DC-10 and Tristar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arrow Air in Miami, owned by an old renegade billionaire called George Batchelor, operated both types. George bought some of the ex-Gulfair Tristars and got Marshalls at Cambridge to turn them into freighters. They were a financial disaster.
One of my old DC-10 F/Es went on the project. They rapidly discovered that the L1011 simply did not have the legs to fly any decent distance unless you sawed 30 feet off the fuselage.
The Tristar freighter was a lovely aircraft to fly (I am led to believe) but, with maximum payload, it ran out of fuel after 5 hours - think about what you could do commercially with that limitation.
In Laker we only had to tech stop in Bangor on the way to LAX when we had the DC-10-10. LGW to LAX direct was ALWAYS possible when we got the -30 and with a full load we could even manage a derate take-off from Gatwick.
One of my old DC-10 F/Es went on the project. They rapidly discovered that the L1011 simply did not have the legs to fly any decent distance unless you sawed 30 feet off the fuselage.
The Tristar freighter was a lovely aircraft to fly (I am led to believe) but, with maximum payload, it ran out of fuel after 5 hours - think about what you could do commercially with that limitation.
In Laker we only had to tech stop in Bangor on the way to LAX when we had the DC-10-10. LGW to LAX direct was ALWAYS possible when we got the -30 and with a full load we could even manage a derate take-off from Gatwick.
Regarding 'reduced contingency', I first came across this when Pan Am started the first full range use of the 747SP in the mid-1970s, doing nonstop JFK to Tokyo. I presume these were the first aircraft capable of doing that sort of length where contingency on a percentage basis becomes rather large (although the TWA Lockheed Constellation L-1649 Starliners in the late 1950s apparently took 21 hours-plus on Paris to LAX nonstop). The Pan Am flights planned from JFK to Anchorage, and filed a fresh flight plan when approaching there. Pan Am knew this process as "Refiling".
I wonder if this was a difference in flight planning standards between BA and Laker, where BA were more restrictive. Or maybe Laker didn't take the freight loads that BA did.
Because the same applied to the 747-100. BA always refused to run that on LAX, despite the high commercial demand, on the basis that it was beyond range. It was a significant part of the rationale behind the ANZ DC-10 lease in the first place. When the more capable Rolls-powered 747-200B came into the fleet LAX was the first route it was put on. Yet TWA had run the type to LAX from early days, likewise Pan Am to San Francisco. We did once have to put into Bangor, even eastbound, my only time ever there, on a TWA 747 from LAX to London. Same crew throughout despite two hours on the ground at BGR. Did a difference between UK and US FTLs or procedures mean that a BA flight doing the same would be stranded there until a new crew arrived ?
The very much MTOW departures of the Pan Am and TWA 747s with their early JT9Ds from Heathrow to California did cause some concern to Heathrow ATC on warm summer afternoons, which often meant on easterlies, and there was some breath-holding until they were out of sight. Once referred to as "leaving via the Piccadilly Line", while a comparable Pan Am departure was described as a "Hedge Clipper".
Because the same applied to the 747-100. BA always refused to run that on LAX, despite the high commercial demand, on the basis that it was beyond range. It was a significant part of the rationale behind the ANZ DC-10 lease in the first place. When the more capable Rolls-powered 747-200B came into the fleet LAX was the first route it was put on. Yet TWA had run the type to LAX from early days, likewise Pan Am to San Francisco. We did once have to put into Bangor, even eastbound, my only time ever there, on a TWA 747 from LAX to London. Same crew throughout despite two hours on the ground at BGR. Did a difference between UK and US FTLs or procedures mean that a BA flight doing the same would be stranded there until a new crew arrived ?
The very much MTOW departures of the Pan Am and TWA 747s with their early JT9Ds from Heathrow to California did cause some concern to Heathrow ATC on warm summer afternoons, which often meant on easterlies, and there was some breath-holding until they were out of sight. Once referred to as "leaving via the Piccadilly Line", while a comparable Pan Am departure was described as a "Hedge Clipper".
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to clarify those airlines that operated both the Lockheed L10-11 and the McDonnell Douglas DC10 in all their variations as ordered or through mergers but not necessarily operating both in service simultaneously.
Air France
American Transair
Arrow Air
British Airways
Caledonian
Delta
Eastern
Hawaiian
Iberia
LTU
Pan Am
United
Air France
American Transair
Arrow Air
British Airways
Caledonian
Delta
Eastern
Hawaiian
Iberia
LTU
Pan Am
United
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if this was a difference in flight planning standards between BA and Laker, where BA were more restrictive. Or maybe Laker didn't take the freight loads that BA did.
Because the same applied to the 747-100. BA always refused to run that on LAX, despite the high commercial demand, on the basis that it was beyond range. It was a significant part of the rationale behind the ANZ DC-10 lease in the first place. When the more capable Rolls-powered 747-200B came into the fleet LAX was the first route it was put on. Yet TWA had run the type to LAX from early days, likewise Pan Am to San Francisco. We did once have to put into Bangor, even eastbound, my only time ever there, on a TWA 747 from LAX to London. Same crew throughout despite two hours on the ground at BGR. Did a difference between UK and US FTLs or procedures mean that a BA flight doing the same would be stranded there until a new crew arrived ?
Because the same applied to the 747-100. BA always refused to run that on LAX, despite the high commercial demand, on the basis that it was beyond range. It was a significant part of the rationale behind the ANZ DC-10 lease in the first place. When the more capable Rolls-powered 747-200B came into the fleet LAX was the first route it was put on. Yet TWA had run the type to LAX from early days, likewise Pan Am to San Francisco. We did once have to put into Bangor, even eastbound, my only time ever there, on a TWA 747 from LAX to London. Same crew throughout despite two hours on the ground at BGR. Did a difference between UK and US FTLs or procedures mean that a BA flight doing the same would be stranded there until a new crew arrived ?
And, besides that, getting thru LAX immigration was a nightmare, the queues could be horrendous, so whilst crew changing and refuelling in BGR the passengers would clear US immigration thus arriving in LAX as domestic passengers and walking straight thru.
Just to clarify those airlines that operated both the Lockheed L10-11 and the McDonnell Douglas DC10 in all their variations as ordered or through mergers but not necessarily operating both in service simultaneously.
Air France
American Transair
Arrow Air
British Airways
Caledonian
Delta
Eastern
Hawaiian
Iberia
LTU
Pan Am
United
Air France
American Transair
Arrow Air
British Airways
Caledonian
Delta
Eastern
Hawaiian
Iberia
LTU
Pan Am
United
Originally posted by JW411
Arrow Air in Miami, owned by an old renegade billionaire called George Batchelor, operated both types. George bought some of the ex-Gulfair Tristars and got Marshalls at Cambridge to turn them into freighters. They were a financial disaster.
One of my old DC-10 F/Es went on the project. They rapidly discovered that the L1011 simply did not have the legs to fly any decent distance unless you sawed 30 feet off the fuselage.
The Tristar freighter was a lovely aircraft to fly (I am led to believe) but, with maximum payload, it ran out of fuel after 5 hours - think about what you could do commercially with that limitation.
--------------------------------
Every pilot I knew who flew the L-1011 loved its handling just like earlier ones preferred the Constellation to the DC-6/7. Maintenance had a different opinion.
Not counting the RAF conversions, to my knowledge, only seven L-1011 were converted to true freighters. UPS who were impressed by the low price and availability studied possible conversion of a fleet but wisely demurred. George Batchelor's -200 with the -524 engines and higher weights as mentioned above did not pan out. Strangely though, the only successful one was an ex-Eastern -1, N311EA (S/N 1012) with -22B engines and didn't even have a center tank.
It had been the first to be retired from Eastern service as it was heavy and had a lot of wiring glitches. It went to the desert but an investor group bought it for cargo conversion using an STC by a DER who had done a lot of B.727 conversions. The EAL Contract Maintenance Service (CMS) did a field trip and got it into ferry shape and it came to Miami where we took the engines off for required AD work. The airframe went over to an outfit on 36th Street who stripped the interior and galleys, removed all the cabin windows and frames and scabbed over the holes. They severed floor beams in the area of the prospective cargo door and then informed the investors they were tired of it and to take the aircraft away.
The Eastern CMS tied things back together, rehung engines and it ferried up to PEMCO in Dothan, Alabama. Using that same STC they did a very competent conversion.
Having left Eastern I inspected the aircraft there for possible purchase by Orion Air. It
was not suitable for heavy cargo work being even worse than the -200 mentioned above. A bit later, Tradewind Airline out of GSO (now Skylease) leased it and operated it for many years to and from Puerto Rico. It replaced CL-44's. It did very well as the route was what it had been designed for and the loads were not dense heavy stuff in the main. Stripping out one air conditioning pack, all the pax and galley gear, operating it as a CAT 2 aircraft and having a dedicated maintenance team (it was our only aircraft) made it much more reliable. It did crack the left rear wing spar web right through but there was already a repair and Service Bulletin. The cargo conversion never gave any real trouble. It had a hard forward bulkhead and smoke barrier installed instead of a main deck net which made a lot cosier area for a few seats and small galley. We were able to get a lot of still usable RB211-22B engines from the desert at almost scrap prices as airlines disposed of their L1011.
Finally however, looming mandatory AD work on the engines and spar caused its return to the leasing company. It then went off to Asia where I lost track. It was replaced by A300 and B747F and now Skylease operates MD-11 so I guess Tradewinds/Skylease qualify as operating L1011 ans (super) DC-10.
Arrow Air in Miami, owned by an old renegade billionaire called George Batchelor, operated both types. George bought some of the ex-Gulfair Tristars and got Marshalls at Cambridge to turn them into freighters. They were a financial disaster.
One of my old DC-10 F/Es went on the project. They rapidly discovered that the L1011 simply did not have the legs to fly any decent distance unless you sawed 30 feet off the fuselage.
The Tristar freighter was a lovely aircraft to fly (I am led to believe) but, with maximum payload, it ran out of fuel after 5 hours - think about what you could do commercially with that limitation.
--------------------------------
Every pilot I knew who flew the L-1011 loved its handling just like earlier ones preferred the Constellation to the DC-6/7. Maintenance had a different opinion.
Not counting the RAF conversions, to my knowledge, only seven L-1011 were converted to true freighters. UPS who were impressed by the low price and availability studied possible conversion of a fleet but wisely demurred. George Batchelor's -200 with the -524 engines and higher weights as mentioned above did not pan out. Strangely though, the only successful one was an ex-Eastern -1, N311EA (S/N 1012) with -22B engines and didn't even have a center tank.
It had been the first to be retired from Eastern service as it was heavy and had a lot of wiring glitches. It went to the desert but an investor group bought it for cargo conversion using an STC by a DER who had done a lot of B.727 conversions. The EAL Contract Maintenance Service (CMS) did a field trip and got it into ferry shape and it came to Miami where we took the engines off for required AD work. The airframe went over to an outfit on 36th Street who stripped the interior and galleys, removed all the cabin windows and frames and scabbed over the holes. They severed floor beams in the area of the prospective cargo door and then informed the investors they were tired of it and to take the aircraft away.
The Eastern CMS tied things back together, rehung engines and it ferried up to PEMCO in Dothan, Alabama. Using that same STC they did a very competent conversion.
Having left Eastern I inspected the aircraft there for possible purchase by Orion Air. It
was not suitable for heavy cargo work being even worse than the -200 mentioned above. A bit later, Tradewind Airline out of GSO (now Skylease) leased it and operated it for many years to and from Puerto Rico. It replaced CL-44's. It did very well as the route was what it had been designed for and the loads were not dense heavy stuff in the main. Stripping out one air conditioning pack, all the pax and galley gear, operating it as a CAT 2 aircraft and having a dedicated maintenance team (it was our only aircraft) made it much more reliable. It did crack the left rear wing spar web right through but there was already a repair and Service Bulletin. The cargo conversion never gave any real trouble. It had a hard forward bulkhead and smoke barrier installed instead of a main deck net which made a lot cosier area for a few seats and small galley. We were able to get a lot of still usable RB211-22B engines from the desert at almost scrap prices as airlines disposed of their L1011.
Finally however, looming mandatory AD work on the engines and spar caused its return to the leasing company. It then went off to Asia where I lost track. It was replaced by A300 and B747F and now Skylease operates MD-11 so I guess Tradewinds/Skylease qualify as operating L1011 ans (super) DC-10.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,634
Received 299 Likes
on
167 Posts
The very much MTOW departures of the Pan Am and TWA 747s with their early JT9Ds from Heathrow to California did cause some concern to Heathrow ATC on warm summer afternoons, which often meant on easterlies, and there was some breath-holding until they were out of sight. Once referred to as "leaving via the Piccadilly Line", while a comparable Pan Am departure was described as a "Hedge Clipper".
I believe one DC-10 did take some souvenir metal work back to California wrapped around a gear leg.
The Pan Am flights planned from JFK to Anchorage, and filed a fresh flight plan when approaching there. Pan Am knew this process as "Refiling".
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can recall watching TIA and World DC-10s scraping over the 26 approach lights at Gatwick when departing from 08 on hot summer days - must have been interesting on the Brighton line! Presumably the same off the other end, it just wasn't so obvious from the spectators' balcony; but then there was the rising ground of Russ Hill beyond...
I believe one DC-10 did take some souvenir metal work back to California wrapped around a gear leg.
I believe one DC-10 did take some souvenir metal work back to California wrapped around a gear leg.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,634
Received 299 Likes
on
167 Posts
May well have been TIA - I didn't witness it, heard the story from a friend who worked for Dan-Air ops. Certainly saw several protracted take-offs in the late 1970s.
I can recall watching TIA and World DC-10s scraping over the 26 approach lights at Gatwick when departing from 08 on hot summer days - must have been interesting on the Brighton line! Presumably the same off the other end, it just wasn't so obvious from the spectators' balcony; but then there was the rising ground of Russ Hill beyond...
The World DC10 routing was OAK-LAX-BWI-LGW-FRA and vice versa
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the 90's, operated supposedly stage lll hush-kitted DC8's on contract to BA Cargo out of LGW there's a decibel monitor somewhere in the vicinity of Russ Hill, these DC8's were going off heavy so lots of decibels on take-off then a throttle back over Russ Hill before putting the power back on again.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,634
Received 299 Likes
on
167 Posts
Wasn't there that Continental Airlines 747-200 that just scraped past Russ Hill back in the late 80's ???
I remember a World DC-10 departing 26 for FRA just before 8am one day about 1982. I was just coming into work at BCAL and saw a flash of flame from the no. 2 engine. By the time I had parked it was coming into land with all the fire engines on standby. It landed OK and an hour or so later it was towed to the BCAL hangars and I had a look at the damage.
One of the wing engines (I forget which one) had lost part of a fan blade which was uncontained. There was damage to a Slat and some debris had gone onto no.2 engine, hence the flash of flame that I saw.
Very nearly a double engine failure which would have been quite interesting I think.
Two engines were changed and the damage repaired.
One of the wing engines (I forget which one) had lost part of a fan blade which was uncontained. There was damage to a Slat and some debris had gone onto no.2 engine, hence the flash of flame that I saw.
Very nearly a double engine failure which would have been quite interesting I think.
Two engines were changed and the damage repaired.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Laker photo above showing prominently the centre landing gear of the DC-10-30 displays the reason why the Tristar was a dead end for long range ops. Both were designed originally against a US transcontinental requirement, without much expectation of intercontinental use. The initial DC-10 structural design envisaged that one day this extra middle gear might be needed for greatly increased weights, and provided for it, whereas the Tristar didn't, and the only way to handle more fuel load was to shorten the fuselage. Incidentally, the middle gear could be readily removed, Japan Air Lines in particular did this as they rotated their DC-10s (and MTOWs) between domestic and longer-haul fleets. The DC-10 middle engine position also made handling a larger later engine more straightforward, whereas the embedded Tristar one did not.
Douglas were the past masters at stretching, generally encouraged by the airlines, and their initial designs envisaged it. Lockheed hadn't done a commercial type for more than 10 years, hadn't sold to overseas airline customers for longer, and designed down to the original spec.
The best US aircraft ? Technical design by Lockheed, manufacture by Boeing, sales & marketing by Douglas.
Douglas were the past masters at stretching, generally encouraged by the airlines, and their initial designs envisaged it. Lockheed hadn't done a commercial type for more than 10 years, hadn't sold to overseas airline customers for longer, and designed down to the original spec.
The best US aircraft ? Technical design by Lockheed, manufacture by Boeing, sales & marketing by Douglas.
One of the really interesting features of the DC-10 was that it had an infinitely variable flap setting. In addition to the normal fixed flap settings (0, 15, 22, 35 and 50) it was possible to set the flaps to any setting between 1 and 25) This was done using a wheel with a vernier scale to the right of the flap/slat handles to set another movable flap detent to within a decimal point.
So, instead of most aircraft which only had fixed flap settings (which meant that the take-off performance was almost always a compromise) it was possible with the DC-10 to fit the aircraft exactly to the runway available and the take-off parameters which pertained at the time.
Therefore, the performance charts would, for example, tell you that for the existing conditions, the maximum take-off weight would require a flap setting of 2.3 and that would be exactly what we would set.
That is why some maximum weight DC-10 take-offs looked like we were going for the world land speed record.
According to a very good friend, this concept was too much for Northwest with their DC-10-40s (P&W) that they disabled the system but when they started introducing the DC-10-30 to go across the Pond, someone decided to join the 20th century.
On an amusing note, I can remember one summer night at JFK. We had a contract to move gold bullion and we were sat there with the Wells Fargo van alongside. Every time the ATIS came up with a reduction of temperature of 1 degree, we were able to tell the loaders to put on another 4 gold bars!
Happy days.
So, instead of most aircraft which only had fixed flap settings (which meant that the take-off performance was almost always a compromise) it was possible with the DC-10 to fit the aircraft exactly to the runway available and the take-off parameters which pertained at the time.
Therefore, the performance charts would, for example, tell you that for the existing conditions, the maximum take-off weight would require a flap setting of 2.3 and that would be exactly what we would set.
That is why some maximum weight DC-10 take-offs looked like we were going for the world land speed record.
According to a very good friend, this concept was too much for Northwest with their DC-10-40s (P&W) that they disabled the system but when they started introducing the DC-10-30 to go across the Pond, someone decided to join the 20th century.
On an amusing note, I can remember one summer night at JFK. We had a contract to move gold bullion and we were sat there with the Wells Fargo van alongside. Every time the ATIS came up with a reduction of temperature of 1 degree, we were able to tell the loaders to put on another 4 gold bars!
Happy days.
Originally Posted by JW411
One of the really interesting features of the DC-10 was that it had an infinitely variable flap setting.
Originally Posted by Harry Wayfarers
The World DC10 routing was OAK-LAX-BWI-LGW-FRA and vice versa
These operators picked up much of their base all-year work from the US military, and you might equally find their DC-10s overhead Cambridgeshire on approach to Mildenhall. Principal European point was Frankfurt, the US military base on the opposite side of the runways to the passenger terminal. They wove their tourist charters around this, as the military work was a lot of one-way stuff, not back-to-back, and it was nothing for flights to be flexed by a day or so at relatively short notice as they rearranged to suit the other work coming in. People would not put up with this nowadays, but did then. They ended up doing a lot of positioning flights around Europe to suit all this. Crews were almost wholly ex-military.
World were the first of these US carriers with jets, they got 707s, and later stretched DC8s, before the DC-10s. Incidentally, it would form a parallel discussion to the original "who had both" thread here, for who had both 707s and DC8s.
Originally Posted by tonytales
It [Tristar N311EA] then went off to Asia where I lost track.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@23.85.../data=!3m1!1e3
Delta operated both the DC10 (-10) and the L1011
My own final L-1011 Tristar story I have told before. The BA charter fleet ended up badged as Caledonian, and they had a substantial IT fleet of Tristars, slowly run down and all came to an end in Autumn 1999. Sunday 31 October 1999 to be precise, the same day as the end of the UK half term school holidays, and the end of many of the summer IT programmes to the Mediterranean. We had gone to Faro, Portugal, on a 737, and were back at the airport late afternoon to return to London. There on the ramp, as we passed very easily through and departed, was a Caledonian Tristar, delayed still from a morning departure also to Gatwick. When in the evening we got back to Gatwick it was still on the board as delayed, seemingly still in Faro.
Next morning, back to work. About lunchtime, in comes our weary-looking Chairman, with a tale of woe. Had been on holiday with the kids for the week, you see. To Portugal. Faro. And their plane home on Sunday morning had a huge delay and they had hung around Faro airport for 12 hours with fractious kids. As you may imagine, I sympathised. And otherwise kept very quiet.
Given it being the last day of the month, and indeed that Tristar's final operation (they never flew again commercially) I wonder just whether the handling agent, or even AOG spares at Gatwick, had got rid of their spares too soon. And when they finally rolled back into Gatwick in the early morning of 1 November, had any of the aircraft's documentation actually expired ?
One of the really interesting features of the DC-10 was that it had an infinitely variable flap setting. . . . . .
So, instead of most aircraft which only had fixed flap settings (which meant that the take-off performance was almost always a compromise) it was possible with the DC-10 to fit the aircraft exactly to the runway available and the take-off parameters which pertained at the time.
. . . . . .
That is why some maximum weight DC-10 take-offs looked like we were going for the world land speed record.
. . . . . . .
On an amusing note, I can remember one summer night at JFK. We had a contract to move gold bullion and we were sat there with the Wells Fargo van alongside. Every time the ATIS came up with a reduction of temperature of 1 degree, we were able to tell the loaders to put on another 4 gold bars!
Happy days.
So, instead of most aircraft which only had fixed flap settings (which meant that the take-off performance was almost always a compromise) it was possible with the DC-10 to fit the aircraft exactly to the runway available and the take-off parameters which pertained at the time.
. . . . . .
That is why some maximum weight DC-10 take-offs looked like we were going for the world land speed record.
. . . . . . .
On an amusing note, I can remember one summer night at JFK. We had a contract to move gold bullion and we were sat there with the Wells Fargo van alongside. Every time the ATIS came up with a reduction of temperature of 1 degree, we were able to tell the loaders to put on another 4 gold bars!
Happy days.