Lockheed Martin - this is for you - L-1011 New Generation

[rbaiapinto]

This is a message addressed to Lockheed Martin (that's because I know they will read this :)) and fellow ppruners who want to contribute in a constructively manner.

Sorry the terms in English, but not being native, sometimes we mix our mother tongue with English one.

Let's get to the point:

L-1011 Tristar was a great aircraft as all of the pilot community recognizes. It's technological advances and it's new systems were a radical change in the design of an aircraft. As long as I'm deepen my knowledge about this aircraft I get more and more surprised with the level of innovation these new systems represented. Even today there is no match for the kind of engineering LM engineers came up to.

So the issue is as follows:

- It seems there is a high demand for aircraft these days and the trend still looks it will continue.
- On the long-haul there's hardly no competition apart from B/AB.
- The airline industry is waiting for a competitive long haul aircraft, so it can launch new business models on the long range.
- Boeing has recently decided to upgrade it's 737 with new engines, using a frame already designed and fully tested and with a relatively small amount of designing and engineering will be able to introduce a very competitive aircraft, which seems it will have a great success.

Looking at this, wouldn't it be a good move from LM to grab the L-1011 Tristar, upgrade its navigation and control systems to the new modern glasscockpits thus eliminating the 3rd crew, using this new Leap X engines instead of the three engines and with a relatively small amount of investment, come up with a strong long haul option?

This new L-1011 BISTAR would seem to me that with a very competitive price, superior technology and reputation from Lockheed Martin would have all the necessary to be a case of success.

There are companies, at least in Europe, who are waiting for some years now, that the long-haul equipment reduce it's acquisition prices, so that they can be able to launch new operations. However (Boeing and Airbus guys will not like me very much :) for saying this) this market is in the hands of two manufacturers. So perhaps the price for these type of air planes will be hard to reduce.

I have nothing against Boeing or Airbus, on the contrary, I do like very much their aircraft. I just think that it's a shame that such a good (excellent) plane as it is (still flying) L-1011 with its innovation systems couldn't be continued and improved, that's all.

Hope to ear some more elaborated and constructive comments from the community!
Regards!

[exeng]

Going to need to overcome so major C. of G. problems in addition to solving many other issues.

Not ever going to happen in my opinion.

[Wizofoz]

You are talking about a company that simply doesn't have the production capacity to produce large aircraft any more, and the updating of a 50 year old design.

No, sorry. The 1011 was a great aircraft in it's day, but it's day has gone.

[mogas-82]

I understand what you mean - nice looking TriStar on GPS for less than $500k. But it's just like with a car for which to be fixed one would have to pay way more that for a good running used one.

Look at the alternatives:
-727 plenty of planes around - the 200s have about the same mission profile - and look at the operation cost (http://bit.ly/pVsymw - info a little outdated from 2000 but still huge difference -


L1011-500 block hour w/o fuel $3075 - fuel cons. 1589 gph
722 - block hour w/o fuel $1874 - fuel cons. 1064 gph

And there are enough 727 around for about $1M.
Also there are tons of other alternatives like A300, A310, DC10 ... that are all up for grabs with enough pilots to fly them and still some spare parts and service programs.

- Other alternatives are former Soviet countries with plenty ACMI available Antonovs and Ilyushins operated for next to nothing due to cheap pilots and operators and clients who don't give the slightest s*it about safety.

Your project would reqire a lot of $$$ to accomplish for an aircraft that is way too outdated with a market of a lot of more fuel efficient aircraft coming along in the next few years and with a very limited amount of available airframes that have much time before reaching DSO time.

- The airline industry is waiting for a competitive long haul aircraft, so it can launch new business models on the long range. - They are waiting for Boeing to fulfill its 777F orders and for the A350.

Boeing has recently decided to upgrade it's [sic] 737 with new engines - You can't compare this to the TriStar - in 2010 Boeing had 376 deliverys of 737s while there were only 250 TriStars ever built. The difference in development cost overhead/delivered aircraft will be very high for your idea in comparison to the 737 MAX


So unless some really braindead wall street investor helps out with it (i.e. if the brochure is shiny and sparkly you may get a deal) - not a chance.

[hetfield]

http://img.funtasticus.com/2007/nov/plane_restaurant06122007/plain%20restaurant011.jpg

Convert it to a Restaurant or Bar.

[rbaiapinto]

Don't forget that the L-1011 was conceived as a twin, but due the existing runways they've putted another engine.
Eliminating one engine, that of course would create different pitch moments and weights, which I think a design/engineering team would perfectly solve it. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is somehow feasible without a radical change.
Hey, they do have to do some kind of work :)

About the age of the airframe its not that different from the 737. B737 first flight was in 1967 and L-1011 was 1968.

About running costs, thanks for the table mogas-82, superb! we can compare the L-1011 with old engines with some actual frames:

Ok! I was trying to put here an excel table but I will try it some other way!

http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/1623/l1011toccomp.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/846/l1011toccomp.jpg/)


So taken from your report [mogas-82] the total operating costs are not that different when compared to (some) other long range frames!
I'm surprised as well, comparing with actual 340 and 777, even with the 330! :eek:

Now imagine we take one of the engines out and change the other two by a much more fuel efficient ones? I would think that this, as a saying in my country "has legs to walk" :) (It just means that it could be a good and feasible idea).

Now about logistics!
That's were you caught me Wiz!
I imagine that they don't have the production line set-up right now.

But this is all a component of an investment plan. They don't have but they did and still have for the military ones.
If looking from an economical point of view, this project would have some degree of execution and the revenues could cover the investment.
One component of the investment would be the production line itself, which would be, among others, a major task to be carried on.

I'm not looking for an investment partner or something like that, I'm just a recent CPL holder who happens to be an Engineer as well and like to study air crafts. And I'm overwhelmed by this Lockheed wonder.:ok:

Feel free to point me out my spelling and grammar errors, I appreciate it.

[glhcarl]

You are talking about a company that simply doesn't have the production capacity to produce large aircraft any more, and the updating of a 50 year old design.


Now while I havn't been to Palmdale this year, the plant that used to assemble the L-1011 was still there and still owned by Lockheed Martin last summer. The 'back shops" that were in Burbank are gone, but most of their capibility has been moved to the new buildings that have been erected just east of the L-1011 final assembly building (601). The flight test hanger (building 602) is still there as is the paint shop.

Additionally, the Lockheed Martin Marietta plant has been undergoing a large expansion and since they managed to build C-5's and C-130's, and C-141's, C-130's and JetStars, F-22's C-130's and P-3's simultaneously there would be more than enough room for a commercial airliner.

Oh yes, the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, that was where the B-36 was built?

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

@glh

While the physical production plant may still be present, the capability to certify and produce a civilian aircraft may have atrophied. The skillsets between civil and military only overlap to a degree, not completely.

And certification standards would be a huge hurdle - the scope of change being described would almost certainly run afoul of the Changed Product Rule, which would largely eliminate any grandfathered certification credit for much of the design. If you aren't going to get any benefit from keeping an old design, you're probably as well starting with a clean sheet. And I don't think anybody other than the big two is interested in a clean sheet widebody these days...

[mogas-82]

The file I linked in my post is as mentioned very outdated and only viable for a very general estimate.You need to modify at lest the cost of fuel - that report stated on page 3 $0,7/gal. and those days are clearly over now. However I am somewhat surprised to see that the L1011 seems to be cheaper to operate than a DC-10-40 while both have about the same MTOW:hmm:. So maybe I was wrong to say that there is no way to make it work.

After looking over a few figures of the L1011 I agree that it may have some potential. However getting new engines will be very tricky. One of the most important aspect of the L1011 that I've seen is that it's not very noisy on takeoff (stage III) so why bother changing the engines then anyway? According to a table (http://bit.ly/pnrhGd page 7 - sorry couldn't find a better file) it's even better than A330 and A340 in terms of noise emissions. So you might be on to something.

However I see the priorities a bit different. If companies should use these TriStar they need:
1. enough spare parts available in within hours or a few days max.
2. experienced personnel on the flight deck and on the ground
3. (as you wrote) modern avionics

Good luck!

[Junkflyer]

Why would anyone go through all the time and expense when you already have 777 and Airbus long haul aircraft already? Both are large (the 777 carries as much as a Classic 747 freighter for for less fuel burn) and proven designs. The next generation aircraft are close, the 787/A-350 with more modern materials and systems will increase efficiency.

[Mr Optimistic]

We never forget who we are working for....

[rbaiapinto]

Many thanks for the contributions!

So, the actual L-1011 has similar or cheaper operating costs than actual competition, with better features such as noise emissions, passenger comfort (this is always subjective, but assuming lesser noise, combined with the increased stability from the Active control systems, equals to better comfort) and flying characteristics that are a no match for any of these days aircraft, even the speed, only the 777 can reach the cruise speed of the Tristar.

So, with all these features which still are ahead or in-line with current competition, we can assume if we would change the engines using modern ones, with improved efficiency, less emissions and noise, replace the commands for a fly-by-wire system and using new glass cockpit navigation avionics, we would have a strong (very strong) option in the long range aviation market, without any doubt!

This kind of upgrade was made by both Boeing and Airbus, with their Neos and Maxs!

It could be a very lucrative move for Lockheeed I think, having still the production facilities, so they can produce the aircraft, with a relative small amount of investment, they can place in the market an incredibly saleable machine.

And afterwards, perhaps move to create a new civil aircraft design using all the knowledge gained in the military. (But that's another story!)

[rbaiapinto]

We never forget who we are working for....

I don't know if that one was for me, but for the record, as I've said before, I'm just a recent pilot and still working as an Engineer in another industry in Europe, nothing related to aviation. (Well, at least until I can find my first pilot job :))

I'm just changing my career and after my graduation as a pilot I've increased my knowledge about air-crafts and their aerodynamic characteristics, studying quite a few and came up to find this technology wonder, which I think it's a shame that it hasn´t had a better story, but if Lockheed Martin become conscious of the equipment it has on his hands, perhaps they can realize they can return to the civil aviation market and making a profit of it :)

[hawker750]

Quote: The 1011 was a great aircraft in it's day, but it's day has gone.

It was not a great aircraft in it's day it was a dog. It may have been reasonably nice to fly for those who had not flown a lot nicer, but it was a maintenance nightmare, always going tech and it caused the financial collapse of more than one airline, Caledonian in it's last reincarnation being one. It even had the last laugh on poor old 411, went tech with 200 passengers in an out of the way place. 411 took it so personaly he finally blew his own main fuse. Why resurect something that did not work in the first place? Did I fly it? Yes and did not rate it. Let it RIP in the boneyard. It even caused the collapse of the civil airline program of Locheed, that says it all.

[glhcarl]

It was not a great aircraft in it's day it was a dog. It may have been reasonably nice to fly for those who had not flown a lot nicer, but it was a maintenance nightmare, always going tech and it caused the financial collapse of more than one airline, Caledonian in it's last reincarnation being one.

For every airline you say the L-1011 caused to collapse there where many more that attribute the TriStar for there success, Cathay Pacific, Delta and LTU to name just three.

Only one airline that operated both the L-1011 and the DC-10 (the TriStar's closest rival) chose to keep the DC-10 over the L-1011.

As far as being a maintenance nightmare? The L-1011's dispatch relibility rate was higher that any other wide first generation widebody. So either maintenance was not that big a problem or the airlines that flew the TriStar were highly skilled.

[tristar 500]

Hawker 750 says It was not a great aircraft in it's day it was a dog.

As a ground engineer with a global airline, I worked the Tristar through out it,s, life before they were sold to various operators including the RAF.

In all that time I only had admiration for it, years head of it`s time & if there was one in a museum this side of the atlantic I would be one of the first volunteers.

All the crews I came into contact with loved it.

A dog NEVER!!!!!

tristar 500

[ferrydude]

One does wonder why almost all of them are parked when the DC-10 and derivatives continue to soldier on.:ugh:

[TURIN]

Worked the '10' and the 'Tribastard'. Both a bloody nightmare.

To be fair, the Tristar was better looking.

Lots of Overtime though. :)

[Golden Rivit]

"One does wonder why almost all of them are parked when the DC-10 and derivatives continue to soldier on."


Why? 7075-T6

[glhcarl]

Why? 7075-T6

Do you even know where 7075-T6 was used on the L-1011?

[lynn789]

a new tristar would need much more refinment to stop passenger cabin noise and vibration. I recall continuous bumps , shuddering,thuds and too much noise.
I was near the wing with an intersting ex B24 pilot going along the italian alps long time ago, we both agreed that the noise and vibration in cabin from engine made it impossible to talk.

it was said lockheed had forgotten how to quieten cabins for paying passengers:ugh::ugh:

[twochai]

It even caused the collapse of the civil airline program of Locheed, that says it all.

Excuse me? I think it was the inverse: Lockheed's mistakes, assisted by the loss of market share resulting from the R-R bankruptcy, caused the eventual collapse of the 1011 and derivatives.

[Graybeard]

IIRC, the 1011 lacked the payload/range to be competitive with the DC-10 and 747. The DC-10 is a pilot's airplane, and the 1011 is an engineering marvel of efficient design.

it was said lockheed had forgotten how to quieten cabins for paying passengers:ugh::ugh:Back in the day, a McDouglas rep told me that Lockheed design engineers were much smarter than DAC and Boeing engineers. They all had the problem of the 3600 rpm N1 buzzsaw noise at takeoff. LCC worked hard and eliminated most of the noise at the source, drilling vanes, etc. BAC and DAC merely added a ton of sheet lead to the sidewalls of their planes so the pax wouldn't hear the buzzsaws so loud.

Guess what? At cruise the DC-10 and 747 had quiet cabins, thanks to that ton of sheet lead, while the L-1011 had all the unmuffled noise.

GB

[aterpster]

Greybeard:

Guess what? At cruise the DC-10 and 747 had quiet cabins, thanks to that ton of sheet lead, while the L-1011 had all the unmuffled noise.

As fuel prices become a big deal in the mid 1980s we slowed down mach cruise for our fleet except the L1011, which remained at 0.86 for a comfortable deck angle.

[hawker750]

glhcarl

Quote: Only one airline that operated both the L-1011 and the DC-10 (the TriStar's closest rival) chose to keep the DC-10 over the L-1011.

I assume you are referring to BOAC/British Airways. When BOAC operated the 10-30 in 1975 they had the best dispatch reliability of any aircraft in their fleet and normally operated with zero items in the DDM log

[DozyWannabe]

The DC-10 is a pilot's airplane

It was also a festering, steaming pile of cow dung in terms of safety in it's original form, due to rushed development in a desperate bid to beat Lockheed to market.

LCC worked hard and eliminated most of the noise at the source, drilling vanes, etc. BAC and DAC merely added a ton of sheet lead to the sidewalls of their planes so the pax wouldn't hear the buzzsaws so loud.

Guess what? At cruise the DC-10 and 747 had quiet cabins, thanks to that ton of sheet lead, while the L-1011 had all the unmuffled noise.

Unfortunately the DC-10 cabin became very noisy when the rear cargo door blew out and took the floor with it - *briefly* very noisy in one tragic case. 346 dead because of a known design flaw and a "gentlemen's agreement" (none may dare call it a bribe) to prevent a legally-enforceable fix to that design flaw is something for which MD should never be forgiven.

[aterpster]

DozyWannabe:

Unfortunately the DC-10 cabin became very noisy when the rear cargo door blew out and took the floor with it - *briefly* very noisy in one tragic case. 346 dead because of a known design flaw and a "gentlemen's agreement" (none may dare call it a bribe) to prevent a legally-enforceable fix to that design flaw is something for which MD should never be forgiven.

AAL almost lost one over Detroit for the same reason.

Then, there is the UAL DC-10 that landed upsite down killing over 100 folks. It would have been a total wipe-out except for a captain willing to listen to a very sharp deadheading pilot.

[rbaiapinto]

It was not a great aircraft in it's day it was a dog. It may have been reasonably nice to fly for those who had not flown a lot nicer, but it was a maintenance nightmare, always going tech and it caused the financial collapse of more than one airline, Caledonian in it's last reincarnation being one. It even had the last laugh on poor old 411, went tech with 200 passengers in an out of the way place. 411 took it so personaly he finally blew his own main fuse. Why resurect something that did not work in the first place? Did I fly it? Yes and did not rate it. Let it RIP in the boneyard. It even caused the collapse of the civil airline program of Locheed, that says it all.

In order to rebate these allegations, we must first line up and understand the time-frame for the creation of L-1011.

In the second part of the sixties, Lockheed starts the development of a new wide-body aircraft. Lockheed by then had already its name carved in stone with models like Electra (the fastest commercial aircraft in its era) and few years later, by the Constellation. These were milestones in the history of aviation.

Originally conceived as a twin reactor, it was later added a third one in order to be able to operate from high and short fields, such as La Guardia (7000'/2100m), oriented to North American market, from coast to coast.

Around the beginning of the 70's, both Lockheed and Rolls Royce were with financial problems. The development of this L-1011 was one of the most financially onerous, due in part for the design of such an innovative aircraft and the technical bankrupt from RR around 1971.
This, was a major financial setback for Lockheed and without any chance of changing the engines, (since the design was already made and developing a new design for different engines would probably mean more delays and financial issues).

To “help” this situation, the economic climate around final 60's was hard, like these days, near a recession, provoking some re-evaluations and renegotiations in aircraft purchasing.

With all these delays and financial issues on the way, one of the greatest potential clients, American Airlines decided to purchase the DC-10, which was developed earlier and ready to operate.

So with all these major setbacks, Lockheed decided to upgrade its first known as American coast to coast to an intercontinental aircraft, widening its base of potential clients. And that was the origin of L-1011 Tristar.

When reaching to the 80's, the competition was fierce, with Boeing launching the 767 and the new European consortium Airbus launching the A300/310.

In early 80's, these facts made sales from L-1011, fall sharply, which later lead to the cancellation of L-1011 program.

About airline companies, I don't have facts to affirm that it was a specific type of aircraft that lead to an airline company to bankruptcy, but it's somewhat odd such an event. I would say for something like that to happen, perhaps the issues were about management, economic climate, commercial positioning, etc...

The DC-10 is a pilot's airplane, and the 1011 is an engineering marvel of efficient design

In order to substantiate this we can enumerate some of its features.

The flight controls based on 4 (four) different independent and redundant hydraulic systems using ailerons and spoilers (depending on speed) to maintain and increase stability and reduce induced drag, thus reducing fuel burn.
System known as Active control had as an working principle an installation of accelerometers in fuselage and wingtips, which detected vertical accelerations and by so deflect the ailerons in order to reduce wing bending due to a redistribution of lift forces, making until today the smoothest aircraft to ride on. All this was accomplished in a automatic way, without interference of pilots.

Above M.65 the system known as Maneuvering Direct lift control (MDLC) was in charge using the spoilers instead.

The solution found by Douglas to these issues was the installation of winglets, which were by then been studied and tested!

The Direct lift control (DLC) which was previously referred, its another Engineering wonder from Lockheed design team. This system made use of inboard spoilers controlling its deflection on final approaches, so that the control of vertical speed could be done without changing attitude or speed.
This results in a smooth and constant pitch attitude approach, working automatically in manual or autopilot.

It was the first wide-body aircraft to have an digital auto-pilot, been this one, one of the most accurate ever built, instead of the old analog systems.

The Performance Management System was and still is in my opinion one of state of the art systems ever built. Instead of constant changes in throttle to maintain optimum Mach number, which some airlines preferred to increase mach no and thus resulting in higher fuel burned, Lockheed came up with another revolutionary technique.
This Flight Management system maintained airspeed precisely by changing the aircrafts attitude. This was also done automatically which resulted as well with better fuel efficiency, extended engine life and less fatigue for the passenger due to constant power changes.


The engines were, nevertheless the delays, one of the reasons for the success of this model, known as "Whisperliner". These RB211 engines had one more shaft than usual, who should permit a reduced rotation speed resulting in less noise. That was confirmed few posts ago by mogas-82.

Its construction and assembly techniques were also pioneers, using in its design semi-monocoque panels with a thicker coating diminishing the transverse beams resulting in a significantly weight reduction as well as an reduced production and assembly period.

It was introduced an new and advanced welding technique, thus eliminating the need of thousands of rivets, with its drilling which enabled a better corrosion protection.

So to sum up, when you say it caused the termination of civil airline program of Lockheed, it's with any doubt true, but one must look and see what were the reasons and accomplishments made at that time.

This was by far, the most advanced aircraft of the era and I believe with some changes (already referred to) still is.

Perhaps now, the market is prepared to receive such an advanced aircraft!:ok:

[DozyWannabe]

AAL almost lost one over Detroit for the same reason.

Well, that was the *reason* for the Gentlemen's Agreement, wasn't it? I seem to recall reading that the only reason that one didn't end up as a smoking hole was because the Captain in that case was a senior training pilot for AA and was alarmed when told by MD that the DC-10 had no manual reversion in case of total hydraulic loss, leading him to practice differential thrust control and landings in the sim. I'd be willing to bet money that he was the only line pilot that knew how to do that at the time.

Ironically, that it didn't end up as a smoking hole was the fact that allowed MD to persuade the head of the FAA, against the recommendations of Chuck Miller and the NTSB, that an AD wasn't required to fix the problem (they had a very real fear that an AD that early in the aircraft's service life would sink the aircraft, and MD with it).

Legend has it that Miller was so incensed when he saw the same damage pattern on the THY cargo door that he essentially told an investigative journalist to look at the Windsor Incident DC-10.

Then, there is the UAL DC-10 that landed upsite down killing over 100 folks. It would have been a total wipe-out except for a captain willing to listen to a very sharp deadheading pilot.

That wasn't specific to the DC-10 though, tail damage of that magnitude also brought down the JAL 747. However AA191 revealed that despite the most glaring factor behind the crash being the non-approved engine change procedure, another supposed DC-10 failsafe (hydraulic slat retraction) was not failsafe, and the designers had failed to consider that failure mode too.

[oldchina]

I wonder why I bother to reply to such garbage. I don't know where that operating cost table came from, but it's pure bull****.

The 1011 was too clever by half and so complex it was a maintenance man's nightmare.

Cathay Pacific routinely spent much less on maintaining the 747-200 than they did on the Tristar.

And Lockheed never worked out how to make a full-size long haul version.

As for the pax, it vibrated and was noisy. So what if the pilots liked it, who cares?

You must have something better to do than promote an old dinosaur of a plane. The world has moved on.

[overun]

l have no interest in the affairs of Lockheed-Martin but am curious as to why a rather large blue and white sign advertises their presence just north of Ampthill in Bedfordshire ?

[GarageYears]

The last L-1011 was delivered in 1985... the idea of this ever being manufactured again is so far out of reality that is beggars belief! Talk about a flight of fantasy...

Given the way technology moves on, I doubt whether it would even be possible to build one that could legally be certified to fly. Remember 1985 was the same year Microsoft introduced Windows 1.0... a large chunk of the electronics would certainly no longer be available.

- GY

[Mr Optimistic]

l have no interest in the affairs of Lockheed-Martin but am curious as to why a rather large blue and white sign advertises their presence just north of Ampthill in Bedfordshire ?

:rolleyes:

Locations | Lockheed Martin UK (http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/about/locations.html)

[overun]

Wow !

So it was Ampthill then ?

So what do they do there then Mr Smartypants ?

[OldCessna]

Ah don't we miss good old 411A now.

Where's Got the T Shirt?

I seem to think Sands, Orbital, RAF, Barq etc all like them!

Don't get too many bits falling off and cracks appearing in a 3 year old aircraft as we see nowadays!

[hawker750]

OldChina says is right, too clever by half. I remember having to hand fly it 4 hours from mid artlantic because the overhead panel resembled a 12 volt christmas tree operating on 24 volts.At least 3 of the QRH checks said "hand fly and land at nearest suitable". Repeated alt/control/deletes had no effect. Yes the auto pilot/autothrottle had some "novel" features like climbing or descending the aircraft instead of power changes. I wonder how this stacked up when RVSM certification was sought?
The only problem I ever experienced with the DC10 was saying awake in that lovely quiet, comfortable cockpit (once, of course, they had worked out how to keep the doors shut, but don't all great aircraft have minor irritating teething problems?)

[Graybeard]

System known as Active control had as an working principle an installation of accelerometers in fuselage and wingtips, which detected vertical accelerations and by so deflect the ailerons in order to reduce wing bending due to a redistribution of lift forces, making until today the smoothest aircraft to ride on. All this was accomplished in a automatic way, without interference of pilots.ACS was invented for the -500 so they could extend the span without beefing up the wing. This gave the plane greater range. I never rode on a -500, so don't know about its ride, but Lockheed has always been known for a very stiff wing and more abrupt ride. Stiff wings seem more prone to crack, like the C-5, C-130 and Electra.

It was the first wide-body aircraft to have an digital auto-pilot, been this one, one of the most accurate ever built, instead of the old analog systems.The original L-1011 AP was analog. Digital AP was developed in the late 1970s for the -500 series. Even the analog AP was good for Cat IIIc. The digital was dual-dual like the original. Boeing chose the simpler triplex for the 767 and all subsequent planes.

GB

[glhcarl]

ACS was invented for the -500 so they could extend the span without beefing up the wing.
Partially true, ACS was used on the C-5 first and adapted to use on the -500.

I remember having to hand fly it 4 hours from mid artlantic because the overhead panel resembled a 12 volt christmas tree operating on 24 volts.At least 3 of the QRH checks said "hand fly and land at nearest suitable".
What a dirty rotten shame, you actually had to do your job for 4 whole hours!

The 1011 was too clever by half and so complex it was a maintenance man's nightmare.

Only if the maintenance man had less than average skill!

The chief pilot at an operator that flew both the L-1011 and the DC-10 explained the difference between the two this way: It takes a little more effort the get the L-1011 in the air. But once it is in the air I realize that any extra effort was more than worth it.

I am still waiting for Golden Rivit to tell me where the 7075-T6, that has caused the most of the TriStars to be parked, is located.

[Mr Optimistic]

Overun, it's the old Hunting Engineering. They don't do anything that flies with people in.

http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/news/signals/signalsspring11.pdf

Pg 6.

[thermostat]

How many people were killed by each aircraft. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating".
And what about the Swiss Air MD11 that went down in Canada?
Not one L-1011 loss was due to the aircraft design.
The LEDs locked down.
The floor had equalizing valves.
Control wires ran along the side (not under the floor)
DLC on approach, etc, etc, etc............

I agree. Re-engine and upgrade to glass, this would be the queen of the skies.

[stilton]

Well said, as a piece of trivia the Tristar was the only commercial transport not made by them that was openly admired by Boeing.

[oldchina]

"Re-engine and upgrade to glass, this would be the queen of the skies".

The one thing you can be sure of with pilots is that they have no clue about operating economics. This upgrade would give the 1011 a level of technology and efficiency well inferior to the A300-600: itself a 25 year-old design!

[hawker750]

Quote: Not one L-1011 loss was due to the aircraft design.

I would argue that the everglades was down to aircraft design though I admit other aircraft had this similar design stupidity

[hawker750]

glhcarl
quote: What a dirty rotten shame, you actually had to do your job for 4 whole hours!

I can only assume you are a failed pilot as you seem to have a big chip. I never said I was complaining about hand flying for 4 hours, infact, quite the reverse. I was simply commenting on how a such a superbly designed aircraft with triplex autopilot can have so many system failures at the same time. Yes of course taking all power off the aircraft for 20 seconds cured all the faults, but if my memory serves me well, it did say in small print on page 121 para 6.2.1.b) of the maintenance manual that it was not recommended to do this proceedure in flight. But of course I may be wrong.

[Graybeard]

I was told EAL-401 AP tripped off because the long time chief pilot of TWA had insisted during the design that the AP kick off at a much lower CW force than LCC wanted.

He was also the guy who insisted on a 500' full scale radalt indicator. The TW 727 that hit a hill on approach to Washington in 1975 due to lack of situational awareness that would have been aided by the industry standard 2500' radalt indicator, was the accident that brought the mandate for GPWS.

All the overhead switches on TW planes back in that era were backwards from other airlines. Second tier operators, who later had those planes in mixed fleets, had their hands full.

That chief pilot had an overbearing personality, and the authority to get his way. Vendors gave him special coddling in his travels. Best not to go into that here.

In the day of the electromaniacal (electromechanical) flight directors, there seemed to be a version for the chief pilot of every major airline. Between Bendix, Collins and Sperry, there must have been near 200 versions.

GB

[aterpster]

Graybeard:

I was told EAL-401 AP tripped off because the long time chief pilot of TWA had insisted during the design that the AP kick off at a much lower CW force than LCC wanted.

He was also the guy who insisted on a 500' full scale radalt indicator. The TW 727 that hit a hill on approach to Washington in 1975 due to lack of situational awareness that would have been aided by the industry standard 2500' radalt indicator, was the accident that brought the mandate for GPWS.

All the overhead switches on TW planes back in that era were backwards from other airlines. Second tier operators, who later had those planes in mixed fleets, had their hands full.

That chief pilot had an overbearing personality, and the authority to get his way. Vendors gave him special coddling in his travels. Best not to go into that here.

His initials were Gordie Granger.

I was a pilot there. We tried in vain to get the company to use the full 2,500' capability of the RA before TWA 514 happened (12-01-1974). No luck, their response was it is for CAT II, not altitude awareness.

BTW, Gordie wasn't the chief pilot, he was the director of safety or some B.S. title like that. The chief pilot was Ed Frankum. He and Gordie were like two peas in a pod.

The backwards switch deal died with the L-1011 and B-767. So did the 500 foot RA readouts. Lockheed and Boeing were tired of playing with Gordie by that time.

One summer, when I was on the 727, we had a 727-200 exchange with National for few birds. We were tried by bulletin. We had to be careful with those standard Boeing switches. :)

Gordie could have been responsible for the light (15 pounds) of forward pressure on the control column to kick the autoflight from command to CWS. But, Lockheed took the hit on the EAL swamp crash because of the lack of an audible warning. (Where were the FAA cert folks on that one?)

[DozyWannabe]

Gordie could have been responsible for the light (15 pounds) of forward pressure on the control column to kick the autoflight from command to CWS. But, Lockheed took the hit on the EAL swamp crash because of the lack of an audible warning. (Where were the FAA cert folks on that one?)

If I recall correctly, it wasn't that it was 15lbs pressure so much as they'd calibrated the RHS yoke to 15lbs and the LHS yoke to 20lbs. What made it more insidious was that when the computers were mismatched in this way, the LHS "ALT HOLD" annunciator would go out when 15lbs pressure was applied, but the RHS one would not.

There was an audible warning that the aircraft was departing from assigned altitude, but it only went off at the FE's station and unfortunately the FE at the time was in the nose-wheel bay trying to check the indices.

[glhcarl]

I can only assume you are a failed pilot as you seem to have a big chip. I never said I was complaining about hand flying for 4 hours, infact, quite the reverse. I was simply commenting on how a such a superbly designed aircraft with triplex autopilot can have so many system failures at the same time. Yes of course taking all power off the aircraft for 20 seconds cured all the faults, but if my memory serves me well, it did say in small print on page 121 para 6.2.1.b) of the maintenance manual that it was not recommended to do this proceedure in flight. But of course I may be wrong.

The L-1011 has put food on my the table of me and my family for the last 42 years. I get a little up set when people that have little or no actual experience on or around the TriStar saying things that are simply not true!

Example:
Control wires ran along the side (not under the floor)

The L-1011 flight control cable run throught the cabin floor beams, under the cabin floor!

I started working on the L-1011 when s/n 1001 had no wings. I retired seventeen years after the last one was delivered. For over 20 years I supported them, assisting the airline maintenance and flight crews fix problems that they could not fix themselves.

Do I know everything about the L-1011, NO, but when I see someone making statments that are simply incorrect and I know what is correct I will continue to point it out.

If you look back through the PPRuNe archives you will see many times when I had to call 411A (may he RIP) on things he got wrong!

[aterpster]

DozyWannabe:

There was an audible warning that the aircraft was departing from assigned altitude, but it only went off at the FE's station and unfortunately the FE at the time was in the nose-wheel bay trying to check the indices.

Airlines were able to order some differences on the L-1011, although not like Boeing's era of th 707/727.

EAL and TWA agreed to order the same L-1011 configuration because the plan was for them to use some of ours in the winter and visa versa in the summer. The only difference that I recall from flying the EAL birds on swap (or whatever it was called) was our L-1011 had to radar displays, one on each side of the instrument panel. EAL had only one display in the center. I thought we had a audible alert for inadvertant altitude departure that the pilots could hear, but I never got there.:) So, maybe it was just for the F/E.

[aterpster]

Back to Gordie Granger (RIP):

He did some good things at TWA, too. I don't know whether they offset the other stuff. One really good thing he did for our 727s has to have the emergency power switch on the overhead panel instead of on the F/E panel. In this way all three of us could reach it.

I believe a UAL crew would have dearly loved to have had that switch on the overhead.

[DozyWannabe]

@aterpster

Yeah, I remember reading that (I read John G Fuller's book on Flight 401 when I was a teenager, and when the NTSB put their archive online for the first time I looked it up). What they refer to as the "C-chord chime" (departure from assigned altitude warning) was at the time only a standard fit to the FE's console, and IIRC, one of the NTSB's recommendations after the fact was that the signal also be sent to the headset bus - I also seem to recall reading that they did implment that change.

The placement of the control cables through the floor was less of an issue in the L-1011 IIRC because the L-1011 used plug doors for the cargo hold, unlike the 747 and DC-10 which used outward-opening doors - a different engineering problem entirely. I wonder if that led to the shortfall in payload that plagued the L-1011.

At any rate this is a lovely trip down airliner memory lane, but the original post is wishful thinking. The L-1011 was a lovely design in her day and in many ways still a pioneer, but she's fundamentally forty years old now - there have been too many advances in airframe design since to make a return worthwhile.

[glhcarl]

IIRC because the L-1011 used plug doors for the cargo hold, unlike the 747 and DC-10 which used outward-opening doors

Another example:

All three L-1011 cargo doors (C-1, C-2 and C-3) opened outward!

The C-1A cargo door (used on all -500's, all BA -200's and the two CX -1's obtained from Court Lines) was almost identical to the forward cargo door of the 747, also opened outboard!

[DozyWannabe]

@glhcarl - Hence the IIRC (if I recall correctly). Fuller's book stated that and I'd never heard otherwise, so I consider myself corrected. :)

[stilton]

You can hardly blame the Everglades crash on the L1011.



Two Pilots were not watching the store and allowed the Aircraft to fly into the ground, simple as that.



Its no design caused accident record stands.

[Graybeard]

EAL401 can be argued as an early version of too much reliance on automatics. However, the far less automated SAS DC-8 that hit the water on approach to LAX one night was almost the same. Nobody was flying.

The Area Nav equipped ANZ DC-10 that hit Mt. Erebus was also rooted in unfounded reliance on automatics. The system had never let them down before. It was beyond their comprehension that a route coder would change the lat/lon of a waypoint without advising the crew.

GB

[DozyWannabe]

EAL401 can be argued as an early version of too much reliance on automatics. However, the far less automated SAS DC-8 that hit the water on approach to LAX one night was almost the same. Nobody was flying.

Yeah. I'd say what we're looking at with EAL401 was an early demonstration of why CRM is fundamentally necessary, although in their case there was a lot of "there but for the grace of..." (get-home-itis just before the holidays) and more than a little old-fashioned rotten luck (warning going off with FE in the hell-hole, mismatched computers - not to mention the nose gear light burning out at that precise moment in time).

The Area Nav equipped ANZ DC-10 that hit Mt. Erebus was also rooted in unfounded reliance on automatics. The system had never let them down before. It was beyond their comprehension that a route coder would change the lat/lon of a waypoint without advising the crew.

Well, there was a lot more to that one, with ANZ routinely flouting their own regulations for two years prior to the accident, with the pilots being used to flying a route that had been incorrectly programmed in the INS for a year prior. Basically the Chief Navigator incorrectly entered the waypoint when the computers first arrived, and then corrected the waypoint to match ANZ's documentation without telling anyone the night before the flight. In that time the pilots had become used to flying the "incorrect" route (which in fact more closely aligned with the military route almost all other aircraft took around McMurdo Sound), and so the lore of the crew room was that the "incorrect" route, which did not overfly Erebus directly, was the route they would take. The final piece of that puzzle was the whiteout conditions presenting a false horizon.

I had a long debate with an ex-ANZ pilot on here over the crew's responsibility versus that of the airline - those who know me from the AF447 thread may be surprised that I was arguing the crew were not at fault, and that the change in INS co-ordinates not communicated to the pilots was the overriding cause. He argued that the crew should have never relied on the INS to the degree they did, and should not have flown so low - despite that being considered normal procedure at the time.

[Spooky 2]

Truly a facinating thread and it's to bad 411A isn't around to enjoy it.

My recollection of the up/aft and off switches that dominated TWA and Lufthansa Boeing aircraft of that time was from spending a copius amount of time in some old Lufthansa 727-100's which had a few other unusual items as I recall. The Lufthansa spec probably comes from the early days when TWA was providing technical assistance to Luftansa after they restarted operation in the early fifties after the end of WWll. I suspect that if one could look, they would find that the Constellations of these two airlines had a lot in common as this where first technical assistance occured in both the 1049 and 1649 airliners.

I was lucky enough to have flown both the DC10 and L1011 having about 4000 hours in each type as PIC. To me from a purely pilots point of view, the L1011 was a superior airplane to the DC10.

[overun]

Thankyou, you are plainly a gentleman.

[tonytales]

There were several things that hobbled L-1011 sale. The first was the decision to limit engine choices to one manufacturer. It was physically the smallest of the three big fan engines and when Rolls stumbled they couldn't fit either of the other engines without major structural redesign. The DC-10 offered both Pratt and GE and could have fitted the Rolls as well.
Lockheed made no provisions in the basic design for a high gross weight version while the DC-10 design left room for the third MLG to reduce footprint pressure. Their idea to add a wheel to the outboard side of each axle would have required a huge bulge in the MLG doors.
No factory built freighter or Combi versions were offered. In the end, there were only seven converted to freighters for commercial customers even though there were fleets of surplus pax versions available. That says something as well.
LCC's absence from the commercial market after the L-188 didn't help either as they only had one product to offer.

[rbaiapinto]

I was lucky enough to have flown both the DC10 and L1011 having about 4000 hours in each type as PIC. To me from a purely pilots point of view, the L1011 was a superior airplane to the DC10.

This is a superb forum. We can find here a lot of valuable and useful info.

Although I don't want to transform this as an L-1011 VS DC-10, Spooky 2, when you say L1011 was a superior airplane, can you substantiate that statement?

And what is your opinion on a new generation L1011 as I have been previously wrote?

Reengine, upgrade to fly-by-wire and glass cockpit would you think this would be an valuable and viable option in the medium term long range market?

Great contributions from you all, thanks:ok:

[hawker750]

I too flew the both the 10 for 5 years and the 1011 for about the same. I much prefered the 10.
A true story from about 1975/6. LAX - LHR BOAC/BA and the cabin crew asked if a 1st class passenger could come up and say hello. Of course in those days it was welcomed. We were just over the tip of Greenland at the time so the view was great. The American gentleman came up and after a bit of small talk asked, "Well guys how would you like to be in the cockpit of a 1011 right now? I replied that it would be my worst nightmare. He enquired as to why. I replied that if I was in the cockpit of a 1011 right now it would have run out of fuel about an hour ago and we would all be extremely wet. He looked crestfalllen, said his good byes but left his card on the centre consol. After he had left I picked up the card.......CEO of Lockheed. Unuf said about comparisons

[Wizofoz]

Reengine, upgrade to fly-by-wire and glass cockpit would you think this would be an valuable and viable option in the medium term long range market?


rb,

How may people have to tell you-NO!!!!

What you are proposing (particularly the Fly-By-Wire bit) would be an entirerly new aircraft, new certification, new manufacturing.

MUCH better to star with a clean sheet.

Aircraft design has moved on- do the same!!

[Mr Optimistic]

Overun, just puzzled by your interest: you are a long way away.

[Spooky 2]

Once again it's just my opinion and nothing more, but I thought the L1011 was a better handling aircraft than the DC10. Hawker 750 needs to get over that issue and move on. His opinion is just as valid as mine, simply not the same one. The DC10 accident record speaks for itself.

I seriously doubt that any L1011 that was being used in transatlantic ops would be so fuel limited that somewhere abeam Greenland they would be in a fuel critical state. Gross mis-statements like these do nothing to further this tread.

As for making a new version of the L1011, not likely for any number of reasons that can be found in all of the previous threads. Case closed.:ugh:

[westhawk]

I always liked the Tri-Star. In tech school we studied her systems and design features. System redundancy and fail operational design features were well thought out and elegant. It was well ahead of other designs of the era. I only rode on one once and remember the experience being pleasant enough. But then I was on my way home having just completed my term of Army service!

The DC-10 was demanded in greater numbers for several reasons related to airline cost/profitability metrics. Additionally, the RB-211 being the only engine option on the L-1011 undoubtedly soured some potential airframe sales. The comparative accident record does indeed speak for itself. And EAL 401 was much more of a CRM lesson than a design lesson even though the lack of A/P mode reversion warning WAS ill thought out. (though not really an airplane design issue per se)

But all that said, time rolls on and Lockheed's only entry into the civil jet airliner market is relegated to history along with all their other great civilian planes. Lockheed was a great company in it's time, but that time is in the history books. What remains of the company today bears little relation to the one that produced all those revolutionary designs.

So let's appreciate the achievements of the past with due reverence while recognizing that new market entrants must be just that: NEW! Newly evolved designs utilizing modern materials technology and construction techniques which optimize profitability for builders and airlines alike. It's all about payload revenue versus cost of delivery and old designs were not optimized for the kind of efficiencies that rule today's market. Fuel prices, labor costs and myriad other differences between today and yesterday demand lighter and more performance efficiency optimized design.The design of the aircraft must incorporate features which recognize that maintenance tasks must be simplified to accommodate an ever decreasing maintenance workforce comprised of ever less capable technicians making ever less wages. Kost Kontrol is King! (but assuming HUGE acquisition burdens is somehow okay due to evolved tax liability and accounting methodology)

Anyway, so long to the Tri-Star, Connie and Lodestar. And not to forget the Jetstar, an airplane which paid for most of my pilot ratings by requiring I work allot of overtime as an A&P mechanic! So long and fare thee well old friends. I'll visit you in a museum and relive some good memories after parking the next generation disposable plastic jet at the FBO!

[rbaiapinto]

Couldn't agree more!

The only thing is that for LM to reenter civil market, IMHO the right approach should be, first reengineer Tristar, like Airbus did with Neo and Boeing with MAX, with a relative small investment and start to receive revenues, which I think L-1011 has the potential for it, even more with the right upgrades. The extent of those upgrades should be analysed in a cost/benefit point of view.

After this, LM could then, with a much more secure and stable position, start its endeavour in a: Newly evolved designs utilizing modern materials technology and construction techniques which optimize profitability for builders and airlines alike

That's the path to be undertaken for LM in the return to Civil Market.

In the other hand, in my country we have a saying that says " A cat who has been burned by hot liquid is afraid of cold water" and perhaps LM is comfortable as it is and do not want to grow and expand any more than it is now!:uhoh: