DC-10 and Tristar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,033
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it that these days a quick call to Ivan and his Antonovs solves the conundrum ?
Last airliner certificated with an additional hardpoint for engine transportation was the 747-400. The 747-8 with its redesigned wing can't do it.
Got stuck in Nairobi for 48 hours in early '78 as one of the BA 747s engines had refused to start.
Replacement engine arrived in a pod and the old one in the pod then fitted to our aircraft after the engine change.
Replacement engine arrived in a pod and the old one in the pod then fitted to our aircraft after the engine change.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I recall the DC10-30 didn't need to use that additional gear, it could land without it if light enough but then it wouldn't next be able to take-off heavy if the gear wasn't already down.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harry.
BA DC10, ex cally.
Took off from lgw, centre gear overheat warning, which extiguished fairly quickly, continued to Jfk.
Pax decided to take ill mid atlantic, with suspected heart attack.
No need to make a decision for some time, nowhere to go, and after an hour or so, pax not dead, pax not recovered, diverted to gander.
Decided to land/take off centre gear up.
Took off again and was an hour or so late into Jfk.
Landed with centre gear up.
Ground engineers cross because to lower centre gear on ground was difficult, to get the thing to go back to lgw.
Yes, there were different limits.
Eventually, sort of, tea and no biscuits interview but decided hindsight is wonderful thing.
What would you do!!
I saw it as being practical.
BA DC10, ex cally.
Took off from lgw, centre gear overheat warning, which extiguished fairly quickly, continued to Jfk.
Pax decided to take ill mid atlantic, with suspected heart attack.
No need to make a decision for some time, nowhere to go, and after an hour or so, pax not dead, pax not recovered, diverted to gander.
Decided to land/take off centre gear up.
Took off again and was an hour or so late into Jfk.
Landed with centre gear up.
Ground engineers cross because to lower centre gear on ground was difficult, to get the thing to go back to lgw.
Yes, there were different limits.
Eventually, sort of, tea and no biscuits interview but decided hindsight is wonderful thing.
What would you do!!
I saw it as being practical.
Last edited by finncapt; 13th Dec 2017 at 04:36.
Not too hard to extend centre gear on DC-10 as long as you deflate the shock strut first and push the wheels as they roll along the ground.
In the BCAL training school at Gatwick there was a retract actuator that was bent like a banana when someone tried to do it without deflation.
One of the ways to change a centre wheel was to partly retract the leg.
In the BCAL training school at Gatwick there was a retract actuator that was bent like a banana when someone tried to do it without deflation.
One of the ways to change a centre wheel was to partly retract the leg.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that comment was directed at me.
Yes, in hindsight, I should have extended it to land at JFK and accepted that the overheat warning earlier was, as it turned out to be, false (crud in the system).
It had gone out fairly immediately after it had come on.
In Gander, I think I made the correct decision to leave it up.
Yes, in hindsight, I should have extended it to land at JFK and accepted that the overheat warning earlier was, as it turned out to be, false (crud in the system).
It had gone out fairly immediately after it had come on.
In Gander, I think I made the correct decision to leave it up.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Memories of a ramp rat.
The DC-10s had an infernal ULD restraint system which utilised a 'shutter bar', basically you loaded the cans (even numbers only) and after the last one was in you had to move the shutter bar to hold everything in place. This thing frequently jammed.
The Tristar had a remote controller to control the movement of ULDs in the forward hold. High tech back in the day even though it was still wired. I also remembered that the nosewheel steering bypass pin needed to be inserted way up on the nosewheel instead of down low. The pin was attached to a long pole (about 2-3feet).
Anilv
The DC-10s had an infernal ULD restraint system which utilised a 'shutter bar', basically you loaded the cans (even numbers only) and after the last one was in you had to move the shutter bar to hold everything in place. This thing frequently jammed.
The Tristar had a remote controller to control the movement of ULDs in the forward hold. High tech back in the day even though it was still wired. I also remembered that the nosewheel steering bypass pin needed to be inserted way up on the nosewheel instead of down low. The pin was attached to a long pole (about 2-3feet).
Anilv
I understand that westbound LHR-LAX could still be marginal, and if there was a full pax load and headwinds anticipated, freight would have to be offloaded. There was also a procedure, which I very nearly experienced as pax (we were given letters at check in describing it) before it was cancelled at the last minute, that if things were too tight it would operate with a fuel stop at Prestwick. Flight time restrictions required a crew change there, so the relieving crew had to be anticipated and sent up the day before.
As it's time for an appropriate seasonal comment, the ANZ DC-10s on the route were the only aircraft I have ever seen with Christmas decorations down the cabin, they were lightweight paper spheres hung from the cabin ceiling. Did they bounce around in turbulence !
One of those posting above is, I believe, the expert, as they were there at the time !
Last edited by WHBM; 13th Dec 2017 at 08:27.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM.
You are correct regarding the additional places served.
We also did Lhr - Bos - Phl and return.
The direct LAX was usually doable but often, if it was tight, reduced contingency was utilised.
For those that don't know, this allows for the reduction of contingency fuel (figure escapes me but it was % of the total fuel required from dep to dest to alt) by nominating an en route alternate.
Thus the contingency required can be reduced as the total distance is reduced.
As one got nearer the destination the remaining required contingency, assuming it has not been used, reduces as the distance to destination has reduced.
So one may fuel plan, for example, lhr - Winnipeg - lax and as one got nearer to Winnipeg replan to las -lax and then nearer las replan to lax with Ontario (California) as diversion.
A long time ago but I think I've got it about right.
The sector was tight for crew hours and a standby crew, the next day's operating crew, was stationed in a local hotel, waiting like coiled springs, lest the operation was delayed.
Again, a long time ago, but I think we were stood down, from standby, when the aircraft had passed the mid atlantic point.
You are correct regarding the additional places served.
We also did Lhr - Bos - Phl and return.
The direct LAX was usually doable but often, if it was tight, reduced contingency was utilised.
For those that don't know, this allows for the reduction of contingency fuel (figure escapes me but it was % of the total fuel required from dep to dest to alt) by nominating an en route alternate.
Thus the contingency required can be reduced as the total distance is reduced.
As one got nearer the destination the remaining required contingency, assuming it has not been used, reduces as the distance to destination has reduced.
So one may fuel plan, for example, lhr - Winnipeg - lax and as one got nearer to Winnipeg replan to las -lax and then nearer las replan to lax with Ontario (California) as diversion.
A long time ago but I think I've got it about right.
The sector was tight for crew hours and a standby crew, the next day's operating crew, was stationed in a local hotel, waiting like coiled springs, lest the operation was delayed.
Again, a long time ago, but I think we were stood down, from standby, when the aircraft had passed the mid atlantic point.
The only BA TriStars that tech stopped at Bangor were the British Airtours aircraft in 392 seat configuration en route to Orlando and LAX. KT had a large charter operation to both destinations and Bangor was a scheduled stop for fuel and crew change. It was one of those situations - allegedly - where the economics of the tech stop were equal to or better than the nonstop, though of course it was aircraft performance that dictated the need for the stop.
In mainline BA operations to the USA the L1011-200s served Eastern Seaboard destinations as far as Washington. The -500s went as far as Seattle and New Orleans. I believe BA's original specification for the -500 was for LAX nonstop but because of the performance shortfall BA never attempted this. In any case the route needed the greater capacity of the DC10 and 747.
The -500s that flew the Rio route were not the original BA aircraft which by then had been sold to the MoD but two late production aircraft leased in from Air Lanka. These had a higher MTOW (c.+6000kgs) which was often necessary for the route. Even so it could sometimes be a tight operation. Southbound, early morning fog at Rio could be an issue, resulting in the occasional diversion. Northbound, take off from GIG could variously be limited by MTOW, RTOW (WAT limit I think) or fuel tank capacity. The Sao Paulo shuttle was planned to return to GIG with fuel to Max Landing Weight. Supposedly the rationale for this was that the GRU fuel was colder and further cooled by the brief cruise at FL370 hence a greater fuel weight could be loaded at GIG for the LHR sector if tank capacity was an issue.
In mainline BA operations to the USA the L1011-200s served Eastern Seaboard destinations as far as Washington. The -500s went as far as Seattle and New Orleans. I believe BA's original specification for the -500 was for LAX nonstop but because of the performance shortfall BA never attempted this. In any case the route needed the greater capacity of the DC10 and 747.
The -500s that flew the Rio route were not the original BA aircraft which by then had been sold to the MoD but two late production aircraft leased in from Air Lanka. These had a higher MTOW (c.+6000kgs) which was often necessary for the route. Even so it could sometimes be a tight operation. Southbound, early morning fog at Rio could be an issue, resulting in the occasional diversion. Northbound, take off from GIG could variously be limited by MTOW, RTOW (WAT limit I think) or fuel tank capacity. The Sao Paulo shuttle was planned to return to GIG with fuel to Max Landing Weight. Supposedly the rationale for this was that the GRU fuel was colder and further cooled by the brief cruise at FL370 hence a greater fuel weight could be loaded at GIG for the LHR sector if tank capacity was an issue.
Thank you Finncapt. I was a regular on the DC-10s on the LAX route at the time, I wonder if you were ever up front when I was back in the cabin.
The flight commonly routed over a VOR in northern Wyoming called Crazy Woman (KCZI) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Woman_Creek and, in the days when crews still made periodic cabin PAs without the film watchers going berserk, it was more often than not announced by the flight deck as we passed by. Probably too politically incorrect to do so nowadays.
For flight times, LAX is just slightly over a daily round trip. The BA DC-10 flight arrived at LAX a couple of hours after the opposite departure had left. If the westbound had been cancelled (see below) Air NZ just turned their plane at LAX round; they didn't send one to BA unless they were getting one back.
BA never marketed the flight as a through one to New Zealand, as at the time they still had their own 747 service going the other way through Singapore. One occasion when we had a cancellation due to a sudden fuellers strike at Heathrow (and probably a flight time overrun) the Auckland pax were transferred to this 747, departing in the evening. It must be unusual to get a reroute going the other way round the world. The through pax always seemed to be Kiwis, so maybe Air NZ, who had no service to London at the time, marketed it as such at home.
I understand the Air NZ DC-10 flight deck was built to the KSSU (KLM SAS Swissair UTA) standard, and to avoid having to go to Auckland for sim checks the BA crew went to Amsterdam and used time on the KLM one. Which must have made a change from repetitive LAX and back trips.
Regarding the L1011-500 ops, I once had one on BA LHR-SEA-YVR, with the brief stop in Seattle when, in those days, you could just stay on board. They even served an afternoon tea in economy on the hop from Seattle to Vancouver - no local passengers. Probably 1982. The skipper announced the Boeing plant at Everett as we overflew it - I wonder how many realised we were not in one of its products.
The Bangor tech stops did have advantages, as westbound pax would go through US customs there and thus could walk straight out at Orlando. In addition a BGR-MCO-BGR roundtrip was possible for the relief crew. Bangor long had a marketing department who pitched for this tech stop business rather than Gander. Several UK charter operators did this, with 757s as well as Tristars and Laker DC-10-10s. I will leave it to others to recollect old times at the Bangor hotac ......
The flight commonly routed over a VOR in northern Wyoming called Crazy Woman (KCZI) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy_Woman_Creek and, in the days when crews still made periodic cabin PAs without the film watchers going berserk, it was more often than not announced by the flight deck as we passed by. Probably too politically incorrect to do so nowadays.
For flight times, LAX is just slightly over a daily round trip. The BA DC-10 flight arrived at LAX a couple of hours after the opposite departure had left. If the westbound had been cancelled (see below) Air NZ just turned their plane at LAX round; they didn't send one to BA unless they were getting one back.
BA never marketed the flight as a through one to New Zealand, as at the time they still had their own 747 service going the other way through Singapore. One occasion when we had a cancellation due to a sudden fuellers strike at Heathrow (and probably a flight time overrun) the Auckland pax were transferred to this 747, departing in the evening. It must be unusual to get a reroute going the other way round the world. The through pax always seemed to be Kiwis, so maybe Air NZ, who had no service to London at the time, marketed it as such at home.
I understand the Air NZ DC-10 flight deck was built to the KSSU (KLM SAS Swissair UTA) standard, and to avoid having to go to Auckland for sim checks the BA crew went to Amsterdam and used time on the KLM one. Which must have made a change from repetitive LAX and back trips.
Regarding the L1011-500 ops, I once had one on BA LHR-SEA-YVR, with the brief stop in Seattle when, in those days, you could just stay on board. They even served an afternoon tea in economy on the hop from Seattle to Vancouver - no local passengers. Probably 1982. The skipper announced the Boeing plant at Everett as we overflew it - I wonder how many realised we were not in one of its products.
The Bangor tech stops did have advantages, as westbound pax would go through US customs there and thus could walk straight out at Orlando. In addition a BGR-MCO-BGR roundtrip was possible for the relief crew. Bangor long had a marketing department who pitched for this tech stop business rather than Gander. Several UK charter operators did this, with 757s as well as Tristars and Laker DC-10-10s. I will leave it to others to recollect old times at the Bangor hotac ......
Last edited by WHBM; 13th Dec 2017 at 10:31.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And amongst all the chaos not only did we operate all our own US services we even operated a sub-charter for Air Florida!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the OPs original question, Delta operated both the DC10 (-10) and the L1011. Later they merged with Western Airlines and acquired around 8 or 9 DC10-10's in that transaction. WAL had previously operated a single DC10-30 (former AZ aircraft) and pretty much dedicated to a couple of Gatwick, NA routes. I believe DAL was the largestt operator of the L1011's back around 1990. Great airplane!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, AMS for the simulator.
When the operation was winding down, BA had too many sim bookings for the crews requiring checks.
I, and many others, would ask for extra sims as it meant 3 nights in Amsterdam with the attendant fun that goes with that!!
One of the secrets of BA was the ANZ DC10.
ABZ base in Highland Division and DC10 in Kuwait, after one of the gulf wars, were others.
During my career, I attempted to find those fleets, generally small, on which one could have fun and not be too bothered by management.
When the operation was winding down, BA had too many sim bookings for the crews requiring checks.
I, and many others, would ask for extra sims as it meant 3 nights in Amsterdam with the attendant fun that goes with that!!
One of the secrets of BA was the ANZ DC10.
ABZ base in Highland Division and DC10 in Kuwait, after one of the gulf wars, were others.
During my career, I attempted to find those fleets, generally small, on which one could have fun and not be too bothered by management.
