BRU Tristar visit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Upper Deck
Age: 60
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRU Tristar visit
Nice to see the Tristar 500, in RAF colours, landing at Brussels BRU airport for the military side around 1400UTC today. A fine looking machine, even if somewhat flawed in its design!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Upper Deck
Age: 60
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bite?
Bite? That was not the plan.
However, I feel the aircraft is far too complicated for its own good. I compare directly with the DC10 & B747. Even down @ basic engineering, such as "waste systems" the aircraft is a nightmare. Within BA Engineering the 2 most feared courses were the BAC 1.11 & the Tristar. & why? Because, when the British aircraft industry went t#ts up (not all its own fault) a lot of the designers went to Burbank where they worked their complicated over design into the Tristar.
The DC10 & 747 early models were not without their failings either. But as an operating aircraft they worked because of "keep it simple stupid" design.
Lockheed ran into severe financial problems, unfortunately, the aircraft was not updated. While the MD11 worked & the B744 took the table. May be an advanced & improved Tristar would of worked. I doubt it.
As Maggie said "the market speaks" & it didnt for the Tristar L1011, a mans machine!
By way, still a great machine!
Best rgds
Jumbo;
However, I feel the aircraft is far too complicated for its own good. I compare directly with the DC10 & B747. Even down @ basic engineering, such as "waste systems" the aircraft is a nightmare. Within BA Engineering the 2 most feared courses were the BAC 1.11 & the Tristar. & why? Because, when the British aircraft industry went t#ts up (not all its own fault) a lot of the designers went to Burbank where they worked their complicated over design into the Tristar.
The DC10 & 747 early models were not without their failings either. But as an operating aircraft they worked because of "keep it simple stupid" design.
Lockheed ran into severe financial problems, unfortunately, the aircraft was not updated. While the MD11 worked & the B744 took the table. May be an advanced & improved Tristar would of worked. I doubt it.
As Maggie said "the market speaks" & it didnt for the Tristar L1011, a mans machine!
By way, still a great machine!
Best rgds
Jumbo;
AF/RC
Handle well she might, but a commercial airliner isn't designed just for circuits and bumps.
She was terribly short of legs. The -500 made up for some of that, at the expense of payload due to the shortened fuselage. Active ailerons (were they? I never flew the L1011) helped a little more and that brought the spec up to roughly where the DC10 was when it rolled off the production line. IIRC the L1011 had 237 seats where the DC10 had 273 with the group that operated both. Granted, the DC10 was a much simpler a/c, remember the chain operated outflow valve on the forward fuselage below the F/E's station. Tristars built~ 250. DC10's built~500
BA didn't give/sell them to Aunty Betty because they were making 'loadsamunny'. Quite the reverse I'd have thought, and pleased to see them go.
Wonderful technology-with Direct Lift Dump, or whatever it was called to enable a constant pitch attitude on approach, etc, but not something so innovative that everyone else has subsequently rushed to incorporate those innovations.
A wonderful cutting edge commercial airliner all ready to make money...I don't think so.
All because of design flaws.
S
Edit. Overlapped with Jumbo a little (timeline) but the thrust is the same.
She was terribly short of legs. The -500 made up for some of that, at the expense of payload due to the shortened fuselage. Active ailerons (were they? I never flew the L1011) helped a little more and that brought the spec up to roughly where the DC10 was when it rolled off the production line. IIRC the L1011 had 237 seats where the DC10 had 273 with the group that operated both. Granted, the DC10 was a much simpler a/c, remember the chain operated outflow valve on the forward fuselage below the F/E's station. Tristars built~ 250. DC10's built~500
BA didn't give/sell them to Aunty Betty because they were making 'loadsamunny'. Quite the reverse I'd have thought, and pleased to see them go.
Wonderful technology-with Direct Lift Dump, or whatever it was called to enable a constant pitch attitude on approach, etc, but not something so innovative that everyone else has subsequently rushed to incorporate those innovations.
A wonderful cutting edge commercial airliner all ready to make money...I don't think so.
All because of design flaws.
S
Edit. Overlapped with Jumbo a little (timeline) but the thrust is the same.
Last edited by Sygyzy; 29th Aug 2012 at 16:00.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,921
Received 2,843 Likes
on
1,214 Posts
Rigga you fool. 
..... You should know by now RAF never ever buy aircraft that are common to the rest of the fleet, far better to buy a jumble and mishmash of operators cast offs, then throw money at them. 
The DC 10 may have had the advantages over the Tristar, but the Tristar just looked right with its flowing lines, unlike the DC 10 with its tacked on rear engine look.
..... You should know by now RAF never ever buy aircraft that are common to the rest of the fleet, far better to buy a jumble and mishmash of operators cast offs, then throw money at them. The DC 10 may have had the advantages over the Tristar, but the Tristar just looked right with its flowing lines, unlike the DC 10 with its tacked on rear engine look.
Last edited by NutLoose; 29th Aug 2012 at 20:23.
Serious question from me for a change. I thought our Tristars (mixed fleet or not) were quite a sucess. Is that not the case? Always seemed to do a cracking job taking me all over the globe.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Puken
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Design-wise it was pretty much spot on. In terms of technology, it's only now being left behind by the very latest airliners such as the 787.
Commercially, it wasn't a success; over ambitious engine design (on which most modern RR Trent engines are derived from) and ETOPS aircraft such as the 767 made it more costly to run.
The BA decision to drop them was largely based on some false assumptions (that it had four engines) and they wanted them back when they realised the error! But for a large carrier to be seen to drop such new aircraft at the time was its undoing.
Way ahead of it's time, sadly to its deficit. Why buy a Merc (L-1011) when a Mondeo (DC10) will do?!
Commercially, it wasn't a success; over ambitious engine design (on which most modern RR Trent engines are derived from) and ETOPS aircraft such as the 767 made it more costly to run.
The BA decision to drop them was largely based on some false assumptions (that it had four engines) and they wanted them back when they realised the error! But for a large carrier to be seen to drop such new aircraft at the time was its undoing.
Way ahead of it's time, sadly to its deficit. Why buy a Merc (L-1011) when a Mondeo (DC10) will do?!
Last edited by Farfrompuken; 30th Aug 2012 at 06:53.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And only the RAF would end up buying as a tanker the only one of the two trijets off which you couldn't hang wing-pods.
But BA wanted rid of them, and the government wanted to help them......
But BA wanted rid of them, and the government wanted to help them......
Last edited by ORAC; 30th Aug 2012 at 07:22.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 69
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF Tristar at YYZ
Well, the Tristar I saw taxiing in at around 1755 on October 12, 2011 certainly brightened my homeward commute even more, although I have no idea what it was doing at Pearson International. Lovely jet, though.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,921
Received 2,843 Likes
on
1,214 Posts
Was probably going Tech..
When they first arrived the RAF took the in flight entertainment out... Cannot have the passengers not sitting their bored witless, however it went back in later I believe.
When they first arrived the RAF took the in flight entertainment out... Cannot have the passengers not sitting their bored witless, however it went back in later I believe.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Deepest Lincs
Age: 75
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFE is an extra weight these days as most military pax seem to have their own personal entertainment systems that can be used in-flight. The original IFE was removed because of maintenance costs IIRC and replaced on the SA run with an individual video player, again proving costly in rechargeable batteries and a horrendous penalty clause if the videotape was 'misplaced'.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The L1011 was 'sold' to the RAF to make Thatcher's privatisation of BA work, to the tune of 60million quid. Once this had gone through feelers came from BA for a leaseback due to the capacity shortfall...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,921
Received 2,843 Likes
on
1,214 Posts
But auto land was an optional extra
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The L1011 was 'sold' to the RAF to make Thatcher's privatisation of BA work, to the tune of 60million quid."
???
At the time the press announced they had been gifted, free, along with the spares - just as the VC10s had been earlier
Otherwise the RAF would have had their preferred second-hand DC10s, which if memory serves correctly were offered by Branniff (who had presumably gone bust by then??)
???
At the time the press announced they had been gifted, free, along with the spares - just as the VC10s had been earlier
Otherwise the RAF would have had their preferred second-hand DC10s, which if memory serves correctly were offered by Branniff (who had presumably gone bust by then??)
'
'At the time the press announced they had been gifted, free, along with the spares - just as the VC10s had been earlier
Otherwise the RAF would have had their preferred second-hand DC10s, which if memory serves correctly were offered by Branniff (who had presumably gone bust by then??)'
Braniff never operated the DC10
'At the time the press announced they had been gifted, free, along with the spares - just as the VC10s had been earlier
Otherwise the RAF would have had their preferred second-hand DC10s, which if memory serves correctly were offered by Branniff (who had presumably gone bust by then??)'
Braniff never operated the DC10