british airways tristar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: vic australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
british airways tristar
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: vic australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Why oh why would I wanna be anywhere else?
Posts: 1,305
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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!
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!
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.
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..
..and the burn rate was nothing like 1.3 x the 747 rate..
Ahhh......b*gger it! Too late...
....then someone else pointed out that, whilst the figures were true, the TriStar only had 3 engines, whereas the 747 had 4..
..and the burn rate was nothing like 1.3 x the 747 rate..Ahhh......b*gger it! Too late...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
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).
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,619
Received 294 Likes
on
162 Posts
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.
Only TriStars I flew on were Delta Gatwick/Miami and return, about 20 years ago.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the TriStar... a very nice aeroplane.
Cue 411A...
Cue 411A...
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.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shrink at your peril
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.
All other attempts (747SP, TriStar 500...) have failed dismally.
The 787-8 is also a shrink: too small to earn money.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
All other attempts (747SP, TriStar 500...) have failed dismally.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I also seem to recall nonstop operations from London to New Orleans with the -500s.