Ex ATA L1011's going to the RAF
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GONE BY 2012
Age: 51
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good - just what the AT fleet needs
More ancient, non-standardised, knackered ex-airline Tristars
Some more pans taken up at Brize by the 216 static display sqn.
More ancient, non-standardised, knackered ex-airline Tristars
Some more pans taken up at Brize by the 216 static display sqn.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Balmullo,Scotland
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hope they stay clear of N186AT as had 4 hyd failures in this one in 6 months all at the same place in the tail are forword of the stabiliser box we always suspected the airframe was twisted causing the pipe to chaff through.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Age: 80
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Airfleets N186AT first flew on 12 April 1974 and was delivered to Delta as N706DA on 2 May 1974; it's been in store at Roswell since May 2003.
In between whiles it's been around a bit - Air Algerie, Air France, Air Afrique...
Scrapheap Challenge, indeed!
American Trans Air N186AT (Lockheed L-1011 TriStar) (Ex N706DA ) - Airfleets
In between whiles it's been around a bit - Air Algerie, Air France, Air Afrique...
Scrapheap Challenge, indeed!
American Trans Air N186AT (Lockheed L-1011 TriStar) (Ex N706DA ) - Airfleets
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: WILTS
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been saying for ages as a short stop till they can get FSTA up and running it would be a sensible option, been talked about several times over the recent months, as long as all Checks have been carried out (which think they have) then in theory they could come straight in to service.
Oviously would be restricted where there could fly in too unless they get em then lose em to MAE for 18 months but say it again! as a stop gap why not get em and use em as "hub and spoke".
Oviously would be restricted where there could fly in too unless they get em then lose em to MAE for 18 months but say it again! as a stop gap why not get em and use em as "hub and spoke".
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,834
Received 2,801 Likes
on
1,193 Posts
Why not do what the rest of the world does and buy something NEW and modern......... there is a reason the worlds airlines retire these old dogs, they cost a fortune to maintain and in the long term a A330 etc would pay you back dividends over flying something you get in African states these days....... Typical British Government spending plans, buy cheap tired old dogs then spend a fortune maintaining them....... there is good reason Airlines get rid of the old aircraft in their fleets, and that is they would go bust keeping them flying...
Look at the VC10....... that was on it's swan song when I worked on them 15 years ago, these days it must come with it's own zimmer frame.......
It amased me when the UK Government donated XYZ millions to Pakistan to combat terrorism of late........ when you look at what they fly and can afford to maintain and then look at what the RAF is still operating, one often wonders if the money should not be coming the other way......
Look at the VC10....... that was on it's swan song when I worked on them 15 years ago, these days it must come with it's own zimmer frame.......
It amased me when the UK Government donated XYZ millions to Pakistan to combat terrorism of late........ when you look at what they fly and can afford to maintain and then look at what the RAF is still operating, one often wonders if the money should not be coming the other way......
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...Errr..sorry for butting in...I was just going to say what a great airplane the L1011 is, and has always been.
It's an airplane that was way ahead of its time.
My understanding of the main reason most larger airlines, at least, change their airplanes for later models is not because of higher maintenance costs, or even slightly higher running costs, but its because the airline wants the travelling public to see they're in a shiney new airframe, and the public like that to...not knowing anything else but what they can see, new seats and carpets.
This is not an issue here, and so they can go ahead and use good, reliable (generally) established types, that still have plenty of good hours, and an FE!
(can't overlook that!).
Cheers...FD...
It's an airplane that was way ahead of its time.
My understanding of the main reason most larger airlines, at least, change their airplanes for later models is not because of higher maintenance costs, or even slightly higher running costs, but its because the airline wants the travelling public to see they're in a shiney new airframe, and the public like that to...not knowing anything else but what they can see, new seats and carpets.
This is not an issue here, and so they can go ahead and use good, reliable (generally) established types, that still have plenty of good hours, and an FE!
(can't overlook that!).
Cheers...FD...
Is this true? Would anyone seriously consider buying such ancient old clunkers in this day and age? No doubt Arfur Daley at Cambridge will be rubbing his hands together at the thought of the 'nice little earner' he would get for attempting to restore these shagged old heaps to working status....
How's the 'glass cockpit' coming along then, Arfur?
If true, it really would say it all about RAF priorities. Lots of jolly super whizzy TypHoons for the pointy heads to play about with - but modern AT aircraft? Forget it - kanckered old desert dogs will have to do....
How's the 'glass cockpit' coming along then, Arfur?
If true, it really would say it all about RAF priorities. Lots of jolly super whizzy TypHoons for the pointy heads to play about with - but modern AT aircraft? Forget it - kanckered old desert dogs will have to do....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
[QUOTE=Flight Detent;4645212a great airplane the L1011 is, and has always been.
It's an airplane that was way ahead of its time.[/QUOTE]
And which time would that be?
I lunched with a guy that bought all the EA VC10s in 1974. Pleased as punch he was with the low price, absolute bargain.
The L1011, as a pure passenger jet in a civilian environment might just cut the mustard. In a military environment you need one or two little gucci mods, like a paint job, UHF radios, IFF, and probably a new set of seats, facing the other way, and without TV screens.
I am sure Brize would just love to operate yet another aircraft type that 'looks' like a T* but is different from all the other birds there.
Available? Maybe.
Cheap? You jest.
It's an airplane that was way ahead of its time.[/QUOTE]
And which time would that be?
I lunched with a guy that bought all the EA VC10s in 1974. Pleased as punch he was with the low price, absolute bargain.
The L1011, as a pure passenger jet in a civilian environment might just cut the mustard. In a military environment you need one or two little gucci mods, like a paint job, UHF radios, IFF, and probably a new set of seats, facing the other way, and without TV screens.
I am sure Brize would just love to operate yet another aircraft type that 'looks' like a T* but is different from all the other birds there.
Available? Maybe.
Cheap? You jest.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
...and probably a new set of seats, facing the other way...
None of the Tristars I flew in on my way to various hot and sandy places had the seats facing the other way.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: gloucester
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Civil airlines use newer aircraft because the fuel bill is cheaper!
Tri-motors are almost irrelievent these days with ETOP approvals, arguably the death of Lockhead and Mcdonald Douglas who had bet on tri-motors being the future.
This move by the raf maybe a good one if they dont arse about with them. As long as they are RVSM equiped they can deliver troops to somewhere like muscat with C-17s taking them direct to theater.
If no Mods are requird a good short term buy!
P.S. Sounds far to sensible though!
Tri-motors are almost irrelievent these days with ETOP approvals, arguably the death of Lockhead and Mcdonald Douglas who had bet on tri-motors being the future.
This move by the raf maybe a good one if they dont arse about with them. As long as they are RVSM equiped they can deliver troops to somewhere like muscat with C-17s taking them direct to theater.
If no Mods are requird a good short term buy!
P.S. Sounds far to sensible though!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least the fighter department wouldn't do something as daft as this. There is no way that they would buy 15 cast-off 1960s jets from, say, the US Navy when the only common item would be the radome and then try to integrate them at minimum cost into the existing line up and find out that it just wouldn't pay. And then call it something weird like F-4J(UK) or F-4 Mk3. Just wouldn't happen.
Performance-wise the F-4J was pretty impressive compared to the Spey ones.
Support-wise though it was a pig to deploy, taking nearly one C-130 per F-4J if you needed to take the massive air starters etc. as well as the normal support kit.
Happy days!
Support-wise though it was a pig to deploy, taking nearly one C-130 per F-4J if you needed to take the massive air starters etc. as well as the normal support kit.
Happy days!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: WILTS
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody is saying that this is an ideal buy! BUT as a stop gap until out lords and masters can come up with some cash to buy something newer then it makes sense! And they are cheap in comparison
We have an engineering set up for the TriStar (even if undermanned), we have a training sytem set up and we have crews to fly it (yep incuding the Air Eng)
Face facts we need seats on jets to get bums to and from the sandy place, FSTA ia years away, the govt cannot afford to go out and buy shiney new airbus at the mo, it would be a cheap, QUICK option to increase capacity of the A/T fleet
We have an engineering set up for the TriStar (even if undermanned), we have a training sytem set up and we have crews to fly it (yep incuding the Air Eng)
Face facts we need seats on jets to get bums to and from the sandy place, FSTA ia years away, the govt cannot afford to go out and buy shiney new airbus at the mo, it would be a cheap, QUICK option to increase capacity of the A/T fleet
Join Date: May 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many a god tune....
Zoom Nice one 
Wattisham is a poorer place without them.
Tristars: If intended as only a short term stop gap, pending acquisition of decent arframes ... Methinks they'd make sense.
However, I bet they will be sink holes for cash.
Although the bean counters must be weighing the cost against the charter bill whilst allowing for savings in crew training as we already have crew qualified .
Just have to accept that this is the way it will be for some time to come. UK PLC is bankrupt.
Howzabout we dig out the jigs for the Belfast and put it back into production with uber sexy new turbofan engines and carlos fandango cockpit.
To be produced in the combi guise. Quickly convertible trooping, freighter, tanker and sea surveillance roles.
I know a factory that could reverse engineer one if the jigs are gone.
I'll find that phone number. Anyone got a Shanghai directory?
Wattisham is a poorer place without them.Tristars: If intended as only a short term stop gap, pending acquisition of decent arframes ... Methinks they'd make sense.
However, I bet they will be sink holes for cash.
Although the bean counters must be weighing the cost against the charter bill whilst allowing for savings in crew training as we already have crew qualified .
Just have to accept that this is the way it will be for some time to come. UK PLC is bankrupt.
Howzabout we dig out the jigs for the Belfast and put it back into production with uber sexy new turbofan engines and carlos fandango cockpit.
To be produced in the combi guise. Quickly convertible trooping, freighter, tanker and sea surveillance roles.
I know a factory that could reverse engineer one if the jigs are gone.
I'll find that phone number. Anyone got a Shanghai directory?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,834
Received 2,801 Likes
on
1,193 Posts
Flight Detent...Errr..sorry for butting in...I was just going to say what a great airplane the L1011 is, and has always been.
It's an airplane that was way ahead of its time.
My understanding of the main reason most larger airlines, at least, change their airplanes for later models is not because of higher maintenance costs, or even slightly higher running costs, but its because the airline wants the travelling public to see they're in a shiney new airframe, and the public like that to...not knowing anything else but what they can see, new seats and carpets.
This is not an issue here, and so they can go ahead and use good, reliable (generally) established types, that still have plenty of good hours, and an FE!
(can't overlook that!).
Cheers...FD...
It's an airplane that was way ahead of its time.
My understanding of the main reason most larger airlines, at least, change their airplanes for later models is not because of higher maintenance costs, or even slightly higher running costs, but its because the airline wants the travelling public to see they're in a shiney new airframe, and the public like that to...not knowing anything else but what they can see, new seats and carpets.
This is not an issue here, and so they can go ahead and use good, reliable (generally) established types, that still have plenty of good hours, and an FE!
(can't overlook that!).
Cheers...FD...
The Wright Flyer was "ahead of its time" and if the ministry could find a way of hanging a couple of thousand pounders on it they would probably still be using them too!
An airline is in the industry to make money.... A lot of the budget airlines have a turn over of fleet every 5 years as once you get out of the 5 year warranty period you can start adding a lot of noughts to your maintainance bills, pure and simple... additionally as mentioned fuel burn is crucial in factoring this in, I realise the RAF is in a world of its own, they proved that when they rebuilt the Tristar that did an autoland at Brize many moons ago with the system not on and did the wing spars.......... no one in their right minds would have put it into a hangar for a year and throw money at it, but the RAF did, I do not even thing the Manufacurer could believe that one...
It's not rocket science to see that if airlines are dumping these things in the desert then they have had there time, the Governments of this Country on the other hand always have worked in quick cheap fixes that plaster over the real problems.
No Government is going to be popular by spending huge amounts of resources and increasing taxation to fund it when they can prop up a failing system with a few cheap off the shelf old dogs whilst looking to be doing something....... Take the landrover for example and the bodge it and scarper jobs they do on them for Iraq, this is plastering over the cracks cheaply to make it look like they are doing something when the best thing they could do with them is to replace them all with something that is up to the job in the first place..
Never going to happen as long as I have a hole in my butt, and there ain't much chance of that healing over....