BRU Tristar visit

[jumbojet]

Nice to see the Tristar 500, in RAF colours, landing at Brussels BRU airport for the military side around 1400UTC today. A fine looking machine, even if somewhat flawed in its design!

[Arty Fufkin]

Ok, I'll bite.

Care to elaborate on the aforementioned design flaws?

[Redcarpet]

Ok, so will I. Why do you believe that one of the nicest to handle wide bodied airliners has a fundamental design flaw?

[jumbojet]

Bite? That was not the plan.

However, I feel the aircraft is far too complicated for its own good. I compare directly with the DC10 & B747. Even down @ basic engineering, such as "waste systems" the aircraft is a nightmare. Within BA Engineering the 2 most feared courses were the BAC 1.11 & the Tristar. & why? Because, when the British aircraft industry went t#ts up (not all its own fault) a lot of the designers went to Burbank where they worked their complicated over design into the Tristar.
The DC10 & 747 early models were not without their failings either. But as an operating aircraft they worked because of "keep it simple stupid" design.

Lockheed ran into severe financial problems, unfortunately, the aircraft was not updated. While the MD11 worked & the B744 took the table. May be an advanced & improved Tristar would of worked. I doubt it.

As Maggie said "the market speaks" & it didnt for the Tristar L1011, a mans machine!

By way, still a great machine!

Best rgds

Jumbo;

[Sygyzy]

Handle well she might, but a commercial airliner isn't designed just for circuits and bumps.

She was terribly short of legs. The -500 made up for some of that, at the expense of payload due to the shortened fuselage. Active ailerons (were they? I never flew the L1011) helped a little more and that brought the spec up to roughly where the DC10 was when it rolled off the production line. IIRC the L1011 had 237 seats where the DC10 had 273 with the group that operated both. Granted, the DC10 was a much simpler a/c, remember the chain operated outflow valve on the forward fuselage below the F/E's station. Tristars built~ 250. DC10's built~500

BA didn't give/sell them to Aunty Betty because they were making 'loadsamunny'. Quite the reverse I'd have thought, and pleased to see them go.


Wonderful technology-with Direct Lift Dump, or whatever it was called to enable a constant pitch attitude on approach, etc, but not something so innovative that everyone else has subsequently rushed to incorporate those innovations.

A wonderful cutting edge commercial airliner all ready to make money...I don't think so.

All because of design flaws.

S


Edit. Overlapped with Jumbo a little (timeline) but the thrust is the same.

[Redcarpet]

All very good and valid points, just thought I had to defend the old girl a little;)

[Rigga]

I thought all the RAF Tristars were ex-PanAm?

[RAFEngO74to09]

Ex-British Airways: K1, KC1 & C1.

Ex-Pan Am: C2 & C2A.

[NutLoose]

Rigga you fool. ;) ..... You should know by now RAF never ever buy aircraft that are common to the rest of the fleet, far better to buy a jumble and mishmash of operators cast offs, then throw money at them. :p

The DC 10 may have had the advantages over the Tristar, but the Tristar just looked right with its flowing lines, unlike the DC 10 with its tacked on rear engine look.

[Courtney Mil]

Serious question from me for a change. I thought our Tristars (mixed fleet or not) were quite a sucess. Is that not the case? Always seemed to do a cracking job taking me all over the globe.

[stilton]

The Tristar never had a design caused accident.


Not something the DC10 or MD11 could come close to claiming :eek:

[Farfrompuken]

Design-wise it was pretty much spot on. In terms of technology, it's only now being left behind by the very latest airliners such as the 787.

Commercially, it wasn't a success; over ambitious engine design (on which most modern RR Trent engines are derived from) and ETOPS aircraft such as the 767 made it more costly to run.

The BA decision to drop them was largely based on some false assumptions (that it had four engines) and they wanted them back when they realised the error! But for a large carrier to be seen to drop such new aircraft at the time was its undoing.

Way ahead of it's time, sadly to its deficit. Why buy a Merc (L-1011) when a Mondeo (DC10) will do?!

[ORAC]

And only the RAF would end up buying as a tanker the only one of the two trijets off which you couldn't hang wing-pods.

But BA wanted rid of them, and the government wanted to help them......

[54Phan]

Well, the Tristar I saw taxiing in at around 1755 on October 12, 2011 certainly brightened my homeward commute even more, although I have no idea what it was doing at Pearson International. Lovely jet, though.:ok:

[NutLoose]

Was probably going Tech..

When they first arrived the RAF took the in flight entertainment out... Cannot have the passengers not sitting their bored witless, however it went back in later I believe.

[Motleycallsign]

IFE is an extra weight these days as most military pax seem to have their own personal entertainment systems that can be used in-flight. The original IFE was removed because of maintenance costs IIRC and replaced on the SA run with an individual video player, again proving costly in rechargeable batteries and a horrendous penalty clause if the videotape was 'misplaced'.

[Kitsune]

The L1011 was 'sold' to the RAF to make Thatcher's privatisation of BA work, to the tune of 60million quid. Once this had gone through feelers came from BA for a leaseback due to the capacity shortfall...:cool:

[NutLoose]

But auto land was an optional extra ;)

[Milo Minderbinder]

"The L1011 was 'sold' to the RAF to make Thatcher's privatisation of BA work, to the tune of 60million quid."

???
At the time the press announced they had been gifted, free, along with the spares - just as the VC10s had been earlier
Otherwise the RAF would have had their preferred second-hand DC10s, which if memory serves correctly were offered by Branniff (who had presumably gone bust by then??)

[stilton]

'
'At the time the press announced they had been gifted, free, along with the spares - just as the VC10s had been earlier
Otherwise the RAF would have had their preferred second-hand DC10s, which if memory serves correctly were offered by Branniff (who had presumably gone bust by then??)'


Braniff never operated the DC10 :sad:

[ORAC]

Laker Airways DC10s from Skytrain?

[Milo Minderbinder]

maybe. Or PAN-AM?
My memory definitely at fault though re Branniff

[ex-fast-jets]

In the late 70s/early 80s I flew regularly in both the L1011 and the DC10 - as a passenger.

At cruise, the Tristar seemed to me to be a few degrees nose up, whereas the DC10 passenger cabin was level.

That made the DC10 the better vehicle for transporting G&Ts to bored passengers. :bored:

[Alex Whittingham]

BA's accountants compared the operating costs of the -500 with the 747 using, amongst other data, the fuel/maintenance costs per engine and they decided that the L1011 was uneconomical in comparison. Allegedly, it was only after the sale was agreed that someone noticed that they had calculated the TriStar costings on the basis of four engines.

[Q-RTF-X]

In the mid 70's when I first went to work in the Gulf, the L1011 was reckoned by many as having a very high level of passenger appeal. I did a couple DXB/LHR/DXB rotations myself and found the experience met expectations.

[Arfer Minnit]

"The L1011 was 'sold' to the RAF to make Thatcher's privatisation of BA work, to the tune of 60million quid. At the time the press announced they had been gifted, free, along with the spares - just as the VC10s had been earlier. Otherwise the RAF would have had their preferred second-hand DC10s, which if memory serves correctly were offered by Branniff (who had presumably gone bust by then??)"

It is not true to say that the Tristars were 'gifted', however, the basic airframes and engines were acquired by MoD at no cost to UK plc because UK plc already owned them (British Airways being a nationalised entity at that time). The MoD requirement was for 4 strategic tankers and the stated preference was for the DC10-CF30. The DC10 bidding consortium which, I believe, included British Aerospace, were offering some ex- World Airways aircraft (World Airways were a bit strapped for cash at that time). When the procurement recommendation was submitted for Prime Ministerial approval, 'She Who Must Be Obeyed' quickly spotted that the choice was between forking out scarce dollars to buy the DC10s (remember that UK plc was, itself, a bit boracic at the time) and effecting a paper transfer of the Tristars from BA to MoD and keeping the cash within the Treasury. From that point of view, a no brainer. Moreover, the Tristars had British engines so any money spent on future engine support would stay onshore. Hence, the RAF got 6 strategic tankers against a requirement for 4 (which was the original reason why 2 of the 6 did not get the full conversion to tanker/freighter config) and BA got some 'unwanted' assets off its books.

Alex W has pointed out BA's apocryphal faux pas of counting 4 engines-worth of costs against the Tristar in an evaluation against the 747. Whether that is true or not, BA certainly was a bit sharp in arranging the temporary retention of 2 of the Tristar-500s (G-BFCA and G-BFCE) to serve their South American routes until these frames were required to enter the Tanker conversion programme and, thereafter, leasing 2 aircraft (1235 and 1236) from Air Lanka. These 2 aircraft, G-BLUS and G-BLUT, had digital flight systems which had not previously been certified by the UK CAA and it must have cost BA a bob or two to get them on to the UK Register so perhaps there is some truth in the tale.

[vascodegama]

The other suggested option at the time was brand new KC10s with the suggestion that we would have been allowed to jump the queue to get 5 in short order.

[esscee]

It was an accountants' error which based the cost of operating the L-1011's on 4 engines not 3 as fitted to aircraft. Later when the mistake was discovered, BA wanted the airframes back but MOD said too late, No. This emphasises the later BA decision to keep the other 2 -500's and they then had to lease some from Air Lanka.

[habu968]

Interesting after all these years, the discussion the Tristar still brings. I for one, miss it greatly.

The Tristar was built to be the finest engineered airliner of the time, and that had some drawbacks.

The DC-10 was built to a cost and rushed into production to compete with the Tristar, and that certainly had costs as well.

[NutLoose]

I bet a DC 10 wouldn't fly a circuit with it's wing spars sheared, a Tristar did.

[esscee]

It was the left rear spar that was sheared on 705 when autoland was selected BELOW capture height that day, and when it was being repaired it was noticed that the right rear spar had been similarly repaired on a previous occasion.

[habu968]

I had forgotten about the wing spar incident. Great point!!!

[Pete268]

The MoD requirement was for 4 strategic tankers and the stated preference was for the DC10-CF30. The DC10 bidding consortium which, I believe, included British Aerospace, were offering some ex- World Airways aircraft (World Airways were a bit strapped for cash at that time). When the procurement recommendation was submitted for Prime Ministerial approval, 'She Who Must Be Obeyed' quickly spotted that the choice was between forking out scarce dollars to buy the DC10s (remember that UK plc was, itself, a bit boracic at the time) and effecting a paper transfer of the Tristars from BA to MoD and keeping the cash within the Treasury. From that point of view, a no brainer. Moreover, the Tristars had British engines so any money spent on future engine support would stay onshore. Hence, the RAF got 6 strategic tankers against a requirement for 4 (which was the original reason why 2 of the 6 did not get the full conversion to tanker/freighter config) and BA got some 'unwanted' assets off its books.



If I may ask, if the requirement was for four aircraft and they 'bought' six from BA (which would more than seem to cover the requirement), why then did they subsequently purchase the three ex Pan-am aircraft?

Also was the rumour correct that only once they had paid for these three 'ex Pan Am' jobbies and got them over here in UK, did they realise (for some reason?) that they couldn't be converted to tankers?

I do remember back in the early 80's being SLF on one of the former BA TriStars flying back from Akrotiri. It was still in BA colours (with the word 'British' painted over on the fuselage) with a BA crew. I remember thinking it was very nice to sit in the direction that we were actually flying! This was of course before Mr Marshall got his hands on them to spoil what seemed like a very nice aircraft. Its strange to think that almost thirty years on they are still trucking and tanking around.

Pete

[Alex Whittingham]

Memory fades, but I thought we had four from BA and two from Pan Am. My recollection is that the original requirement was a tanker that could tank a Herc to Port Stanley from ASI, fail to get in, then tank it back. Of course when MPA was built the requirement became a bit redundant but no-one wanted to hand them back, particularly as the ex-Pan Am aircraft were doing such sterling service flogging up and down the South Atlantic. The ex-BA aircraft went into Marshalls first for a conversion that most people thought at the time wasn't really required, a better option would probably have been just to put centreline hoses on the standard aircraft thus preserving much of the freight capacity underfloor and the full seating capacity in the cabin whilst still leaving a reasonable fuel offload.

[vascodegama]

Yes Alex your memory has faded. We had 6 from BA and 3 from Pan Am. The BA AC were converted to K1 (4) and later KC1 (2). Later 2 K1s were further converted to KC1s giving us the 4 KC1s we have today. THe less said about the 949 fiasco the better. What I am not sure about is why the Pan Am ac did not have the same conversion as the BA to K1 programme.

[Wycombe]

The K1 was/is pretty limited as a pax/cargo aircraft, as it doesn't have the main deck freight door and pallet-compatable main deck of the KC1's. IIRC the K1 could carry around 200 pax (in the mid and rear cabins) and their bags/mail/small freight (in tins that are small enough to fit through a pax door) in the forward cabin, and that was it.

I always thought the ex-Pan Am's were deliberately kept as pretty much conventional TriStar 500's, in order for the 3 of them to primarily service the Falklands Airbridge with a "normal" pax cabin and the belly holds.

[Spooky 2]

I guess I was lucky in that I got to fly both the DC10 and L1011 for about four years each. From a pilots perspective I think the L1011 was a hands down winner. Quieter, faster and maybe just a little bit more comfortable. The DLC was an amazing feature and that along with a great autoland system made for an excellent lo vis operation.

The DC10 had a numebr of accidents, not all of which were design or build problems but enough to plant a real sore spot on it's reputation at the time.

[esscee]

The ex Pan Am -500's had different avionics, autopilot & also had PMS system rather than the more integrated FMS that the ex BA aircraft had, therefore they were not that compatible. But they were going cheap and one man's -500 is the same as another -500, not when they have different avionic systems, good old MOD strike again. When it came to find money to get 706 to a flying condition, well that took awhile due to the 705 "bouncing" incident which emptied the kitty somewhat. Later the money was found and they changed the avionics so that 706 was then designated as a C 2a rather than C2.

[Spooky 2]

Don't forget that some of the Pan Am -500's had the digital AP and others the original anolog system. As I recall the digital system did not allow for engine out autolands?

[cessnapete]

I think it wonderfull that a serviceable TriStar managed to get all the way to Brussels!

[NutLoose]

esscee
*
It was an accountants' error which based the cost of operating the L-1011's on 4 engines not 3 as fitted to aircraft.


Stuff like this never suprises me, I watched a large maintenanceo base go down with the help of Accountants, at the time they had one large four engined prop driven aircraft in on contract maintenance..
Accountants had costed it and found labour wise it was cheaper to use Contractors to carry out the check so flooded the hangar with contractors to do the inspection, the fact it was the only aircraft in and all the companies staff had no other work to do seemed to go over their heads, so they ended up with the strange situation of a hangar full of qualified and competent company engineers standing around forbidden to work on the aircraft and a load of extra contractors brought in to do the work, so they were then paying twice plus wages , something lost on the Company Accountants.. Wasn't suprised when it later went down the tubes..

[salad-dodger]

Really NutLoose, given the terms most contractors are employed on, you do surprise me.

S-D

[Arfer Minnit]

Hmm! Never thought this was going to turn into a mini series but here goes:

Pete 268; It does seem a bit odd, doesn't it, that an original requirement for 4 aircraft should end up with the RAF having a fleet of 9. However, the 4 aircraft requirement was a post Op CORPORATE idea to support the South Atlantic theatre ( Alex W got it about right despite confusion over numbers). The idea was to have 4 aircraft, 2 based at Ascension, 2 at Brize - the ASI aircraft would rotate back to Brize via British Caledonian at Gatwick (for servicing and de-snagging) and be replaced at ASI by aircraft from Brize. This idea sort of collapsed when they got the wrong number of the wrong aircraft supported by the wrong contractor - still, anyone can make a mistake can't they?

Having got the Tristar, the Air Staff took a look at the longer term tanker needs (bear in mind this was still in the Cold War era) and many learned papers were circulated covering quantity of fuel and number of hoses required to meet all the perceived defence commitments. The upshot was that a further 3 Tristars were procured with the intention of these being converted to tankers (K Mk 2s) to supplement the K/KC Mk 1s and the VC10 K Mk2s and K Mk 3s and Victors as the future tanker fleet. Incidentally, an option considered early in this process was to get hold of some Tristar-1 (long bodied) aircraft. At the time, the arrangements for the construction of Mount Pleasant airfield were being finalised and these included sizing the hangar that would accommodate the Tristar (should the need arise). The -1 Tristar is some 13 odd feet longer than the -3 (-500) so the hangar was specified to be capable of accommodating the larger aircraft. As it happened, the Tristar -1 plan was not progressed, however, several years later, following the demise of the C130 C Mk 1(K) (really useful ship), it was decided to deploy the VC10 K Mk 3 to Mount Pleasant. The VC10 K Mk 3 is some 13 odd feet longer than the Tristar -3 and the hangar at Mount Pleasant was just the right size for it - pure serendipity!

The 3 Tristars procured from Pan Am were intended to be converted into tankers. There would have been some minor differences from the ex BA aircraft due to cargo door configs but nothing really substantial. It would have been some time before these aircraft could have been fed in for conversion so it was decided to operate 2 of them in their existing AT config on the South Atlantic airbridge (save the cost of chartering BA 747s and give RAF crews experience on the aircraft pending the intro of the tankers). One of the 3 ex Pan Am aircraft (706) was retained at Cambridge to become the design slave and prototype K Mk 2 and work commenced to this end. By this time, post CORPORATE euphoria was starting to wear off and the need for 9 tankers with the fuel capacity of the Tristar K/KC Mk 1 was being questioned. A scaled down version, the C Mk 2(K) (much as Alex W alluded to) was considered but then the whole thing descended into indecision and 706 began its 'long term corrosion trial' at Cambridge. The recovery of 706 was considered after 705 did its whoopsie but it would have taken as long to generate 706 as it would to repair 705 so that idea was a non-starter.

Overlaid on all this was the saga of the wing pods. Much has been written on this forum about the supposed inability of the Tristar to carry Mk 32 pods and a lot of it is ill-informed. The pods requirement was there from the start but the need to get a tanker into service to support the South Atlantic led to the installation of pods being deferred. At the start there were problems with putting pods on the Tristar -3. There were 2 possible sites on the wing on which the pods could be mounted - one of these (outboard) risked interference to stable drogue flight from the active outboard ailerons. The other (inboard) placed receiver aircraft too close to the horizontal stab of the Tristar. However, the development of a Mk 32 pod with a 79 ft long hose offered the possibility of the pod being positioned on the wing clear of the active ailerons and with the drogue flying well clear of the stab. However, at that time MoD(PE) was in thrall to the deity of competition - everything had to be competed whether or not that actually achieved anything. The arrangement prposed was for Marshalls to design the pod installation, carry out the first installation, flight test then prepare a bidders package to enable the installation of pods on the remaining aircraft to be competed. The installation was to be carried out concurrently with aircraft scheduled maintenance and the whole programme would have taken about 9 years. Pods slipped into the background! Whether or not the installation would have been successful must remain a matter for conjecture.

When, eventually, it was decided to bring 706 into service the airframe had been seriously mucked about to prepare it for life as a tanker. The changes were retained and the aircraft came into service as a C Mk 2A. Thus the RAF ended up with a fleet of 9 aircraft comprising 4 discrete marks - you couldn't make it up, could you?

[Courtney Mil]

Thank you for that amazing insight, AM. Well put and fascinating. MOD(PE) et al at their best, then.

[BEagle]

The VC10 K Mk 3 is some 13 odd feet longer than the Tristar -3 and the hangar at Mount Pleasant was just the right size for it - pure serendipity!

Whereas it is too small for the A330 - a fact which was first flagged up some 12 years ago.....:rolleyes:

The arrangement prposed was for Marshalls to design the pod installation, carry out the first installation, flight test then prepare a bidders package to enable the installation of pods on the remaining aircraft to be competed.

When some of the Marshall Design Team went flying in a VC10K, they were horrified at the small amount of hose whip which always occurs during winding/trailing. "It looks like we'll have to think again about the pylons", was their comment. And yet the programme had been underway for quite some time. If I recall correctly, it was only after questions were asked in parliament about the amount of money being spent on the pod programme, that the proposal was canned.....:uhoh:

[recce_FAC]

Ive heard tales that 705 has the nick name Damien due to its constant bad luck and faults.I'm pretty sure it flew me out to afghan a few years ago.

[Pete268]

AM,

Many thanks for that. Very enlightening and an exercise in 'good' procurement if ever there was!!

I particularly liked the bit about 706 having its 'long term corrosion trials' at Marshall's. I gather K1 949 has since taken on this mantle!

Thanks again.

Pete

[XV277]

Hmm! Never thought this was going to turn into a mini series but here goes:


The 3 Tristars procured from Pan Am were intended to be converted into tankers. There would have been some minor differences from the ex BA aircraft due to cargo door configs but nothing really substantial.

Interesting - so the story peddled that they couldn't be converted to tankers because the different rear cargo door configuration meant they couldn't fit the HDU in was just that, a story?

[lincman]

In response to Jumbojet, I worked at Weybridge on 1-11s and at Burbank on the L-10 and met nobody there who worked on the 1-11. I can think of nothing about the 1-11 design that transitioned to the L-10. Yes, there were a few Brits working on the L-10 but they were from Astronaut House in Feltham and had worked on the C-5 wing and transferred to the L-10 wing in Burbank.
The biggest problem for the L-10 was the engine choice. Airlines had a 'choice' of one engine - the R-R RB211-22B. Putting out 42,000 lbs thrust on a standard day barely gave it US transcontinental range. The -524B engine improved things a bit with 48,000 lbs thrust but this version of engine was the most problematic of all the RB211 types. The -524B4 with the same thrust was a lot better and this engine was on the -500s. Probably the 'best' version of the L-10 was not developed by Lockheed but by Delta Airlines who converted all but one of their -200s into the hybrid -250s which combined the longer fuselage of the original -1 with the engines and fuel capacity of the -500.
Not sure why Direct Lift Control (DLC) did not catch on with others. It sure did provide a smooth descent with indescernable pitch changes. The system was remarkably reliable. The other 'first' on the L-10, Maneuvering Direct Lift Control (MDLC) using uplift on the outer aileron has caught on with a few others. If nothing else, the L-1011 was SAFE!

[Arfer Minnit]

Ah, Mr BEagle, we have been expecting you!

How very innovative of someone to let the designers see the kit in action even if it was some way into the project. I'm sure they saw, as you say, some aspects of pod operation that provided cause for thought. I'm also fairly confident they would have found a solution - designers tend to be quite clever chaps (sometimes)( But for goodness' sake don't let them know I said so). You may well be right about Parliamentary questions leading to the project's being canned (or so they thought - it did end up like Dracula - one thought it was dead but it kept rising from the grave with monotonous regularity).

Now, sir, about your impatient outburst regarding this Mount Pleasant hangar business. Twelve years, is that all? These things can't be rushed you know. Far better to wait unit we have a Voyager stranded down there for 6 weeks or so for want of a hangar slot. Then we shall be able to collect actual costs and put together a proper business case for the extension of the existing plane shed thingy instead of trying to justify expenditure on the basis of common sense or similar abstractions. Really! Do get a grip!

XV277,

It's true that the Pan Am Tristars did not have the C3 cargo door like the ex-BA aircraft. Whereas the HDUs on the K and KC Mk 1 came out of the side of the pressure box, those on the proposed K Mk 2 would have come out the front on right-angled rails through the C2 door (according to sketches I saw many years ago). This would have required a reduction in the number of fuel tanks in the rear cargo bay and I suppose this would resulted in a loss of 6 or so tonnes from the overall fuel load - can't remember what fuel figures were intended for the K2 (if I ever knew!).