BRU Tristar visit
In the late 70s/early 80s I flew regularly in both the L1011 and the DC10 - as a passenger.
At cruise, the Tristar seemed to me to be a few degrees nose up, whereas the DC10 passenger cabin was level.
That made the DC10 the better vehicle for transporting G&Ts to bored passengers.
At cruise, the Tristar seemed to me to be a few degrees nose up, whereas the DC10 passenger cabin was level.
That made the DC10 the better vehicle for transporting G&Ts to bored passengers.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,804
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA's accountants compared the operating costs of the -500 with the 747 using, amongst other data, the fuel/maintenance costs per engine and they decided that the L1011 was uneconomical in comparison. Allegedly, it was only after the sale was agreed that someone noticed that they had calculated the TriStar costings on the basis of four engines.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Philippines
Age: 81
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the mid 70's when I first went to work in the Gulf, the L1011 was reckoned by many as having a very high level of passenger appeal. I did a couple DXB/LHR/DXB rotations myself and found the experience met expectations.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Neither here nor there
Age: 80
Posts: 13
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??)"
It is not true to say that the Tristars were 'gifted', however, the basic airframes and engines were acquired by MoD at no cost to UK plc because UK plc already owned them (British Airways being a nationalised entity at that time). The MoD requirement was for 4 strategic tankers and the stated preference was for the DC10-CF30. The DC10 bidding consortium which, I believe, included British Aerospace, were offering some ex- World Airways aircraft (World Airways were a bit strapped for cash at that time). When the procurement recommendation was submitted for Prime Ministerial approval, 'She Who Must Be Obeyed' quickly spotted that the choice was between forking out scarce dollars to buy the DC10s (remember that UK plc was, itself, a bit boracic at the time) and effecting a paper transfer of the Tristars from BA to MoD and keeping the cash within the Treasury. From that point of view, a no brainer. Moreover, the Tristars had British engines so any money spent on future engine support would stay onshore. Hence, the RAF got 6 strategic tankers against a requirement for 4 (which was the original reason why 2 of the 6 did not get the full conversion to tanker/freighter config) and BA got some 'unwanted' assets off its books.
Alex W has pointed out BA's apocryphal faux pas of counting 4 engines-worth of costs against the Tristar in an evaluation against the 747. Whether that is true or not, BA certainly was a bit sharp in arranging the temporary retention of 2 of the Tristar-500s (G-BFCA and G-BFCE) to serve their South American routes until these frames were required to enter the Tanker conversion programme and, thereafter, leasing 2 aircraft (1235 and 1236) from Air Lanka. These 2 aircraft, G-BLUS and G-BLUT, had digital flight systems which had not previously been certified by the UK CAA and it must have cost BA a bob or two to get them on to the UK Register so perhaps there is some truth in the tale.
It is not true to say that the Tristars were 'gifted', however, the basic airframes and engines were acquired by MoD at no cost to UK plc because UK plc already owned them (British Airways being a nationalised entity at that time). The MoD requirement was for 4 strategic tankers and the stated preference was for the DC10-CF30. The DC10 bidding consortium which, I believe, included British Aerospace, were offering some ex- World Airways aircraft (World Airways were a bit strapped for cash at that time). When the procurement recommendation was submitted for Prime Ministerial approval, 'She Who Must Be Obeyed' quickly spotted that the choice was between forking out scarce dollars to buy the DC10s (remember that UK plc was, itself, a bit boracic at the time) and effecting a paper transfer of the Tristars from BA to MoD and keeping the cash within the Treasury. From that point of view, a no brainer. Moreover, the Tristars had British engines so any money spent on future engine support would stay onshore. Hence, the RAF got 6 strategic tankers against a requirement for 4 (which was the original reason why 2 of the 6 did not get the full conversion to tanker/freighter config) and BA got some 'unwanted' assets off its books.
Alex W has pointed out BA's apocryphal faux pas of counting 4 engines-worth of costs against the Tristar in an evaluation against the 747. Whether that is true or not, BA certainly was a bit sharp in arranging the temporary retention of 2 of the Tristar-500s (G-BFCA and G-BFCE) to serve their South American routes until these frames were required to enter the Tanker conversion programme and, thereafter, leasing 2 aircraft (1235 and 1236) from Air Lanka. These 2 aircraft, G-BLUS and G-BLUT, had digital flight systems which had not previously been certified by the UK CAA and it must have cost BA a bob or two to get them on to the UK Register so perhaps there is some truth in the tale.
It was an accountants' error which based the cost of operating the L-1011's on 4 engines not 3 as fitted to aircraft. Later when the mistake was discovered, BA wanted the airframes back but MOD said too late, No. This emphasises the later BA decision to keep the other 2 -500's and they then had to lease some from Air Lanka.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NC
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting after all these years, the discussion the Tristar still brings. I for one, miss it greatly.
The Tristar was built to be the finest engineered airliner of the time, and that had some drawbacks.
The DC-10 was built to a cost and rushed into production to compete with the Tristar, and that certainly had costs as well.
The Tristar was built to be the finest engineered airliner of the time, and that had some drawbacks.
The DC-10 was built to a cost and rushed into production to compete with the Tristar, and that certainly had costs as well.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
I bet a DC 10 wouldn't fly a circuit with it's wing spars sheared, a Tristar did.
It was the left rear spar that was sheared on 705 when autoland was selected BELOW capture height that day, and when it was being repaired it was noticed that the right rear spar had been similarly repaired on a previous occasion.
The MoD requirement was for 4 strategic tankers and the stated preference was for the DC10-CF30. The DC10 bidding consortium which, I believe, included British Aerospace, were offering some ex- World Airways aircraft (World Airways were a bit strapped for cash at that time). When the procurement recommendation was submitted for Prime Ministerial approval, 'She Who Must Be Obeyed' quickly spotted that the choice was between forking out scarce dollars to buy the DC10s (remember that UK plc was, itself, a bit boracic at the time) and effecting a paper transfer of the Tristars from BA to MoD and keeping the cash within the Treasury. From that point of view, a no brainer. Moreover, the Tristars had British engines so any money spent on future engine support would stay onshore. Hence, the RAF got 6 strategic tankers against a requirement for 4 (which was the original reason why 2 of the 6 did not get the full conversion to tanker/freighter config) and BA got some 'unwanted' assets off its books.
Also was the rumour correct that only once they had paid for these three 'ex Pan Am' jobbies and got them over here in UK, did they realise (for some reason?) that they couldn't be converted to tankers?
I do remember back in the early 80's being SLF on one of the former BA TriStars flying back from Akrotiri. It was still in BA colours (with the word 'British' painted over on the fuselage) with a BA crew. I remember thinking it was very nice to sit in the direction that we were actually flying! This was of course before Mr Marshall got his hands on them to spoil what seemed like a very nice aircraft. Its strange to think that almost thirty years on they are still trucking and tanking around.
Pete
Last edited by Pete268; 4th Sep 2012 at 05:53.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,804
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Memory fades, but I thought we had four from BA and two from Pan Am. My recollection is that the original requirement was a tanker that could tank a Herc to Port Stanley from ASI, fail to get in, then tank it back. Of course when MPA was built the requirement became a bit redundant but no-one wanted to hand them back, particularly as the ex-Pan Am aircraft were doing such sterling service flogging up and down the South Atlantic. The ex-BA aircraft went into Marshalls first for a conversion that most people thought at the time wasn't really required, a better option would probably have been just to put centreline hoses on the standard aircraft thus preserving much of the freight capacity underfloor and the full seating capacity in the cabin whilst still leaving a reasonable fuel offload.
Yes Alex your memory has faded. We had 6 from BA and 3 from Pan Am. The BA AC were converted to K1 (4) and later KC1 (2). Later 2 K1s were further converted to KC1s giving us the 4 KC1s we have today. THe less said about the 949 fiasco the better. What I am not sure about is why the Pan Am ac did not have the same conversion as the BA to K1 programme.
The K1 was/is pretty limited as a pax/cargo aircraft, as it doesn't have the main deck freight door and pallet-compatable main deck of the KC1's. IIRC the K1 could carry around 200 pax (in the mid and rear cabins) and their bags/mail/small freight (in tins that are small enough to fit through a pax door) in the forward cabin, and that was it.
I always thought the ex-Pan Am's were deliberately kept as pretty much conventional TriStar 500's, in order for the 3 of them to primarily service the Falklands Airbridge with a "normal" pax cabin and the belly holds.
I always thought the ex-Pan Am's were deliberately kept as pretty much conventional TriStar 500's, in order for the 3 of them to primarily service the Falklands Airbridge with a "normal" pax cabin and the belly holds.
Last edited by Wycombe; 4th Sep 2012 at 10:05.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I was lucky in that I got to fly both the DC10 and L1011 for about four years each. From a pilots perspective I think the L1011 was a hands down winner. Quieter, faster and maybe just a little bit more comfortable. The DLC was an amazing feature and that along with a great autoland system made for an excellent lo vis operation.
The DC10 had a numebr of accidents, not all of which were design or build problems but enough to plant a real sore spot on it's reputation at the time.
The DC10 had a numebr of accidents, not all of which were design or build problems but enough to plant a real sore spot on it's reputation at the time.
The ex Pan Am -500's had different avionics, autopilot & also had PMS system rather than the more integrated FMS that the ex BA aircraft had, therefore they were not that compatible. But they were going cheap and one man's -500 is the same as another -500, not when they have different avionic systems, good old MOD strike again. When it came to find money to get 706 to a flying condition, well that took awhile due to the 705 "bouncing" incident which emptied the kitty somewhat. Later the money was found and they changed the avionics so that 706 was then designated as a C 2a rather than C2.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that some of the Pan Am -500's had the digital AP and others the original anolog system. As I recall the digital system did not allow for engine out autolands?