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!

Ok, I'll bite.

Care to elaborate on the aforementioned design flaws?

Ok, so will I. Why do you believe that one of the nicest to handle wide bodied airliners has a fundamental design flaw?

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;

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.

All very good and valid points, just thought I had to defend the old girl a little;)

I thought all the RAF Tristars were ex-PanAm?

RAF Tristars - Previous Operators
 

Ex-British Airways: K1, KC1 & C1.

Ex-Pan Am: C2 & C2A.

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. :p

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.

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.

The Tristar never had a design caused accident.


Not something the DC10 or MD11 could come close to claiming :eek:

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?!

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......

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.:ok:

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.

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'.

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...:cool:

But auto land was an optional extra ;)

"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??)'


Braniff never operated the DC10 :sad:

Laker Airways DC10s from Skytrain?

maybe. Or PAN-AM?
My memory definitely at fault though re Branniff

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. :bored:

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.

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.

"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.

The other suggested option at the time was brand new KC10s with the suggestion that we would have been allowed to jump the queue to get 5 in short order.

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.

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.

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.

I had forgotten about the wing spar incident. Great point!!!

If I may ask, if the requirement was for four aircraft and they 'bought' six from BA (which would more than seem to cover the requirement), why then did they subsequently purchase the three ex Pan-am aircraft?

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

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 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 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.

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?

TriStar at Bru
 

I think it wonderfull that a serviceable TriStar managed to get all the way to Brussels!