PDA

View Full Version : british airways tristar


wayoutwest
22nd Dec 2010, 06:13
hi everybody.a couple of questions about b/a tristar.the 500 only lasted with b/a for 3-4 years it was bought for their long range routes but i guess it didnt do the job i just wondered why?.the aircraft was ordered by BEA but came into service with BA was it always intended to fly it on longer intercontinetal routes.

wayoutwest
22nd Dec 2010, 06:37
sorry i have the questions back to front.the a/c was ordered for BEAs heavy routes but was it intened for longer range and why was the 500 such a failer.

sisemen
22nd Dec 2010, 06:48
The RAF bought them. There are major serviceability problems at the moment - mainly because the world-wide Tristar fleet is not huge. Check out the military aircrew thread for chapter and verse.

Groundloop
22nd Dec 2010, 07:48
The original BEA order was for TriStar-1s for the European network.

BA then added TriStar-200s for long haul routes ( I flew LHR-Kuwait-Dubai-Dehli and Bangkok-Dubai-LHR in 200s) as 707/VC-10 replacements.

I believe the -500s were bought for South American routes.

Fantastic view from the jumpseat on a TriStar. The seat was raised up so that you could see over the Captain's shoulder and the window beside you came right down to your waist. Felt like you were almost floating in the sky!

Wander00
22nd Dec 2010, 07:54
You are right about the view from the jump seat - that is how I flew on both sectors from MPA to Brize in 1986 after my tour as first OC SSS at what was Mount Pleasant Airport when I arrived, and RAF Mount Pleasant when I left.

BEagle
22nd Dec 2010, 08:16
The ba TriStar 500s became surplus to requirements following airline restructuring. Some bright spark had realised that the RB211 installed on the TriStar burnt more fuel than the same engine on the Boeing 747. Fuel being expensive, the TriStars were up for disposal.....


....then someone else pointed out that, whilst the figures were true, the TriStar only had 3 engines, whereas the 747 had 4..:oh:..and the burn rate was nothing like 1.3 x the 747 rate..:\


Ahhh......b*gger it! Too late...:hmm:

TheChitterneFlyer
22nd Dec 2010, 08:51
Also, the DC10 could carry much more volume than the TriStar 500... and had greater range.

I flew almost all of the (BA and Caledonian) variants; except the -250; however, the -200/500s were my personal favourites. I eventually moved onto the B747 Classic; which was like going back into the dark-ages... especially when flying the -100. Those Pratt & Witney motors were very temperamental.

As for the TriStar... a very nice aeroplane.

Cue 411A...

TCF

Tagron
22nd Dec 2010, 09:28
BA was the launch customer for the -500. They chose it over the DC10-30 with RR engines though its payload range capacity was less than the DC-10-30. Political reasons almost certainly formed part of the rationale. Additionally BA had orders and options for -1s far in excess of shorthaul needs so converting these orders to the -500 made some sense.

The six initial -500s received by BA failed to meet their performance guarantees, allegedly by nearly 10%. In consequence they were returned to Lockheed for retrofit of the extended wingtips and active ailerons and the lower sfc -524D which became standard production features. Even so, they could not operate LHR-LAX without a payload penalty.

BA then decided they would prefer the higher capacity but shorter range of the -200 series. Eight of these were delivered.

The sale of the six -500s and the simulator to MoD was controversial at the time because they were sold at what was said by some to be a firesale price. Allegedly BA had an urgent need to shore up its balance sheet pre-privatisation and MoD was a willing customer.

Subsequently BA leased in two late production -500s from Air Lanka for use on the South American routes acquired from BCAL. These operated to a 6000 kg higher MTOW than the original BA -500s. This made LHR-GIG-GRU possible, though often it was a a close run thing.

Juan Tugoh
22nd Dec 2010, 12:20
The TriStar sims (-1 and -200/500) were not sold by BA to the MOD and indeed they were retained by BA until after they had sold off Caledonian to Inspirations in the mid 90s. Even then the MOD did not buy the BA sims but opted to buy a brand new one. The -1 sim went to BOH. I do not know what happened to the -200/500 sim.

The 6 -500's the MOD bought were a real bargain at the time £50 Million for 6. When later ex-Pan-Am jets were bought they cost £22Million each. Hence the controversy about fire sale prices.

tornadoken
22nd Dec 2010, 12:57
747SP inaugurated very long range (New York-Jo'burg) in April,1976. Pratt/747-200B was thought unable to go so far, and/or such sectors would be load-"thin", though yield-"high". Lockheed had barely survived bankruptcy (C-5 overrun) in 1972, but chose to launch L.1011-500 in August,1976, with a variant of RR's new 747-200B engine as RB211-524B4, duly funded by UK Govt. who ordered 6 -500 for new BA.

RR upgraded that as D4, which from 1985 gave 747/RR greater range - non-stop LHR-HKG - than 747/PW/GE. That stimulated Pratt and GE to do similarly efficient long range engines: capacity excess over 747SP/L.1011-500 was "free". From 1989 747-400, from 1991 MD11 were there. So L.1011-500's long legs were without longevity.

Lockheed might have sold more, but in 1981 they chose to terminate L.1011 program. Air India and Qantas were then in negotiation on -500.

Delta took over 3 from PanAm and United, 6. LTU operated a fleet of 2 on daily Dusseldorf-Los Angeles, 22 hr.rotation, for over a decade. When they put the slower MD11 on the route a third hull was involved. Not really a "failure", though there's a theory that "stretch" does but "shrink" does not work (see DC-9/30, DC-8/60, 727-200; but cf: 720, 747SP, Fokker 70).

Shaggy Sheep Driver
22nd Dec 2010, 20:31
I flew Manchester - New York and back on a BA Tristar for a work assignment a long time ago. Flashing my PPL got me the jump seat for the take off from Manchester and fully endorse what has been said above; one sat higher than and just behind the Captain so an excellent forward view, and that side window was like sitting beside a big patio window at home, but up in the air!

One felt totally exposed. I remember physically ducking as we flew through some scattered cu on that take off!

It was many years ago and I had to travel Economy in those days, but on my way back from the flight deck as we crossed Ireland I met the Business Class drinks trolley and got G&T in a proper BA glass! The steward in Economy was happy to keep on refilling it for the rest of the journey, however! I still have that glass despite a couple of decades of subsequent Business and First class travel! I also have a momento of my first ever First class flight - a Singapore Airlines teaspoon!

The return journey in that Tristar was the only time I've got an unrequested upgrade - to Business. Partly I think because we were in our suits having come straight from a meeting, and partly because we checked in early (we're a bit overbooked down the back. Would you two gentlemen like an upgrade?). Which was nice, 'cause we got those comfy seat for the night flight home.

treadigraph
22nd Dec 2010, 23:16
As a 10 year old spotter in very early 1975 (barely New Year) I recall watching a BA TriStar on a Dover departure over Purley, probably route proving I think. I'm not sure but think it may have been the first BA aircraft I saw in the full scheme, Tridents, VC-10s, etc were mostly still BEA/BOAC and possibly halfway in between...

Only TriStars I flew on were Delta Gatwick/Miami and return, about 20 years ago.

Phileas Fogg
22nd Dec 2010, 23:20
And if Tristar (L-1011) BA subsidary, British Airtours, operator want their brand new Union Jack, that they specially hoisted on their LGW flagpole for Charles & Di's wedding day, back then give me a call sometime because I still have it in my attic somewhere :)

411A
23rd Dec 2010, 16:13
As for the TriStar... a very nice aeroplane.

Cue 411A...


You called?;)

Having flown all TriStar varients over the last 31 years, my favorite is the Delta-modified -250...same all up weight as the -500 (510,000 pounds) active ailerons not required, standard body (not short, like the -500), and seemingly (although, not quite) the long range.
The -524B402 engine is superb...never a problem with any of them.
The -200 was also very reliable, with -524B02 engines.

The RAF problems stem mostly (I believe) from poor funding and their inability to find the needed spares, as there are plenty of serviceable spares available...now.
However, these are going fast, so the RAF had better act, in quick time.
Hardly likely, it seems.:rolleyes:

oldchina
23rd Dec 2010, 19:53
To my knowledge the only successful shrink of a widebody is the A330-200.

All other attempts (747SP, TriStar 500...) have failed dismally.

The 787-8 is also a shrink: too small to earn money.

glhcarl
23rd Dec 2010, 22:46
The six initial -500s received by BA failed to meet their performance guarantees, allegedly by nearly 10%. In consequence they were returned to Lockheed for retrofit of the extended wingtips and active ailerons and the lower sfc -524D which became standard production features. Even so, they could not operate LHR-LAX without a payload penalty.


The six (6) BA -500's along with two (2) Delta and one (1) BWIA -500's were delivered with the standard -1 wings (sans active controls). There was no performence guarantees applied to these aircraft as all the operators knew they were not the baseline configuration. Once the active controls flight testing was completed, using the house aircraft s/n 1001 and two Pan Am -500's, all nine (9) of the -500 with the short wings had the wing extensions retrofitted along with the active controls.

An interesting fact: With-in a year of BA selling their -500's to the RAF they turned around a leased the two (2) Air Lanka -500's and operated them or three (3) years.

innuendo
23rd Dec 2010, 23:15
All other attempts (747SP, TriStar 500...) have failed dismally.

Have to take issue with you there. We had six L1011-500s, extended wing, active wing load relief, FMS. I spent three years on them and I believe they worked out well for the company. Our regular ones did not have the range for the routes that the -500 was on.
I thought that it was one of the best aircraft I flew, although I realise that that does not make them a commercial success. Never the less, I think the aircraft was a success for our company.

Phileas Fogg
24th Dec 2010, 00:03
I'd say the A310 was a successful wide-body shrink of the A300, having worked for the UK's inaugural operator of the A300, that suffered a couple of single engine failure on take-off's, that ressembled cinema seating within the cabin, then along comes the A310 which became one of my favourite aircraft to fly in.

twochai
24th Dec 2010, 02:00
The 787-8 is also a shrink: too small to earn money.


Not necessarily, it all depends how much you pay for them!

Seat62K
24th Dec 2010, 08:45
I recall -500s being used on the London-Bermuda-Mexico City route but can't remember whether they replaced 747-136s entirely from London to Bermuda.

I also seem to recall nonstop operations from London to New Orleans with the -500s.

Seat62K
24th Dec 2010, 09:51
I forgot to mention my surprise at seeing a full page BEA advertisement in "The New York Times" the morning after the first order was announced in August, 1972. I wondered how many people who saw this advert would have any idea what BEA was.

(Thinking about it, the advert may have been a joint effort with Lockheed and Rolls Royce.)

chevvron
24th Dec 2010, 09:51
I concur with the remarks about the jump seat. I did one trip from CDG to Heathrow, then later a Larnaca return trip as ATCO Fam Flights.
When the RAF first bought them, the first one was brought to Farnborough to check its IR signature and (possibly) for ECM fit? The IR signature checkout consisted of a number of runs for the boffins along the runway down to about 100ft! Awesome. I think it then went to Marshalls for 'militarisation'.

Props
24th Dec 2010, 19:21
The trouble with the Tristar in BA was that with a large 747 Fleet the 500 only got the routes that for some reason the 747 did .not want
When Royal Jordanian bought the 5 white-tails at Palmdale they used them on Long-haul routes to good effect.JFK- Amman with a full load and Vienna-Miami which I admit could be a bit of a struggle.
I speak as an interested party having flown for BA Saudi RJ Air Lanka and in a small way helped to form 216 squadron RAF

411A
24th Dec 2010, 20:39
And, CMB-LHR, 12 hours. Or, DUS-LAX.
Never a problem.
I operate two -500's now, on a somewhat regular basis, and the charter customers seem pleased.
The only problem?
Darn Airboos types keep getting in the way, with their s l o w cruising speeds.
767's, too.:*

NB.
When DAL retired their last TriStar, I was informed by a DAL exec VP that ( his exact words)...'The L1011 made us more money than any other type'.
DAL should know, as they were the largest operator.
TriStar...often admired, seldom equaled.
Especially for dual/dual CATIIIB.
After (personally) 16,000+ command hours in type, I have no complaints.

Lockheed delivered a fine ship.:ok:

WHBM
24th Dec 2010, 21:23
The first six Tristars were the definitive BEA order (a prototype came over to the UK with large BEA decals on it prior to the full BA merger), later ones went to BA mediumhaul routes (eg Gulf) for which they were more appropriate.

The -500s must have seemed a good idea at the time for long thin routes but turned out to be too expensive; the probably did not have much resale value and the RAF requirement was too good to miss.

The Tristar later came on its own transferred to the BA charter arm, Caledonian, who seemed to make money in a really competitive market for many years with it.

I took a -500 in the early 1980s on London-Seattle-Vancouver, when BA were just starting to build these two destinations. As always on the Tristar, it seemed to have a stylish cabin interior compared to the rival products.

No I am not just writing that to toady to 411A :)

glhcarl
24th Dec 2010, 22:14
The first six Tristars were the definitive BEA order (a prototype came over to the UK with large BEA decals on it prior to the full BA merger), later ones went to BA mediumhaul routes (eg Gulf) for which they were more appropriate.

Eleven (11) of the first twelve (12) TriStars (s/n 1002 - 1012) were delivered to Eastern Airlines, the twelfth s/n 1001, was always painted in "Lockheed house colors".

The L-1011 with the big BEA decal, that made the Farnborough trip in 1972, was s/n 1006. A flight test airframe that was later delivered to Eastern as N305EA. Later it was bought by Delta and operated as N782DL.

The first BA L-1011 (from the BAE order) was s/n 1083 G-BBAE. The first BA L-1011-500 was s/n 1157 G-BFCA, currently ZD948.

Seat62K
25th Dec 2010, 08:39
I, too, liked the TriStar but have negative memories as well as good ones.

For example, I remember the time when Caledonian stepped in for collapsed Canadian company Nationair (have I got the spelling right?) in summer, 1993. We should have flown Glasgow-Toronto nonstop but had to make an unscheduled stop at Mirabel for fuel.

Hardly the fault of a model not designed for such long distances, I know, but on the return journey the air conditioning wasn't functioning properly and we roasted all the way from Toronto to Manchester and on to Gatwick.

On a more positive note, I recall the time Leisure International Airways sent out an empty Air Atlanta TriStar to collect myself and other passengers on an unoperational A320. I remember being surprised that we were told we could sit wherever we liked. There were acres of free space!

To come back to BA operations, I seem to remember TriStars being used to Far East destinations such as Hong Kong and Bangkok in the late '80s. Can anyone confirm this?

SpringHeeledJack
25th Dec 2010, 09:27
To come back to BA operations, I seem to remember TriStars being used to Far East destinations such as Hong Kong and Bangkok in the late '80s. Can anyone confirm this?

Confirmed! :) I had the pleasure of flying the last flight (allegedly) from T3 by BA in a TriStar to Bangkok via Bahrain in 1986.



SHJ

Seat62K
25th Dec 2010, 16:49
Thank you! The grey matter didn't deceive, after all!

TheChitterneFlyer
25th Dec 2010, 18:42
Confirmed! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif I had the pleasure of flying the last flight (allegedly) from T3 by BA in a TriStar to Bangkok via Bahrain in 1986.


Mmmm, I recall operating the BA TriStar back through BKK (from KUL) on the 23rd of Sept 1989 (G-BHBL).

TCF

SpringHeeledJack
25th Dec 2010, 19:37
I was referring to the last BA flight from T3 before they hopped over to T4 at LHR, as i was told by the dispatcher, and not the last TriStar flight on the route :8



SHJ

twochai
26th Dec 2010, 01:34
We should have flown Glasgow-Toronto nonstop but had to make an unscheduled stop at Mirabel for fuel.

Hardly the fault of a model not designed for such long distances

AC operated the L1011-250 Toronto-FRA non stop, both directions, for many years. I think they had the highest MGTOW options available, IIRC.

411A
26th Dec 2010, 05:28
AC operated the L1011-250 Toronto-FRA non stop, both directions, for many years.
Don't think so...all -250's (6 only) were converted by Delta, and none were sold or leased to AC.

Krystal n chips
26th Dec 2010, 06:35
And then there was this of course....

Photos: Lockheed L-1011-385-1 TriStar 1 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/455462/M/)

sisemen
26th Dec 2010, 06:40
Hadn't realised that they used them for ploughing!

glhcarl
26th Dec 2010, 15:10
Krystal n cips:

The Leads incident, very controversial at Lockheed. If you can get a copy of the AARB report get it its a good read.

They "landed long, fast and were not told the runway was wet". The AARB's finding, "the TriStar had ineffective braking on wet runways".

Krystal n chips
26th Dec 2010, 16:34
glhcarl

Thanks for the reminder. As I recall from reading the report, there was a "terrribly British" remark from the F/O...along the lines of "gosh, don't the red lights come up quickly"....as indeed they do when you " arrive", rather than land, in the way they did. Very lucky..... considering the terrain around Leeds to be honest.

411A
27th Dec 2010, 11:08
The AARB's finding, "the TriStar had ineffective braking on wet runways".

Depends on the specific model.
-1's, -100's, -200's all had OK brakes.
-500's and -250's, because of their higher all up weights, had superb brakes, that would stop the airplane on the perverbial dime, wet or dry runway.
After landing at ZRH with -500 some years ago, we noticed another airplane enter the runway, downfield, without an ATC clearance.
Getting on the brakes, big time, was required, and the tower remarked....'we've never seen a large jet stop so fast.'

WHBM
27th Dec 2010, 11:42
Eleven (11) of the first twelve (12) TriStars (s/n 1002 - 1012) were delivered to Eastern Airlines.
I suppose I wasn't precise enough here; my comment about "The first six Tristars were the definitive BEA order" was referring to the first six of the BA Tristars (BBAE to BBAJ), not the first six overall, although they were delivered after the BEA/BOAC merger into BA was consummated. Later ones were called off directly by BA.

glhcarl
27th Dec 2010, 16:36
Depends on the specific model.
-1's, -100's, -200's all had OK brakes.
-500's and -250's, because of their higher all up weights, had superb brakes, that would stop the airplane on the perverbial dime, wet or dry runway.
After landing at ZRH with -500 some years ago, we noticed another airplane enter the runway, downfield, without an ATC clearance.
Getting on the brakes, big time, was required, and the tower remarked....'we've never seen a large jet stop so fast.'

411A, you need to read the report!

There are "currenty" five (5) different L-1011 brake assemblies approved for use on the L-1011.

o Two (2) are for Delta aircraft only, without tempature sensors. (1) for -1's and one (1) for -100's, -250's and -500's.

o One (1) for all other -1's.

o One (1) for all -100's, -200's and -500's, except Delta aircraft and those with aircraft CAA certification.

o One (1) for all CAA certified -100's, -200's and -500's. The result of the Leeds indicent.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
27th Dec 2010, 18:52
I was talking to a retired BA senior Ops guy today and mentioned the Tristar. He said the folk at the sharp end of the airline loved it, but the bean counters said it had to go when they made an elimentary mistake.

They calculated its fuel and maintenence operating costs on a 'per engine' basis. But despite its name, they didn't cotton on that it was a 3-engined aeroplane and awarded it costs as if it were operating with 4 engines! So they allocated it 33% higher costs in those areas than it was actually incuring!

Tagron
28th Dec 2010, 03:16
The “four-engined” TriStar story, also referred to by BEagle earlier in the thread, was in widespread circulation in BA in the 1980s. Personally I tend to adopt a sceptical attitude to rumours that spread within the workforce and develop a momentum of their own. So was this one true, and if so was it significant ? According to the story the error was spotted by TriStar flight crew management and one would have thought that suitably corrective action would have been taken.

There is no doubt that BA longhaul fleet planning viewed the 747 as a potentially greater profit generator than the TriStar, always assuming they could fill the 747 with pax and cargo at the right yields. I recall this point being made at a presentation in the latter part of the 1980s. The upshot was that TriStars tended to be assigned to the thinner or weaker routes which themselves were vulnerable in times of financial stress.

There was also the stated strategic aim of reducing the number of types in the BA fleet and the number of suppliers. Indeed there was a period of 15 years or so, through to 1999, when they only newbuild aircraft delivered to BA mainline were Boeings (the exception being the A320 order inherited from BCAL).

Then there was the technical reliability of the TriStar in BA service, a problem that seemed most acute with the -500s. Just why BA seemed to have such a problem with it is a moot point, especially compared with Delta’s evident success with the type. ( Not forgetting of course, a quarter of a century later, 411A’s operation.:ok:)

So my guess is that BA longhaul’s relative lack of enthusiasm for the TriStar stemmed from a combination of factors that conspired against it. Doubtless there were other factors too. Maybe there are others here who were closer to the action and can shed some more light ?

411A
28th Dec 2010, 05:05
411A, you need to read the report!


Report aside, what I stated was my experience in thirty years operating the airplane.
The -1 brakes were marginal, the -250 and -500 brakes are outstanding.
-200's were a mixture, SVA aircraft not bad, BA -200's very good.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
28th Dec 2010, 10:41
Ooops, sorry BEagle. Hadn't spotted your '4-engined Tristar' post near the start of the thread. :confused:

Props
28th Dec 2010, 16:25
I think Tagron's post sums up the BA position on Tristar perfectly.
The 500 just did not fit the routes.
411a The problem with operating a mixed Fleet -1 200 and 500 was after a morning trip in a -1 in the afternoon you applied the brakes on leaving the Stand to find the Flight Engineer wrapped round the Windscreen, oh yes this is a 500.
Or maybe I have big feet.