr]

Hey there,

I'm a co- on 216 Sqn, flying the mighty TriMotor :)

Let me know what you need and I'll try and help if I can. YOu can IM me if you want.

trstr

[KUMOOZ]

Think I might have the original LOCKHEED integrated avionics user manual in the loft somewhere. Interestingly we had triple INS that was exactly the same as used on Apollo rockets (8?)to get them to the moon and back...pucker L/Haul!
I also worked for BEA when we bought the 100's and compared to our biggest aircraft at the time the Trident 3 I recall seeing the first delivered aircraft parked behind Viscount House and thinking it resembled a block of flats with wings!
As an ex ginger beer on the tritanic with a UK charter airline I can tell you that I always had the Normal Checklist in one hand and the Emergency Checklist in the other. 411A your glasses must be a shade tinted, but at the time it was an awesome machine.
Funnily the endurance was dictated by how long you could keep the oil in the 22B engines and not fuel burn..memories.
Sadly its time is long gone,
RIP.

[Spooky 2]

Not so fast. Some of the later Pan Am -500's had digital AP's in them. Interestingly, they were not certified for autoland with one engine out, unlike the -100'/250's.......as I recall.

[411A]

Not so fast. Some of the later Pan Am -500's had digital AP's in them.
Negative.
Only the AP/FD glareshield panel appeared to be 'digital'...go down into the MESC and will be found many of the same units as on earlier aircraft.
You will note however, that these specific aircraft had localizer backcourse automated guideance, a PanAmerican requirement at the time.

Of course, most of the -500 model aircraft had active aileron gust relief augmentation, as well as other minor improvements.
MDLC?
Yes, that too.

I always had the Normal Checklist in one hand and the Emergency Checklist in the other. 411A your glasses must be a shade tinted, but at the time it was an awesome machine.


Shade tinted, no doubt.
However, in the last twenty nine years I've been flying the airplane, the 'emergency checklist' was not used once.
Abnormals, yes ( a few times), emergency...no.

[jmig29]

Hmmm... L1011-500, for me the best, only knew them by seeing them at LIS. The only other aircraft that has ACS is the space shuttle; Still one and only (dunno new boeings) to compensate for crosswinds in both yaw and roll axis, until 5 feet LRRA; 2 DFCC's (replacing earlier roll, pitch and yaw computers), it would do CAT 3C to gate and full CAT 3B with only 1 DFCC; ask the guys at Gatwick why they call it the "runway scrambler"; DFCC sensitivity down to the microvolt, touches down with a plus or minus 1,5 meter tolerance; no FL limits, up to FL440; Thrust control by DFCC when out of cruise phase, thrust management by FMC when in cruise; beautifull glareshield with those "gas discharge" lamps that formed numbers and letters...
Anyone care to show any other airliner with similar performance (except fuel, of course)???
:8:8:8:8:8:8:8:8:8:8:8:8:8:8

[glhcarl]

Hmmm... L1011-500, for me the best, only knew them by seeing them at LIS. The only other aircraft that has ACS is the space shuttle;

Our friends that fly the C-5's would be suprized to here this.


no FL limits, up to FL440


TCDS limit 43,000 feet?

[Old Fella]

KUMOOZ, your recollections seem to be at odds with your posted age. Which of the two is erroneous? As for the Tristar range being limited by the oil consumption of the -22B, maybe the engineers should have put 'O' rings on the magnetic detectors or the cap on the oil reservoir. Although I had only a couple of years on the Tristar I can not recall oil consumption ever being an issue. And like 411A saysthe Emergency Checlist was gathering dust most, if not all, of the time.

[kiwi1011fe]

I too, have several thousand hours as F/E on the 1011,with two US operators in the 1990's in both domestic and international ops and enjoyed the aircraft very much.
I dont recall oil consumption ever being a major problem and I dont recall having to use the emergency checklist, other than in the sim.
The abnormal checklist was called upon a few times, but in general a great aircraft to operate and well ahead of its time .

If I had the opportunity to fly it again I would....especially as I am currently out of work!!! :ok:

[411A]

If I had the opportunity to fly it again I would...

You might consider dusting off the manuals...one never knows, especially if you are based on the western side of the great Atlantic divide, and don't need to rush home every two weeks...:}

[punkalouver]

Lockheed, simply designed and built to a higher standard....

What about this? No elevator position indicators?

"...the crew, headed by Delta captain Jack MacMahan, was able to save a Lockheed 1011 in 1977 when the left elevator jammed full up. There is no cockpit indicator for this type of failure on the 1011, and the ground crew did not notice the problem. Macmahan controlled the airplane with differential thrust to a landing in Los Angeles"

[GlueBall]

punkalouver: when you push or pull on the L1011 yoke you are moving the entire stabilizer, not the elevator, which acts only as a trim tab.

[411A]

the crew, headed by Delta captain Jack MacMahan,
Perhaps the concerned Captain did not read the abnormal checklist, which mandated using split spoilers for pitch control in such situations.

A simple procedure.:rolleyes:

[L1011]

Could have sworn that the L 1011-500 had a digital autopilot.

Distinctly remember the (red covered) Differences Manual stating that, along with a little cartoon showing how much weight was saved by replacing analog 'boxes' with digital ones. However it was almost 20 years ago, so maybe I got it wrong. No longer have the books, so can't check.

Direct Lift Control was a beauty. "30/30 Flap, DLC, Alpha Mode" was the PNF call to complete the landing checks if I remember right. Nothing was better than the the L-1011 when going round the corner on the IGS into Rwy 13 in Kai Tak.

The 777 was almost as good, but the never-changing pitch attitude on the Tristar (thanks to DLC) made it so easy.

Still miss the old girl, but kinda fond of my present (very fat) creature too.

[FE Hoppy]

ASFKAP.

Not wishing to be a pedant but not all 500s were digital. 216sqn had a mix when i was on them and they back converted the pam am digitals to standardise them with the BA analogues.

I had to laugh a couple of years ago when my friends in Brazil were telling me how wonderfull the steep approach mode on the little Embraer jets was. When i mentioned that it was just a copy of the l1011 DLC from the 70's they were more than a little crestfallen.

[Graybeard]

Yes, the L-1011 had the first IIIc autoland. Lockheed and BA engineers reviewing the autoland performance noted that the plane hit in almost the same exact spot every time. When they asked LHR management about possible effects, there was an uproar, and LCC had to put a dither into the landing logic.

The L-1011-1 autoland system was a joint Lear-Siegler and Collins Avionics venture.

Meanwhile, the PB-30 Bendix dual-dual autoland on the DC-10 never was successful, and was a major reason for the bankruptcy of Douglas Aircraft and subsequent purchase by McDonnell. The Sperry autoland in the 747 was no great thing, either.

The L-1011-500 dual-dual autoland was the first digital Cat IIIc. It was a sole Collins development, many of the Lear-Siegler engineers having been adopted. At the same time, Collins did the triplex autoland for the 767/757, a somewhat simpler solution.

GB

[Spooky 2]

Thanks ASFKAP.:} I thought this was the case and my own personnal experiece was limited mostly to the -100/-250 with only a very occasional -500.

[glhcarl]

What about this? No elevator position indicators?



The elevator is slaved off the horiziontal stalilizer and therefore its position is shown on the Surface Position Indicator. Stabilizer nose down elevator trailing edge up, stabilizer nose up elevator trailing edge down.

The incident Jack MacHahan was involved in was caused by the failure of the bearing in the elevator drive quadrant prior to takeoff, during the controls check. When the bearing failed the stabilizer nose was full down and the elevator trailing edge full up. The drive quadrant tilted and was blocked by the elevator drive hockey stick pushrod. So the elevator could no longer follow the stabilizer and remained in the full up position.

There were several AD's and S/B's written to prevent re-ocurrance. With the final fix being a elevator cable jam detector being install in the aft body and a warning light on the flight engineers panel.

[411A]

and a warning light on the flight engineers panel
And, added to the takeoff configuration warning.

Not wishing to be a pedant but not all 500s were digital.

Yup, quite correct.
Not all had ACS either.
And some had different MTOW's.

Many differences...customer options.

[glhcarl]

And, added to the takeoff configuration warning.


Correct and like the takeoff warning system the elevator jam system is inhibited in flight.


Yup, quite correct.
No all had ACS either.
And some had different MTOW's.

Early -500 were delivered without active controls or the extended wings, these were all later retro fitted. Without active controls the MTOW was limited to 496K.

While there are several different MTOW's available for the -500's with active controls (504K, 510K, & 516K) structurally they are all the same, as it requires manual changes only.

[GotTheTshirt]

Original Tristars had DG/VG's no INS.
Triple INS became an option and in later years the early Littons became expensive so there was a mod ( That Air Atlanta did ) to go back to VG/DG but added GPS.

I think the first area nav was s/n 1024 which had the Ambac/Decca system.
Also this aircraft ( and 1032) was originally certified at an MTOW 199,900 kgs ( instead of 430,000 lbs to keep it below the 200K limit for airport and nav charges:hmm:

Some -500's were digital and normal operators cannot interchange them ( But perhaps 411 has found away). Of course if you go down into the E & E bay they have the same shape size and colour black boxes but us professionals have to go by part numbers which are not interchangable. ( some of them only have one digit difference:ok:)

The FMS units ( by Ham Standard ) were program for individual operators and to re-prrogram cost an Arm and both legs !:\

There was an Oil consumption limitations on 1 aircraft. This was the King of Jordans aircraft. It was due to very short legs at low altitiudes. The problem was that the oil seals never got fully presurised

Another problem was the fact that it was a very computerised aircraft ( even toilt flush :oh:) and it was very common to find that re-racking the computer solved the problem. However in the early 70's re-racking a computer was looked upon as a fudge so computers were replaced just to make it look right for the Authorities. Most of these came back from the shop with " no fault found "!

[411A]

Quote:
MESC or FESC.......?

FESC... original, typing error.

As to possible oil problems with -22B powered aircraft....
To some it appeared that after long storage, the -22B engine consumed quite a lot of oil on the first few flights.
This was seldom the case, however, it was normally found that the actual oil quantity after landing was quite normal, considering the stage length...as the quantity indication was many times faulty.
Often times it would indicate properly just after landing.


Quote:
The FMS units ( by Ham Standard ) were program for individual operators and to re-prrogram cost an Arm and both legs !

Some operators programed in-house at considerable savings.


Quote:
there was a mod ( That Air Atlanta did ) to go back to VG/DG but added GPS.

Yes, and that in the beginning didn't work properly, until two senior FD crew actually RTFB, and showed 'em how to fix it properly...:}

[glhcarl]

There were 34 L-1011-500's equipped with "digital" autopilots: They include 12 aircraft built in the Pan Am configuration (193Y), 9 Air Canada (193H), 6 Royal Jordanian (293A), 5 TAP (293B) and 2 Air Lanka (293F).

The remaining 16 were used "analog" autopilots: 6 built in BA configuration (193V), 5 BWIA (193G), 3 Delta (193W) and 2 LTU (193J).

[hetfield]

What is a "TRISTAR" :confused:

[411A]

What is a "TRISTAR"

The finest wide body early generation automated aircraft manufactured in the USA...bar none.
It is second to none in its automation at the time... IE, no other airplane could measure up, NONE.

A proven fact.:ok:

A fine design, although somewhat dated...now.
Just like yours truly...dated.:}
Nevertheless, still going...:ok:

[TheChitterneFlyer]

I'm with 411A; the TriStar was indeed a formidable aeroplane. I haven't yet met anyone who flew her to disagree with those sentiments.

Yes, the old girl is now somewhat dated, but I haven't yet flown anything that was so popular with the crews who flew her.

Sadly missed!

TCF

[Farfrompuken]

What is a TriStar?

A superb piece of engineering, design and innovation and a true delight to fly.

I don't think we'll see such a ground-breaker (in more than one sense!) for a long time.

[Dengue_Dude]

I enjoyed my time on them I must admit.

-500 s with the RAF and then a wake up call flying -100 with Caledonian out of Manchester.

With nearly 400 people on board we were still climbing to FL290 crossing the south coast of UK having taken off from Manchester!

The 22Bs weren't quite as nice as the 524s which made the -500 a relative rocket ship (in it's day).

Thanks Mr Lockheed, had nice times on L1011. I have more hours on the DC10 but prefer the Trimotor any time.

Cat 3C was awesome.

[411A]

Landing with 200 meters vis/rvr?
Yup, done all the time with the big Lockheed three-holer.
The First Officer does all these, I just sit back and admire Lockheed's amazing performance.
Done to perfection, even today.
And, why not?
The quality was designed in, before the name went on.

Designed and manufactured in California USA...with quite proper RollsRoyce engines.
The engines especially...very good performers.
Stage three, out of the factory, long ago.

Even our 26 year old First Officer today exclaims...'this old Lockheed airplane is head and shoulders above the A320 that I have flown before.'

His words, not mine.:}

[ballyboley]

411A, Its great to see another person who's so keen on the best 3-holer.

A jumpseat ride on the L-1011 made me decide to be a pilot some years ago, and have been following them ever since, and from reading the books it really was ahead of its time.

I'm still on the look out and willing to give my left genetalia to have a go at flying one before they all disappear!

[727gm]

What is a "TRISTAR"? The final and finest iteration of Lockheed passenger aircraft engineering, following the other "stars": Lodestar, Constellation, Orion[Electra], & Jetstar, and sometime-pax/combi birds, the Starlifter and Galaxy: The L-1011 TriStar

[glhcarl]

What is a "TRISTAR" http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif


It should be written TriStar.:ok:

[KUMOOZ]

Guys, your right and I stand corrected.
Of course I meant the 'abnormal' and not the 'emergency' checklist a little over enthusiasm perhaps.
Nevertheless by the time we (Caledonian) had the Tritanic in its final days it was in a sorry state and indeed the 'abnormal' checklist was a regular feature.
Not quite sure why my age appears as 41 when it is 51....
I just cant wear the same specs as the pro Tristar posters.....as a ground engineer for 20 years before becoming a ginger beer it was the most labour intensive and by far the most troublesome aircraft I ever worked on. I recall the O ring incident but not the carrier...somebody will of course.
memories and Nostalgia...oh yes, queen of the skies? personal opinion....the Trident was the Original 3C aeroplane :) (long before the Tristar) now that WAS a technology breakthrough!
I still have a picture somewhere of a Trident 1 landing in the fog at Bedford for the first true A/LAND. Apologies for thread creep in advance.

[411A]

Trident 1 landing in the fog at Bedford for the first true A/LAND...

Revenue passenger service, yes.
However, if we dial the clock back just a bit further, we find the Caravelle, with its Lear-designed autoland system as being the 'first'...for a jet aeroplane.

[Graybeard]

I heard this long ago: The JT-9D, CF-6 and RB-211 were the first big fan engines, and the N1 blades went supersonic on takeoff, of course. That created a loud buzz saw sound in the cabin. The very smart Lockheed and RR engineers drilled and dressed the vanes and did everything possible to kill the sound at the source, and did a pretty good job.

The dumb and lazy Douglas and Boeing engineers just added a ton of sheet lead sound deadening to the cabin sidewalls, which was also effective. Lockheed would not did not accept that weight penalty.

At cruise, the Boeing and Douglas cabins were quiet, thanks to that ton of sheet lead, while the L-1011 was noisy...

[ALK A343]

TriStar,

Simply magnificent,

When I was a kid I used fly a lot on the AirLanka TriStars between Colombo and Frankfurt.
They were such amazing machines, way ahead of their time and one of the reasons I wanted to start flying.
Probably 411A would have been flying them at that time.
The one regret I have is never having gotten the chance to fly one of them, would have been nice to see stuff like DLC etc. in action.
Instead I ended up being in the playstation generation only flying glasscockpit ever since. But there are quite a few guys who would have loved to fly the old girl, especially when we talk to people who have flown them into places like Kai Tak with a little smile on their faces remembering an era long long gone.

The TriStar was Lockheed's masterpiece of civil aviation setting the benchmark for others to follow.

[astronaute]

The TriStar dash 500 was the best airliner of its time, only seconded by the......Concorde !

[b377]

When engaged the AP also provides for automatic stabilization for turubulance & gusts (i.e. attitude regulation aided by the IRS) but once disengaged and the plane is being maually flown this stabilisation aid lost.

On a manaully flown gusty approach ( or after AP disengage beyond DH ) what automatic satbilization support was available?

[411A]

On a manaully flown gusty approach ( or after AP disengage beyond DH ) what automatic satbilization support was available?



Yaw damping and turn co-ordination, provided by the SAS system.
This system also provides two other functions....runway alignment and rollout, however for autolands only.
In addition, DLC is available all the way to touchdown.

[L1011-500]

The airplane that i´ll never forgget. A true lady and yet a gentleman. Miss it so very much

The last time i´ve pulled the reversers on the RB´s
YouTube - My last L1011 landing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYCZFmzkdXI)

[411A]

..will have no difficulty forgetting it.....

As you have no doubt personally demonstrated...continuously.:}

[glhcarl]

On the other hand I, like a great many other engineers that had the misfortune to work on the old hangar queen will have no difficulty forgetting it.....

I had the good fortune of working on the TriStar for over 30 years and found the any engineer that did like working on her, did know how to work on her.

[jmig29]

A colleague of mine at TAP misses the TriStar and tells me that even the maintenance manuals are so well built and intuitive, it would actually teach you how to work on the aircraft!

Would you agree to this?

[411A]

General fault issues would be recorded in the tech log using the FIRM manual.
Usually a code number only, however oftentimes some airlines required the written text as well, for clarification.
SaudiArabian was one of the latter.
This FIRM code would also be communicated to the destination station when in-range (usually about 100 miles) and ground maintenance personnel would then refer to their manual, to assertain the correct rectification, using the FIRM code.

Many times I would taxi up to the parking stand, and there would be the ground engineer, parked in his vehicle, with the required avionics units to be replaced.
Oftentimes the job would be completed in twenty minutes.
Some airlines casually dismissed the FIRM method as being 'obtuse' however in my experience it worked to a 'T'...at least from this pilots perspective.

[b377]

... reading some of these messages it appears implied that DLC was unique to the TriStar, what about other wide bodies? The 747 has a similar array of speed brakes and spoilers.

411A,
does that mean that SAS and DLC ( & YD) remained active (or could remain if so commanded) after AP was disconnected as for instance during a manual approach?

[RetroFire]

Seems I remember a problem with the "S-ducting" that routed air to the center engine. There were some fiberglass fittings that could break away and find themselves going into the engine? Caused some inflight shutdowns?

[411A]

411A,
does that mean that SAS and DLC ( & YD) remained active (or could remain if so commanded) after AP was disconnected as for instance during a manual approach?

Yes, SAS (yaw damping and turn co-ordination) was a full time operation, either manual or auto flight.
DLC was also full time, either manual or autoflight, and was initiated when the flap handle passed the 30 degree position.

... reading some of these messages it appears implied that DLC was unique to the TriStar
Correct, unique to the TriStar amongst civil jet transports.
Also unique was the all moving tailplane for pitch control.

A delight to fly.:)
Having said this, these airplanes are definitely getting old, and consume considerable man-hours to keep 'em going.
Having Lockheed and RR factory trained folks certainly helps.

[mamajoe87]

I think it's time to move on:)

[b377]

Thanks 411A

Interesting that the SAS was full time. Obviously control system design stopped it flighting pilot inputs.

Did these unique TriStar features make it difficult for crews to move to say a DC-10 or 747 interchangably? As you'll know BA operated all three wide bodies for a while after it absorbed BCal so multi-type certified pilots were probably desirable.

Regardig the variable incidence tail plane, the 727 and other T-tails moved the whole thing during rotation ( & for trimming but stand to be corrected) , but not sure if only the elevators were used for pitch control in other phases of flight. I suppose that when large moments are required the whole stabiliser moves on most modern jets 747 and DC1-0 included.

[hetfield]

727 and other T-tails moved the whole thing during rotation

727 was pretty straight fwd, stab was only for trimming.

[glhcarl]

does that mean that SAS and DLC ( & YD) remained active (or could remain if so commanded) after AP was disconnected as for instance during a manual approach?

DLC was also full time, either manual or autoflight, and was initiated when the flap handle passed the 30 degree position.
411A is right but there is one more requirement is needed: DLC is active anytime aircraft was in in the landing configuration: 2 of the 3 engines are less than full power and the flaps greater than 30 degrees.

The DLC system can be shut off by unlatching the DLC/AUTO SPOILER switch light on the pilots overhead panel. However, if the switch was unlatched the pilot would have to manualy deploy the spoilers, if required, after touchdown.


Seems I remember a problem with the "S-ducting" that routed air to the center engine. There were some fiberglass fittings that could break away and find themselves going into the engine? Caused some inflight shutdowns?

The S-Duct was made entirely of aluminum (2024-T3 and 7075-T6) no fiberglass. However there was acoustic material on the engine (just if front of the fan) this would disbond at times and be ingested by the engine. This acustic material was on all RB-211's not just the TriStars No. 2 engine.

[b377]

...The DLC system can be shut off by unlatching the DLC/AUTO SPOILER switch light ...


What about SAS, were means provided to switch it off should it be required?(although it would normally be active)

[411A]

What about SAS, were means provided to switch it off should it be required?(although it would normally be active)

Yes, both channels could be disabled by unlatching the appropriate switchlights on the overhead panel.

727 was pretty straight fwd, stab was only for trimming.

Likewise for the DC10 and B747
The L1011 is unique with it's all-moving tailplane for pitch control on civil jet transport aircraft.
Also note that the L1011 has four hydraulic systems (same for 747) but unlike other first generation wide-body jet transports, which had only three.

[b377]

An interesting variation on a theme is that the HS Trident, unlike its 727 look-alike, used the whole tailplane for pitch control I have seen pics of it fully deployed at rotation. Ditto for the VC-10 .

So in this sense tailplane use was similar to that of the TriStar.

[411A]

**So in this sense tailplane use was similar to that of the TriStar.**

Don't think so, however those that have flown these types can comment.

Keep in mind that with the L1011, when the pilot pulls back on the pole (or, pushes forward) the entire horizontal tailplane moves.
The entire tailplane also moves with trim input.
The elevators are not directly controlled by the pilot...IE: they are mechanically linked to the stabilizer.

AFAIK, this arrangement is unique amongst western civil jet transport aircraft.

DLC is active anytime aircraft was in in the landing configuration: 2 of the 3 engines are less than full power and the flaps greater than 30 degrees.



Certainly correct.
Note.
If a go-around is desired, the first action of the pilot is to apply go-around thrust.
By doing so, DLC is automatically disabled (active spoilers stowed), prior to moving the flaps to the 22 degree position...which would then be the next pilot action.

Full time automation...a TriStar exclusive at the time.

[glhcarl]

An interesting variation on a theme is that the HS Trident, unlike its 727 look-alike, used the whole tailplane for pitch control I have seen pics of it fully deployed at rotation. Ditto for the VC-10 .

So in this sense tailplane use was similar to that of the TriStar.

The Trident and VC-10, along with every other large airliner (except the L-1011) have a horizontal stabilizer that can be moved by using the trim system. Normally the trim system uses elecrtic motors to drive a ballscrew actuators that reposition the entire horizontal stabilizer. The horizontal stabilizer is positioned (by the ballscrew actuators) to the nose down position to aid the crew in rotation of the aircraft on takeoff. They still have to use the elevators to provide pitch control.

The L-1011 also trims the horizontal stabilizer nose down for takeoff, but instead of a ballscrew the L-1011 uses four hydraulic actuators.

The main difference between the two systems is: when the L-1011 reaches takeoff speed and the pilot pulls back on the control column the entire horizontal stabilizer moves even further down to allow the aircraft to rotate. On all the other aircraft when takeoff speed is reached and the pilot pulls back on the control column (or side stick) only the elevators move to allow the aircraft to rotate, the horizontal stabilized stays in the trimed position.

After takeoff the horizontal stabilizer in then repositioned, either by the ballscrews or the actuators, to a neutral position. However, on the L-1011 the entire horizontal stabilizer contines to be used for pitch control while all others use the elevators.

[b377]

411A/glhcarl

the comparison with other a/c was useful thanks.

The pics I referred to are in Davis' "Handing the Big Jets" which shows the HS fully deployed on both the VC10 and Trident. I haven't the book with me now to double check but I thought one photo showed the HS fully nose down during what looks like a TO rotation. Might be a red herring though.

[glhcarl]

I thought one photo showed the HS fully nose down during what looks like a TO rotation.

There is no reason why the nose of the horizontal stabilized would not be fully nose down for take off. But it is positioned there by the trim system not by column movement.

[b377]

If trim setting corrects for loading CoG position then once set one would think it would stay there until the plane is retrimmed during flight. In what way is the trim system involved at takeoff? (Unless of course the CoG was so bad that it did require a full stabiliser nose down for correct trim leaving little margin for comfort)

[forget]

The pics I referred to are in Davis' "Handing the Big Jets" which shows the HS fully deployed on both the VC10 and Trident. ...... I thought one photo showed the HS fully nose down during what looks like a TO rotation.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/vc10.jpg

[Swedish Steve]

Lot of comments in here about the high maint load on the Tristar.
I was there at the start of BA service. When the Tristars were introduced at LHR, the engineers refused to work it. So the turnrounds at LHR were performed by management, and the maint was done on the line, mainly CDG and AMS. The aircraft kept flying. Being used to the Trident it was amazing how the (new) Tristars just kept on going. I was an apprentice, but got involved when we were sent off to AMS to change the first Nbr 2 engine. 3 Line trainers, 6 ex apprentices, and 6 Gulf Air engineers on OJT used the fly away nbr 2 engine staging for the first time in KLM's hangar and changed the engine in two days.
two years later I was in BAH with Gulf Air's brand new L1011s. They also kept flying. It was amazing how well developed the MEL was and how it kept the aircraft out of the hangar. But there we were comparing them to the BAC111s!!
I think that now people are compring them to new modern aircraft, and yes they were not that reliable, but compared to the aircraft in service in 1976, they were good.

[411A]

**In what way is the trim system involved at takeoff?**

Same as on other jet transports.
The stab is set at xxx units, according to the trim sheet.
Re-trimming is then used after takeoff, normally for acceleration after flaps are set to 4 degrees.

[tonytech2]

There were a lot of improvements made in the equipment, workmanship and engines over the course of the L-1011's delivery schedule. I was in Palmdale in the first maintenance training class (1972) and was not happy with the wiring standards I saw. Whole looms were built up in the shop and then placed in the aircraft where the unpinned ends ends cascaded down in the cockpit and FESC like a waterfall. Techies sat there with prints and combing thru the wires looking for a particular number. When found it was trimmed to length and a terminal was installed and it was plugged into the Burndy block, hopefully into the right hole. The checkout was made with the Ditmico testing machine and there were a lot of faults found, in the thousands on the very early ones. Around airframe 1012 they got it under better control and then went to a still higher standard later. We had lots of problems for years with the earlier models with miswiring.

The 22C model RB-211 on the first deliveries were derated and did pretty well. With the 22B models we had first the fan disk failures due to titanium problems requiring us to change them at short life cycles. Then the lack of a stall margin bit us. Pilots logged a lot of two engine time as engines stalled and blew out their compressors and turbines. Tailpipes were full of blades and bits. EAL had a rampful of gliders at one point. They instituted a mandatory warmup prior to takeoff, requiring three minutes at pretty high power prior to applying takeoff power. Mods alleviated the problems considerably after several years of suffering. Still later of course the failures and fires in the #1 bearing hit. I'll never forget viewing the aircraft where the #2 fan came loose and walked forward to near the rear pressure bulkhead before flying apart. Required mods to install a "fan-grabber' and later on the bearing locator warning system modification that essentially killed the -22B.

The -22B starting problems were very bad too. I had the EAL mgr of RB211 engineering up in Toronto one very cold day and we timed out engines that took on average five minutes each to get to idle. The worst took a whole seven minutes. In the AM we looked out the window as an EAL L-1011 and a AAL DC-10 both started up for departure. The L1011 fogged the whole ramp while the DC10 started all three, taxied out and took off before EAL got the third started. Rolls couldn't understand it because Air Canada had faster starting. JP-4 fuel explained part of that.
I almost fainted the first time I saw a L-1011 with -524 engines start right up.

The hot stream spoilers (turbine reverser) were a disaster. Ball-nut jackscrews do not live happily near tailpipes and highspeed flex shafts either. When they were deactivated, we had a celebration.

There were the slat/flap assymetry problems, the flap LRS faults, the infamous FECES computer (actually FCES). Kapton wiring, toilet flush computers. Usual Lockheed overdesigns put heater blankets under baggage floors - not a good idea, heaters on the toilet tank outlets - had a fire start there that almost took out the aircraft.

Then there were aircycle machines that made ice down in Florida and San Juan and delivered spouts of icy water from the overhead gasper air outlets. And never forget the master caution and dimming problems. They had a separate conference at Palmdale on just that one area. The MUX system was a disaster for many years. Always thought too that it needed a manual depressurization valve -

Structurally, the worst problem was the rear spar fatigue. We had one that cracked right across the entire web. The earlier aircraft required a major mod in that area. Fuselage was great with its thick skin design. Usual corrosion problems of course.

All that said, the pilots loved it, it flew better than anything they said since the Electra. The DLC system made the airplane look like it was on rails on landing, no bobbing of the nose, steady attitude. If DLC was turned off as one old Captain did, you had to watch for dragging the aft fuselage. He did it requiring major repairs to rear presure bulkhead.

Later on at another outfit operating the only -1 freighter made, we got some -200 pax aircraft from Gulf Air. Wiring problems pretty well gone, engines much better. Still an aircraft that needed experienced techies but manageable. Those that experienced later deliveries reaped the benefits of the early problems. Proves one point, don't fly the "A" model of anything.

[jmig29]

Yaw SAS was computed by 3 hydraulic levels: over 1000 PSI, over 2000 PSI and over 3000 PSI. These info were computed by LRS computer, according to flaps/slats, altitude, attitude and speed. Or so the guys that worked it tell me...

Just another input.

[glhcarl]

Yaw SAS was computed by 3 hydraulic levels: over 1000 PSI, over 2000 PSI and over 3000 PSI. These info were computed by LRS computer, according to flaps/slats, altitude, attitude and speed. Or so the guys that worked it tell me...


I think you are a little confused. The L-1011 rudder was powered by three hydraulic systems (A, B and C). As speed increases the amount of rudder travel needed decreases so Lockheed installed something called rudder scheduling.

Rudder scheduling works as follows:

Below 164 knots the rudder was powered by all three hydraulic systems at 3000 psi each.

Over 164 knots two of the three systems (A and B) were shutoff. System C still supplied 3000 psi.

Above 260 knots the pressure in the one remaining system (system C) was reduced to 2000 psi. Addtionally the L1011-1 had rudder limiter actuators that positioned stops that physically prevented excessive rudder movement above 260 knots.

The above numbers are for the L-1011-1's. L-1011's with higher takeoff weights used the same system but a slightly different speeds and the limiter actuators were removed.

None of this had anything to do with the Yaw SAS system.

[jmig29]

Yes I stand corrected. Checked with TAP guys and what happens is I misunderstood their explanation.

Even so, it is a real pleasure see it taking off at LIS, and still one of the best flying aircraft around (when it actually flies).

[b377]

411A

you appear to be in desert cemetery country so you could delight us with a few pics of the many dusty L-1011s awaiting aluminiun recyclers?

I have always thought the DC-10 was the better looking of the wide body trijets but there's no denying the technical merits of the 1011 warts and all.

Only flew in it once on a brief flight from Geneva to Gatwick but can not forget the loud clunky undercarriage.

[411A]

loud clunky undercarriage....

That would undoubtedly be because the specific airline did not know how to avoid the 'clunks'.:rolleyes:

Sorry, no photos.

[RetroFire]

What is a "Frisbee Faring"?

[Swedish Steve]

What is a "Frisbee Faring"?
Its the fairing under the Nbr 2 engine intake. It was a later addition, not on the earlier aircraft. When we got our first frisbee fairing fitted L1011 at BAH, we convinced the hangar supervisor that it moved. He was up in a high lift trying to find the actuator to fix one that didn't move!!
He never lived it down.

[411A]

Those frisbee fairings made a huge difference in the noise observed in the aft cabin, due to the location of number two engine.
Much quieter.:ok:

[tonytech2]

The Frisbee rairing replaced a lot of sound deadening lead wool in the upper aft fuselage.

[L1011-500]

Two types of pilots. The ones who had the pleasure to fly them and the ones who did not.
And challenge any of you to compare the so called new acft systems, with the L1011. Can bring the B744 if you want (i fly those ) except EFIS for obvious reasons. But if EFIS is all you got i don't know how to fly. And i'll show you the big dif between a ,YES, old fat lady and a todays model

[glhcarl]

The Frisbee rairing replaced a lot of sound deadening lead wool in the upper aft fuselage

There was no sound deadening "lead wool" used in the L-1011.

The insulation batts were made from spun fiberglass with tedlar covering.

[tonytech2]

Sorry but there was lead wool in aft overhead of the early aircraft. I saw them putting it in at Palmdale in 1972 and 1973. Came out later with improvements.

Also, air cycles sounded like muted police sirens in early aircraft. The finally put in tuned mounts for them.

[glhcarl]

Sorry but there was lead wool in aft overhead of the early aircraft. I saw them putting it in at Palmdale in 1972 and 1973. Came out later with improvements.



You can be "sorry" all you want, but I worked on the production line from 1970 (s/n 1001) to 1977 (s/n 1145) when I became a training instructor, in 1982 I went in to product support and worked there until I retired. All that time the insulation batts were made of spun fiberglass with tedlar covering, no lead wool.


Also, air cycles sounded like muted police sirens in early aircraft. The finally put in tuned mounts for them.


They sounded like unmuted police sirens on the late aircraft. But, you expect that from something spinning 28,000 RPM.

[Old Fella]

Noted b377's comment about the B727 being a Trident "look-alike". Yes they do look similar but that is about where any comparison ends. By the way the B727 went into service before the Trident and, as we all know, was a "best seller" for many years for Boeing. Back to the thread though, the L1011 was a magnificent aircraft to crew, the RB211-22B powered variants was a bit "ropey" at high FL's, but still a very efficient and proficient aircraft in which the crew did not suffer the "dog box" flight deck conditions encountered in many other types.

[ALK A343]

ASFKAP,
Very valid point. I do not know why nobody picked up on the flying tailplane. DLC probably does not make sense in the day and age of Flap 3 landings on Airbus, although the A318 has partial spoiler deployment for steep approaches.
There are other features though which found their way into other successful programs. FMS is one of them and was introduced on the L1011-200 with Saudia I think and many -500 customers used them. It paved the way for what most of us Airbus drivers take for granted like optimum climb, cruise, descent speeds, optimum cruise flight levels and much more.
Also the Airbus soft cruise looks very similar to that of the -500.
The -500 was the first aircraft in which you could hold a optimum cruise Mach number with the use of FMS and Autothrottle. Small Mach variations are corrected by pitch commands letting the cruise altitude vary by +- 50 ft, whereas larger variations are corrected by smooth throttle adjustments. Looks very similar to our A320 ALTCRZ doesn't it.

[b377]

I did not know such a material had a place in aviation. Are we talking real Plumbum wool? I note comment that fiber glass was used in the TriStar but wonder which jets actually used Pb for acoustic damping and how much it accounted for total weight.


As i always like to know the reason why things are called what they are
any advances on why it was christened a Frisbee fairing ?

[b377]

That would undoubtedly be because the specific airline did not know how to avoid the 'clunks'.

Like lining the gear well with lead wool? :)

Interesting that operators have freedom to do something about such (airline specific) ergonomic features - I pressume it would require manufacturer/FAA approval?

[411A]

Interesting that operators have freedom to do something about such (airline specific) ergonomic features - I pressume it would require manufacturer/FAA approval?
No, no changes to the airplane at all...only specific operating procedures.

The -500 was the first aircraft in which you could hold a optimum cruise Mach number with the use of FMS and Autothrottle.

Negative.
All SV and DL long body aircraft had Hamilton Sundstrand FMS units installed (dual installation) which accomplished the specific function mentioned.

And yes, I've flown these specific models as well.

[b377]

... in which the crew did not suffer the "dog box" flight deck conditions encountered in many other types.

But not as spacious as the B-377 green house. Not sure if any airline had Stratocruiser served routes to Austraila for you to remember the GH. :)

[b377]

No, no changes to the airplane at all...only specific operating procedures


Understood, I'll take issue with those heavy handed BA pilots next time. http://static.pprune.org/images/rating/rating_5.gif

[hawker750]

ASFKAP
Here is one pilot who did not enjoy the L1011 much. I felt it was too fusy and complicated and kept going wrong! But I had been spoilt by 5 happy trouble free years
flying a proper 3 holer from Long Beech!

[b377]

Lockheed, simply designed and built to a higher standard....with proper RollsRoyce engines

Those proper RR engines nearly bankrupped both companies and the early 211 engines have been knocked apreciably in this thread. Perhaps Lheed would have fared better with GE or PW.

[hawker750]

ASFKAP
LOL, I will take my chances! Complicated? yes. Understood it? most of it. The DLC in my view was a joke, lockheed only put it on because it was unstable, strange the idea never really took off.

[hawker750]

Cannot wait for Arizona to wake up! Isn't that the place where all the old boneyards are, mainly full of 1011's?

[b377]

He might (understandably) start spelling RR with small r's if you two keep on.

[FE Hoppy]

The DLC in my view was a joke, lockheed only put it on because it was unstable
Do a little research on longitudinal scatter and get back to us.
I was at a HUGS symposium earlier this week where it was a big selling point for HUGS. DLC was so good that airports got upset.

[b377]

DLC was so good that airports got upset.

Simple they should dither the ILS GS :)

[tonytech2]

I was in first maintenance training class in fall of 1971, ran Tech Services for EAL for northern region from JFK during the B747 and L-1011 eras, became director of aircraft overhaul and years later was the Chairman of one of the last L011 Maintenance and Engineering conferences held by Lockheed in Greenville while at Tradewinds.
Not going to get into a flaming match over lead wool in the upper aft cabin - it was there on earliest EAL aircraft. Yes, the remainder of the insulation was the pink stuff in bags.
Re the air-cycle, they originally bolted them to the cabin floor beams. Not the best idea ever and when I was riding the proving runs for the first delivery to EAL it was really bad. Rising and falling sirens and right under first class too.
The L-1011 did suffer from Lockheeds predilection for over-sophistication just like the Electra and Constellations. I started at Lockheed New York back in 1954 before going to Eastern in 1964 so know them well. The shutdown of the L-1011 effort during the Rolls bankruptcy did mess things up and they lost continuity. Delta mastered the L-1011 better than EAL but only with a lot of dedicated effort. And there is no doubt that that the later aircraft were vast improvements over the initial efforts.
As stated, flying wise, Lockheed has always excelled according to the flight crews I worked with. Sort of a love-hate relationship with the L-1011.

[411A]

The DLC in my view was a joke, lockheed only put it on because it was unstable

Do a little research on longitudinal scatter and get back to us.
I was at a HUGS symposium earlier this week where it was a big selling point for HUGS. DLC was so good that airports got upset.

FE Hoppy is correct, and those that didn't understand DLC, didn't appreciate it operation.
In fact, at one airline, a few of the Captains would regularly disable the DLC/Auto Spoiler system, so a memo from the L10 Fleet Manager was sent out to these few, and it said in part....'If you want to attempt to land the airplane like a Boeing product, you can do so at another company.':}

[hawker750]

411a
My point entirely, lockheed had to install it to make it land safely, if it was so good why didn't Boeing copy it?

[b377]

Beg tell please the reason other manufactures didn't adopt DLC was it a Lockheed patent protected system?

[hawker750]

I am not knocking DLC for what it did, it made for a superbly stable approach, my point is that it should not be necessary to resort to such systems. More weight, more cost, more maintenance and more to go wrong

[411A]

My point entirely, lockheed had to install it to make it land safely, if it was so good why didn't Boeing copy it?

I suspect Boeing simply did not have the technical expertise to do so.:uhoh:
In fact, speaking of technical expertise, my local airport neighbor, who parks his GA airplane next to mine, is a retired Boeing design engineer.
His exact words, from a conversation about a month ago...."When we first got a close look at the systems and avionics integration on the L1011, it was a huge wake up call for those of us in Seattle, Lockheed was years ahead of anything we even had on the drawing board."

And, so it goes...someone had to be first.
Lockheed most certainly was, without a doubt.

[Graybeard]

Lockheed has always built stiff winged airplanes. Witness the failures on C-130s and C-5s. The stiff wing is more efficient, but has to be far more rugged, and gives you a rougher ride. Douglas built a moderately stiff wing, and when you watch the swinging outboard engines on a 747, you wonder how they ever calculated angle of attack.

Nobody has mentioned Active Controls, computers that allowed the -500 to add more span without beefing up the wing.

As I mentioned early on in this thread, the DC-10 and 747 had sheet lead blankets to deaden the buzz saw sound on takeoff. I was told the 727 also had sheet lead in the sidewalls, until the fuel crisis of 1973. There is no better sound deadener.

GB

[hawker750]

DLC
It was so stable and smooth that I think that the crew of a well known charter carrier out of Gatwick found it so smooth that they fell asleep on the approach into a Greek Island, forgot to flare, broke the rear pressure bulkhead and another of Lockheeed's finest had to be dispatched to the bone yards of Arizona.
Sorry 411A not my favourite plane, but please do not take it personally

[411A]

Douglas built a moderately stiff wing....


....which seems to snap off at the root occasionally on MD-11 types.:eek:

[glhcarl]

DLC
It was so stable and smooth that I think that the crew of a well known charter carrier out of Gatwick found it so smooth that they fell asleep on the approach into a Greek Island, forgot to flare, broke the rear pressure bulkhead and another of Lockheeed's finest had to be dispatched to the bone yards of Arizona.


Thank you for the complement, as I was the Lockheed representative on site.

[airfriend]

I am quite interesting in L-1011 AP as it seems to have been a pioneer of Cat3.
I have seen Flare, Align, Roll-out and aproach lights on pilots' main instrument panel but I haven't seen any push-button to engage the autoland mode. How was-it managed ?

[avionic type]

AS a Avionics engineer on L1011s with British Airways I must protest at the claim Lockheeds pioneered Cat 3 landings I also worked on the DH121 Trident which was doing Cat3b landings way back in the early 70s long before we had our Tristars, Smiths Autopilot division pioneered automatic landings way back in the 50/60s and the Trident was built with that system in mind Triple Hydralics, Triple none parallel electrical sytems as demanded by the C.A.A at the time and a host of safety measures including multi system reading flight data recording .I admit the L1011 system was better in the end but it had laser gyros and other better electronics which were not available to the Trident as they were in their infancy nor developed at the time the Smiths system was conceived.
As for engaging the auto land system on the Tristar you normally flew with either "A" or "B" autopilot engaged the other had to engaged as well but I,m afraid the routine after that has become a "Senior Moment" and I can't remember the sequence after , I can remember the test set transmitted a glide slope signal and the height was decreased until we got it to land this had to be done slowly or the horizontal stabilzer used to move too much and the nose would oscillate trying to follow the gyro system.

[airfriend]

Please forgive my mistake and misunderstanding. As I am almost young I am more aware of recent aircraft. I have recently begun to study oldest aircraft like VC10, Trident or Tristar, knowing they are all capable of autoland.
When I have talk of pioneer in fact I was thinking of fail-operational digital autopilot of L1011.

in addition of engagement of autoland mode, I was also wondering how pilots were informed of selected Decision Height.

[411A]

When I have talk of pioneer in fact I was thinking of fail-operational digital autopilot of L1011.


In actual fact, only the last few L1011's manufactured had digital autopilots, all the rest were dual channel fail-operational analogue design.

Sequence for automatic approach/land (autoland) with the L1011.
Only one autopilot is engaged for maneuvering, in heading mode, approaching the final approach course.
On that final intercept heading, the A/L switchlight is depressed, and at this time, the second autopilot is engaged.
The aircraft intercepts the final approach course, and continues inbound.
At 1500 feet agl or 25 seconds after glidepath interception, automatic approach land track is established.
The autopilot rudder channel reverts to parallel operation (rudder pedals move in response to autopilot inputs), and when flaps are selected to the landing flaps position, direct lift control (DLC) becomes operational.
During the final approach segment, a series of voting circuits constantly monitors all four autopilot channels, and will reject a faulty signal from one...or two.
In this case, a 'no dual' message appears, and the approach is continued to category two minima.
At 150 feet radio height, runway alignment begins.
At 50 feet radio height, the auto flare maneuver begins.
At 5 feet radio height, autothrust is disconnected.
Upon touchdown, autospoilers are actuated, and the airplane continues to track the localizer...right down the runway centerline.

In over 800 autolands with the L1011, I have only had to discontinue one...and that was due to a localizer transmitter ground failure.

L1011, a truly remarkable, reliable airplane, for autoland operations.

in addition of engagement of autoland mode, I was also wondering how pilots were informed of selected Decision Height.


With category three operations, there is no decision height, only an alert height.
For category two autoland operations, the L1011 uses a decision height via the dual radio altimeters.

[Pugilistic Animus]

411A I think that your systems knowledge for the type is extremely sparse :p:ouch:

PA:}

[Graybeard]

The original L-1011 Autoland system was a joint effort by Collins and Lear-Siegler. The L-1011-500 had the digital Autoland by Collins. I don't know if there were any later non-500 with the digital autoland.

GB

[411A]

I don't know if there were any later non-500 with the digital autoland.



Threre were not.

Additionally, if one watches very closely, with -22B powered airplanes, a slight thrust increase from the autothrottles is noted, at 30 feet radio height, just prior to thrust reduction.
This is to provide...the smooooth touchdown...that the L1011 is noted for.
With -524B4 engines, not needed.

L1011...in a class of its own, yes...old now, but still the gold standard to which others are compared...even today.
Dual/dual, fail operational.

A truly fine pilots airplane:)
In this latter case...just like the Electra.:ok:

[Basil]

with -22B powered airplanes, a slight thrust increase from the autothrottles is noted, at 30 feet radio height, just prior to thrust reduction.
Back in the early eighties I recollect Middle Eastern ops manager telling me: "This is the way the aircraft does it and you should also apply power in the flare."
If you say so, Abdul :ok:

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi 411A,

In this case, a 'no dual' message appears, and the approach is continued to category two minima.

I think that's an FAA regulation which didn't recognise the "double dual" redundancy in the Autopilot A/L system. The UK CAA permitted us to revert to CAT III single limits of 50 radio & 200m RVR with a "DANA" warning. PFM.

Interestingly - in the early days - it was only the UK which permitted us to use CAT IIIB NO DH, 75 m RVR limits. France etc. insisted we use CAT IIIB with 15 ft DH limit & 75m RVR (required a runway centre line light or marking to be visible). I believe this "mini DH" is coming back in again for low vis ops in France.

[411A]

PFM.


Indeed, PFM...must be seen, first hand, to be believed.:ok:

And, just think...forty years old, this year.

[Graybeard]

From a retar'd TWA Capt:

Lawren wrote:

In a 31 year career I only made 2 or 3 Cat III approaches (L1011) which was enough. It's a full automatic landing so the pilot is just along for the ride until after the aircraft is on the runway.

[john_tullamarine]

In this latter case...just like the Electra

Salut, good sir !

[CaptAirProx]

Well having worked on several for a few years, I can still say she was the best.

So much so that when I visit Kavala, Greece, I struggle to complete the checklist or write the techlog as I stare in utter delight at such magnificent lines and memories to boot.

Why oh why is a lovely 200 sat in Kavala having been dumped there. It is such a waste. Those RB211's are just spinning in the wind without a care in the world....

411A can you come and rescue her??

[Semaphore Sam]

I recall about 7-8 years ago walking among parked L-1011's in Taif, about 10-15 of them, the engines clacking away in the wind; maybe a year ago 2 or 3 workers were assigned to start dismantling one of them (they had been stored there since...1995 or so?). They cut into a wing, and started a fire which killed them. No one had thought to check if they had been de-fueled after being parked, which they hadn't. They weren't preserved or stripped, just taxied into parking and abandoned, and they sit like that to this day!

[411A]

411A can you come and rescue her??

Oddly enough, our small consulting/management company has been asked to look into...this very thing.

[CaptAirProx]

Oh great - maybe I shall see her gear doors raised once again. There is still pressure in the tyres too.

I have pictures taken today if they are of interest....

And I can get more close ups if you need.

[411A]

You do consulting for a scrap metal company as well....?


Sorry, ASFKAP, just because you could not keep L1011 aircraft...going...does not mean that others, cannot.:}

[Capot]

The autoland could be beaten.....Lockheed brought a L-1011 with a smile on its nose to demonstrate to Gulf Air in 1974, perhaps '75 or so. It had CCTV fitted - for the demo flights only - so that passengers could see the view through the windshield as well as the top of the panel on the IFE screens.

The purpose was that the demo crew would put their hands on the top of the panel during the approach and landing so that guests/potential buyers could see that it really was done "no-hands".

The first demo flight was from Bahrain, to Doha, on to Abu Dhabi, then Dubai showing off the automatics each time. But at Doha a vast new hangar had just been built in the wrong place by the military, resulting in a terrible kink in the localiser at about 300 feet on the GS.

We flew sedately down the approach from 2000 ft or so, watching the hands calmly resting on top of the panel as the runway got closer and closer, while those of us who know about the kink wondered what would happen.

What happened was a sudden violent oscillation as 4 hands disappeared off the panel coaming so fast you couldn't even see the blur. That landing was completed manually.

[avionic type]

411A a slightly "offthread " Question, you have brought back many memories of the L1011 auto pilot one last memory jogger, did it have a type of system of "Distance to go " on touchdown to the end of the runway as the Trident? we used Cat 3 B/C Autoland in low visability at L.H.R. and we had a gauge which the lengh of the runway was dialed in and through sensors on the main u/c wheels run down the distance to go but Cat3c was discontinued because of taxying in fog to the stands but was still used for Cat3B . I'm afraid though we worked on it a great deal as I've said before old age has somewhat dimmed the memory Thank you.

[411A]

...did it have a type of system of "Distance to go " on touchdown to the end of the runway as the Trident?

On BA (BEA) aircraft only, so far as I know.

[tristar 500]

Don`t remember GRM (Ground Run Monitor) on our (BEA/BA) TriStars.

tristar 500

[glhcarl]

Some L-1011-500's were equipped with Collins FCS-240 Digital Autopilots.

It took many years, but prior to their removal from service BA was able to up-grade their Tridents for CAT IIIa landings. The original Trident system was a CAT II system.

BA TriStars were ther first aircraft certified for CAT IIIb landings. With a BA L-1011-500 making the first ever in-service CAT IIIb landing a LHR in 1981.

[40&80]

I recall the GRM was fitted to Gulf Air Tristars and BA trained GF crews for hours how to taxi and also land using it...also its use on low vis takeoffs.
The GRM had two features...a ground speed read out for taxi speed monitoring and taxi distances in low vis under surface radar guidance.
The surface radar was not up to it... there was too much clutter... and the idea was dropped in favour at LHR of an Indian gentleman standing up in the back of a mini truck shinning a high power pencil beam light on the lower area of the L1011 nose cone to follow to the stands.
The GRM was set to the landing distance available for the landing runway during the approach checks.
After the auto land the auto pilot would remain engaged and the flight engineer would call out the distance to go on the ground run monitor and if at the 100meters call I as Captain saw more than 100kts IAS on my airspeed indicator I would apply the brakes also the flight engineer would be calling more brakes!..the general idea was he called 90meters if I saw less than 90 IAS OK if more I increased the braking and he was calling ever loudly for More brakes etc etc...this was never a factor.
If the auto pilot disconnected on landing the armed PVD would unshutter and provide visual streaming guidance to follow to stay on the runway centre line via the ILS loc. signal...The Flight engineer calls remaining.
We were trained to stay on the centreline on low vis take offs and used the PVD display and runway ILS signal for this..the visual reference was initially two centre line lights and generally more in practice however as you accelerated the centre line lights tended to have a streaming effect.
If visibility fell on the takeoff roll your scan and visual clues shifted from centreline down to centre line lights and if you lost them naturally down to the PVD indications...if for any reason the takeoff was abandoned the scan was performed in the reverse order...that was the general idea as you sort to also do all the good things to get it stopped as soon as possible.
The GRM on takeoffs was set the appropriate takeoff chart and set according to the landing chart for landing.
On a rejected takeoff the GRM call outs were as per the landing call outs.

[Vc10Tail]

I have had the pleasure of flying an L1011 simulator at GF un-aided in both normal and engine failure configuration...and that was before I enrolled for my PPL, admittedly I was qualified in but still never practiced Avionics(in which we did peruse Tristars' AFCS).This is a great credit to a marvelously complex airplane yet so simple that a layman(as I was then) could feel at home flying it.
My first landing was done manually and was a greaser(without conscientious effort-perhaps due to the flare attitude and efficient response of the All moving tail plane)- and mimicking the autoland,mild thrust burst at 30ft radio height always rewarded me with a humbling grrrrrreeeeeaaser it made me feel the plane just had to baby sit you on the ground...you didn't quite get the feel you did it all by yourself!I applaude and salute the genius engineers ,scientists an all who contributed to her inception.Incidently its initial prototype design ranged from a 727 to 737 on testosterone (or 777) look alike but the three holer of the latter form won the marketing show.The only thing that sometimes spoilt the otherwise sensual moment of an L1011 touch down paint job was the rattling uphpolstery of the overhead bins!or ws it mainly a -200 affair?

Did the -500 incorporate the first Fly -By-Wire system?...active ailerons?

Inspite of all the compliments we accolade the Majestic Tristar..it had to be from lessons learn't from the predecessors like Trident,VC-10(lets not forget this super whale tail had the most sophisticated triplex Autoland at that time) and of course the queen of the skies ... her ladyship...Concorde!I am of firm belief that modern Airbus Fly by wire tech plane designers held these old birds at awe for the inspiration they had imparted.I hope I hadn't missed any compliments due for Big ol Fat Al (747)...what contributions to AFCS and Auto Land did the jumbo bring...or did s/he just inspire mammoth proportions on fuselage designs?Give her credit for the way she handles...like a well behaved lady...with the might of an iron fist lady should the wrong moment dictate!:E


I wonder what more refinements we are going to see in our future generations? Auto take-offs(which I recall reading that the Tristar was capable of but wasn't certified)... or at least auto rejected take-offs?!...well its just food for thought...am sure you ppruners will dart back with all kinda philosophical answers that might kickstart a whole new thread!:ok:

My saddest period was(prior to my flying career taking off-most definitely inspired by Tristar but not without admiration of the Trident and VC10) my involvement in engineering the phase out of Tristars to replace them with 767s...and as mistakes were learn't to reconsider instead the A330/340 and MD11 as the only competition that could offer true widebodied feel(the 767 and 310S JUST GOT IN THE WAY SO TO SPEAK!:rolleyes:.

It was from the tristar that STARTED THINKING DIGITALLY AND ACCORDED THE TITLE THE MOST INTELLIGENT PLANE IN THE SKIES!:8we started thinking fly by wire, comfort-wide-bodied feel in the air...with sexy stews in micro skirts and hot pants!The true Golden and lavish years of Aviation abruptly came to an end...when the open skies politics landed us buses and drivers the likes of Tom, Dick ...and Harry!Thanks to LCC carriers....the fuselage is just gonna shrink further...hopefully not to extinctinction though!:(

[tristar 500]

I do not wish to start any arguments BUT Trident 1 & 2 were not Cat3b on delivery but were upgraded later on. My Best Ever Airline book says that by January 1966G-ARPB had made over 1000 auto test landings. By 1969 Tridents were cleared for Cat 2 landings in normal service. Trident 3`s were delivered with Cat 3B & the first one in anger was made on 30 December 1972.

If I remember correctly, as part of the ongoing development of autoland the BEA/BA TriStars were delivered with Cat 3B capability straight from the factory.

Sorry for the partial thread drift!!

tristar 500

[411A]

If I remember correctly, as part of the ongoing development of autoland the BEA/BA TriStars were delivered with Cat 3B capability straight from the factory.



As I recall, you remember correctly.
Designed in Burbank, built at Palmdale...TriStar, in a class of its own...yes (at the time).
I must admit...the Rollers were great engines, too.
And...they still are.
Full marks for RollsRoyce.:ok:
In thirty years (going on...thirty one) of flying the beast, not one engine failed...only three were shut down, as a precaution.
Three shafts...work good:)
Quiet, too.

[40&80]

A L1011 trap the pilot feature BA trained against was the "Failure of the auto throttle drive motor".

When this silent failure occurred no warning was generated...they advised
always monitoring closely and knowing your ADI pitch attitudes.

Have you come across this one 411A....it can catch the "younger guys out!

Not a problem to the "older guys" with always one hand on the stick and the other on the throttles and a scan scan scan like a **** house rat!

May you live for ever.

[Graybeard]

Sorry if this came up before; don't remember.

ALCS, Automatic Lift Control System (Load Alleviation System?) was used in the -500 to let them lengthen the wing for more efficiency without beefing up its structure.

GB

[glhcarl]

ALCS, Automatic Lift Control System (Load Alleviation System?) was used in the -500 to let them lengthen the wing for more efficiency without beefing up its structure.

The Lockheed term for the load releaving system used on the extended wing -500's was, Active Controls System (ACS).

The -500 could be dispatched with the ACS inoperative. The input rod to the outboard ailerons servo could be lengthened by removing two bolts, extending the rod and replacing the bolts into two new holes. Complete instructions for the procedure were on a plastic lamaniated card carried in the F.E. desk drawer.

[Graybeard]

Thanks, Carl; that's it.

[411A]

The -500 could be dispatched with the ACS inoperative. The input rod to the outboard ailerons servo could be lengthened by removing two bolts, extending the rod and replacing the bolts into two new holes. Complete instructions for the procedure were on a plastic lamaniated card carried in the F.E. desk drawer.

Yup...however, a rather large takeoff weight penalty was imposed, as I recall.
Having said this...never had the system fail.
Worked to perfection.

Ahhhh, Lockheed:)

[40&80]

Ref Post 138
Guess I should tell this to someone who is really interested!
It seems nobody except me thinks this is a big deal and potential silent killer... and nobody has actually had the L1011 Auto throttle drive motor fail on them.
It sure caused me to wake up and react when I saw the pitch indication steadily increasing locked spot on the glide path two miles out on an actual Cat 3 for real auto land.
The value of pre exposure in the BA simulator via Captain Ray Piercy to this failure was proven at 6.00am that foggy morning.

[411A]

....and nobody has actually had the L1011 Auto throttle drive motor fail on them.


Never had that type of failure, however...is this not part and parcel of basic flying technique?
To keep the scan going and find these failures, unlike (apparently) with some new(er) folks who just seem to couple up the automatics, and then sit back, blissfully unaware that failures can and do occur...the recernt B737 accident at AMS is a perfect example.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi,

Can anybody remember anything about the RSB (recovery speed brake) on -500s? I think it was a UK CAA design restriction for high Mach No. flight.

[40&80]

It sure is part of a basic flying scan...however with this failure you do not need to goof off on your scan or be distracted for many seconds before you silently and with no warnings you get into potential tail strike attitude territory..and if you are really out to lunch the stick shaker quickly follows.
It is also dangerous if it occurs with the aircraft in ALTITUDE capture mode a couple of minutes prior to intercepting the ILS glide slope.
May be... try it in the simulator in a high workload environment....present it to the crew as training and do not brief them for it.. realistic training... and see how it goes... if the pitch gets to 11 degrees...follow with an autopilot disconnect...ask for a man land and see how pitch aware the crew are in avoiding a tail strike. Or ask for a missed approach and observe how pitch aware they are with tons of power coming on in high pitch with a low airspeed.
Both situations have acquired quite a lot more than normal back trim due this failure... if it is not picked up very quickly.
For average L1011 pilots like me it paid off being exposed in the above way to this failure.
A continuous scan and an awareness what you were looking for plus always a hand on the auto throttles to feel they are still alive... is the way to go.
I think the fact is especially on a two man crew it is actually quite difficult to stay scanning 100% of the time and think straight with all the other interruptions and demands piling in on the HP.
The L1011 with the flight engineer I found was much the safer operation at the end of a 12hour duty night compared to a two pilot B767.

[411A]

Can anybody remember anything about the RSB (recovery speed brake) on -500s? I think it was a UK CAA design restriction for high Mach No. flight.

Yes, a Brit requirement..totally unnecessary in my opinion, nevertheless...a UKCAA mandate.
Fitted to all -500 aircraft, as I recall.

Autothrottles.
I have personally performed at least 200 autolands (to CAT 3B minima) with manual throttles...and yes, it is allowed with our ops specs.
A requirement for our present training.
Train hard, fight easy.
A more or less simple concept to understand.

NB.
Some may have noticed...I like the L10.
Why?
Simply because...it was designed by folks who were very practical in their outlook, and...had the engineering expertise to ...make it all happen.
Lockheed, Collins, Litton, etc.

A superb airplane for (even) 'modern' folks...that is a forty year old design.

[wheezykid]

The CAA didn't like the perfectly acceptable solution of having the stick shaker operate at high speed (in place of RSB) as well as when approaching the stall.

The BA TriStars that went to the RAF (and became K1/KC1s) had RSB fitted (CAA certified). The Pan-Am ones (that became the C2/C2A) had the high speed shaker fitted (FAA certified). They were later brought into line and RSB fitted to the C2/C2A.

The CAA were concerned that at high altitude when a small margin existed between a Mach exceedance and the aerodynamic stall, the pilots would be confused as to the meaning of the stick shaker!

411A is right, my current 1970's -500 is just as advanced (and in some ways more so) than my last glass cockpit, HUD-equipped late 1990's designed piece of kit! It is a beautiful aircraft that rewards the skilled and saves the buffoons!

[glhcarl]

The CAA didn't like the perfectly acceptable solution of having the stick shaker operate at high speed (in place of RSB) as well as when approaching the stall.

The BA TriStars that went to the RAF (and became K1/KC1s) had RSB fitted (CAA certified). The Pan-Am ones (that became the C2/C2A) had the high speed shaker fitted (FAA certified). They were later brought into line and RSB fitted to the C2/C2A.

The CAA were concerned that at high altitude when a small margin existed between a Mach exceedance and the aerodynamic stall, the pilots would be confused as to the meaning of the stick shaker!



You are correct, Recovery Speed Brakes (RSB) were on CAA registered -500's only. Lockheed agreed with you and argued with the CAA that the stick shakers were more than effective and RSB was not required. However, the CAA would not accept Lockheed's data and RSB was added at the same time the extended wings/active controls were retrofitted.

Several years later, after BA sold their -500's to the RAF, Lockheed had to prepair a service bulletin for the two (2) Air Lanka -500's BA leased. The service bulletins incorporated the RSB computers and the addtion of vortex generators on the outer wing.

[ZQA297/30]

Like they said in ground school:
"P.F.M. (Pure F******* Magic), Works good, lasts long"
Mostly true, but when it went wrong, bring in the pros, the pretenders can't hack it.

[Lubricant Specialist]

REALLY SORRY THIS POSTING IS SO LATE. I ONLY JUST DISCOVERED THE THREAD AND THIS ORIGINALLY CAME UP IN ABOUT MAY 2009.


I worked on the BA Tristars, as a lubricants specialist for a major supplier of Synthetic Gas Turbine Lubricants, and back in the late 70's high oil consumption was an issue on some engines. Normal oil consumtion ran at anything up to a pint an hour per engine. Some engines were maintained to a high standard and burned considerably less, others were way up there at a pint and more.

Every once in a while, an engine would suddenly start to burn oil in quantity, requiring a manual shutdown. It transpired, the engine had a habit of producing flash fires within the oil system, ie: internal. This essentially burned off the oil vapour, creating very fine soot which eventually blocked the scavenge filters. When this happened the oil pump merrily bashed on, filled the bearing housings and eventually, quite quickly actually, vented the oil out of the bearing housing vents and over the side. The F/E would notice high oil consumtion from the rapid depletion of engine oil, resulting in a manual engine shutdown.

The cause of the flash fires was discovered on the test beds at Derby and an engineeriung fix quickly solved the problem once and for all.

So those posting personal knowledge of high oil consumption may well have been flying at a time when this problem was around. Those who have never seen it may well have experience with the type since about 1980.

I hope this helps.

On a nostalgic note a trip to RAF Brize Norton is always a treat. L1011 flying DLC and VC10 flying in one place on the same day. Pure joy!!