|
Beagle you are entirely correct regarding the miscounted engines by the BA bean counters, I was the single POC for the initial operation using BA crews and this story was related to me by a number of BA personnel. Also, very soon after selling these aircraft to the RAF BA were leasing back Tristars from Air Lanka to fill a gap on the South America routes. Of interest the original BA 500's were 'returned' to Lockheed to be uprated as they failed to meet the advertised payload/range which I believe was based on a London - Vancouver direct sector and as a result were at the time significantly more capable than any other L1011s.
|
Originally Posted by bspatz
(Post 10258349)
Beagle you are entirely correct regarding the miscounted engines by the BA bean counters, I was the single POC for the initial operation using BA crews and this story was related to me by a number of BA personnel. Also, very soon after selling these aircraft to the RAF BA were leasing back Tristars from Air Lanka to fill a gap on the South America routes. Of interest the original BA 500's were 'returned' to Lockheed to be uprated as they failed to meet the advertised payload/range which I believe was based on a London - Vancouver direct sector and as a result were at the time significantly more capable than any other L1011s.
|
Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 10257718)
A rumour in the early 1980s was that ba binned its TriStars due to some bean counter noting that the engine fuel flow rate was greater than for the 747. Hence the TriStar went and the 747 stayed in service.
Only after the decision had been made did someone point out that the TriStar had one less engine than the 747, so the total burn rate was actually less....:uhoh: Jack |
Ahh bean counters.....watched in awe when the bean counters at a certain UK Company had worked out it was cheaper to get contractors in to do a Major on an aircraft belonging to the Company that surprisingly shut its doors soon after.
What is wrong with that you ask, well.... the Company had a full staff of its own engineers and only the one plane in which the Companies engineers were forbidden to work on, because they were more expensive labour wise than contractors, so the Company was now employing two engineering staff, the cheaper contractors doing the job and their own staff standing around all day being paid to do nothing. Nothing bean counter wise surprises me these days. |
Another beancounter story.
Re-clad the 4 hangars at RAF Bovingdon in about 1967. Beancounters looked at the cost and said 'this airfield is too expensive'. Closed Bovingdon in 1968. |
Originally Posted by DODGYOLDFART
(Post 10256551)
I think some may have been acquired by BA when they bought British Caledonian.
ZD948 ZD950 ZD951 ZD952 I believe these were all built around 1979/1980 and were direct from Lockheed to BA and then to the RAF. No other operators were involved. https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/...istory-l10.htm |
Originally Posted by bbrown1664
(Post 10265051)
B-Cal ran the superior DC10 whilst BA had the Tri-buckets. BA intended to get rid of the DC10 but soon realised they were too good and kept them a bit longer.
ZD948 ZD950 ZD951 ZD952 I believe these were all built around 1979/1980 and were direct from Lockheed to BA and then to the RAF. No other operators were involved. https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/...istory-l10.htm |
I was working for BA at the time.Only worked on the Tristar a very short while & never on the DC10,but do remember the DC10 being the airframe of preference. Can’t recall why. |
Originally Posted by woptb
(Post 10267173)
I was working for BA at the time.Only worked on the Tristar a very short while & never on the DC10,but do remember the DC10 being the airframe of preference. Can’t recall why.
|
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 10259377)
Ahh bean counters.....watched in awe when the bean counters at a certain UK Company had worked out it was cheaper to get contractors in to do a Major on an aircraft belonging to the Company that surprisingly shut its doors soon after.
What is wrong with that you ask, well.... the Company had a full staff of its own engineers and only the one plane in which the Companies engineers were forbidden to work on, because they were more expensive labour wise than contractors, so the Company was now employing two engineering staff, the cheaper contractors doing the job and their own staff standing around all day being paid to do nothing. Nothing bean counter wise surprises me these days. |
Originally Posted by bbrown1664
(Post 10269567)
From an engineering perspective, the DC10 was cleaner (less leaks etc) and tended to have less faults. No idea about from a flight deck perspective though.
Much greater range, LGW to LAX nonstop, Tristar had to tech stop Bangor to get to Carribean. DC-10 was able to carry alternate fuel for Bermuda opposed to Tristar requiring island hold. Both flight decks quite large and comfortable with large windows for excellent viewing and galley just aft of flight deck door for easy access. |
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10286861)
OAP |
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b6b095d4c3.jpg
Forgive the slight thread hijack please.. I've posted this before but no takers then so I'm trying again now.. If any ex-Tristar crew or engineers would like a small die-cast model of ZD953, I've one here that I'll happily send to someone who'd apprciate it. In return for a fair/decent donation to SSAFA or RAFA.. It's a Gemini Jets 1:500, ref: GJ034RAF, one of a limited edition of 2,000 and has never been out of the box (ends are still sealed ), dating from the mid 1990s when I acquired it. The clear plastic top cover has discoloured to yellow (the Gemini models tend to do that) but otherwise is immaculate. The pic above is a representative example, out of the box. And I'm trying to post two more of this particular one. If anyone's interested then please shout, Regards CS |
Enquiry re the Tristar model
@cargosales I'd be very interested in taking up your kind offer. I was detached from 20(R) Sqn to 216 San for Gulf 1 in 1990-91 and was appointed as what was termed an "SVC" flying in and out of the Middle East twice per week ostensibly to evacuate casualties. The only casualty I recall was a chap with a leg in plaster having broken it while playing football. Nobody was ever able to tell me what "SVC" meant - I assume the VC was voluntary crew - the S might have been 'supplementary', certainly unlikely to be 'special'. Although an avionics tech by trade much of my role involved BF's, AF's and turnarounds. The memorable bit being a check and top-up of the engine oil, the centre engine invariably spewing out a good cup-full of its hot contents down your arm and neck as I recall. After close of play around mid 1991 I returned to 20(R) Sqn having had quite an exciting 6 months or so with 216 which I look back upon with a fair degree of nostalgia. How may I contact you? Kind regards Rob Brown |
Originally Posted by robertwbrown
(Post 10346050)
@cargosales I'd be very interested in taking up your kind offer. I was detached from 20(R) Sqn to 216 San for Gulf 1 in 1990-91 and was appointed as what was termed an "SVC" flying in and out of the Middle East twice per week ostensibly to evacuate casualties. The only casualty I recall was a chap with a leg in plaster having broken it while playing football. Nobody was ever able to tell me what "SVC" meant - I assume the VC was voluntary crew - the S might have been 'supplementary', certainly unlikely to be 'special'. Although an avionics tech by trade much of my role involved BF's, AF's and turnarounds. The memorable bit being a check and top-up of the engine oil, the centre engine invariably spewing out a good cup-full of its hot contents down your arm and neck as I recall. After close of play around mid 1991 I returned to 20(R) Sqn having had quite an exciting 6 months or so with 216 which I look back upon with a fair degree of nostalgia. How may I contact you? Kind regards Rob Brown That'd be great if it goes to a good home where it will be appreciated. I'll send you a PM with some details and we'll take it from there. David |
Originally Posted by bbrown1664
(Post 10269567)
From an engineering perspective, the DC10 was cleaner (less leaks etc) and tended to have less faults. No idea about from a flight deck perspective though.
As a tanker, the DC10-30 would have been the better bet as it had the 'extra' centre gear which vastly improved its LCG, the Tristar was too heavy in terms of wheel loading for many airports and taxiways (esp in the AAR role). |
ATTN robertwbrown
Your inbox is full. SVC only meant Servicing Crew ie, not a qualified Ground Engineer, but someone along to either help the GE or a jolly. |
Originally Posted by robertwbrown
(Post 10346050)
@cargosales I'd be very interested in taking up your kind offer. I was detached from 20(R) Sqn to 216 San for Gulf 1 in 1990-91 and was appointed as what was termed an "SVC" flying in and out of the Middle East twice per week ostensibly to evacuate casualties. The only casualty I recall was a chap with a leg in plaster having broken it while playing football. Nobody was ever able to tell me what "SVC" meant - I assume the VC was voluntary crew - the S might have been 'supplementary', certainly unlikely to be 'special'. Although an avionics tech by trade much of my role involved BF's, AF's and turnarounds. The memorable bit being a check and top-up of the engine oil, the centre engine invariably spewing out a good cup-full of its hot contents down your arm and neck as I recall. After close of play around mid 1991 I returned to 20(R) Sqn having had quite an exciting 6 months or so with 216 which I look back upon with a fair degree of nostalgia. How may I contact you? Kind regards Rob Brown Hello Rob Brown, I don't feel that you set the appropriate tone here. The overall effort involved in supporting a major military offensive will always include many tasks that appear mundane or nugatory. However, the capability to rapidly reinforce, evacuate or support in different ways was essential for the effective action in GW1. There are many who use this site who might well have needed the support of the airlift capability and notwithstanding the relative success of the action, grievous losses were suffered by the coalition forces. Possibly, unseen to you, the capability you supported provided the strength in depth that would have also supported you if you had become a casualty of war. This type of support is almost mandatory in modern Western warfare planning. So, yes your efforts were worthwhile. OAP |
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
(Post 10352084)
Hello Rob Brown,
I don't feel that you set the appropriate tone here. The overall effort involved in supporting a major military offensive will always include many tasks that appear mundane or nugatory. However, the capability to rapidly reinforce, evacuate or support in different ways was essential for the effective action in GW1. There are many who use this site who might well have needed the support of the airlift capability and notwithstanding the relative success of the action, grievous losses were suffered by the coalition forces. Possibly, unseen to you, the capability you supported provided the strength in depth that would have also supported you if you had become a casualty of war. This type of support is almost mandatory in modern Western warfare planning. So, yes your efforts were worthwhile. OAP |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:08. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.