WRTo the RAF Tristars. The RAF got bigger tanker/transport aircraft to fulfil the airbridge requirement to the Falklands which it needed in a hurry. It so happened that the then government owned BA had surplus aircraft - 6 Tristar 500s. The only reason it got them is because they were cheap and available. If a full procurement process had been carried out, it proably wouldn't have got the Tristars. But on the other hand, they would have only just been coming into service now!

All of the RAF Tristar guys who flew the KC10 on exchange agree that it is a far more capable and reliable aircraft.



Speaking as someone who has had his various scentences in HMP Mount Pleasant extended by 5 days due to Tristar unserviceablities!

You might understand why when it is realised that those maintaining those KC10's no doubt actually knew how, whereas....those 'maintaining' (using the term in its loosest possible sense) the RAF aircraft simply do not know how.
Several airlines operated their TriStars in excess of 15 hours per day, with few if any cancellations.
The question then becomes...why cannot the RAF?
Perhaps our resident TriStar critic has the answer...'!!!!forbrainz'.:ugh:

KC10 vs Tristar. It wasn't just reliability (which was much better). It was about the fact it had better payload, better range, better performance and was a better tanking platform which could dispense fuel to more than one aircraft at a time.

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/b...y/P6230035.jpg

Picture by Mr Bernoulli

Fact is that 411A shares great stories and lot's of knowledge :ok:

So where is the problem guys? Appreciate.

Leo:8

Yes, but...the KC10 was designed as an air refueling tanker.
The TriStar was not.
TriStar was designed as a passenger aeroplane.
That the RAF mucked it up is their problem, not Lockheed's.

In the end, of course, the RAF apparently simply does not have the funds to make it work....even in the passenger role.
Hardly suprising.:rolleyes:

The 10 and the Tri* are both great aeroplanes: up to around 3000nms the Tri* is economically the better. Go beyond 3000nms and the 10 edges it out.

bcgallacher.

Tri-wing screws not unique to Tristar. Also used on DC-10 and Bae 146/RJ. (probably others too.)

The problem with getting them out is not removing paint or dirt from the grooves and allowing the bit to slip. Agree that once damaged, drilling is often the only answer.

Hard to say, however, not having RAF (or...ex-RAF) folks in charge of anything would undoubtedly be a step in the right direction.:ok:

ex-Military folks in charge in a civvy outfit....guaranteed failure.:eek:

ASFKAP, tis a pity you came up with the following post, to wit, its not soundly based on either knowledge or experience. How do you explain the use of a 1011 as a mother ship to lauch satellites (Pegasus), and they rely on an extensive fleet of just one aircraft to support their operations.
And what has the fact the US military never operated the aircraft got to do with anything? Last time I looked they didn't operate any 777s, must be an unsuccessful aircraft by your reckoning. All I see is cheap shots without supporting argument. 411 is entitled to his opinion, and from his pedigree and longevity in the business he has obviously sat at the feet of some great teachers. Did you accuse him of name dropping? I see just an insight into a mans life, history, and an explanation for his beliefs.

Grade: F- Do better.

ASFKAP. Your assertion that the Brits are unable to maintain the L1011 is absolute and unadulterated crap. Maybe you should look up Stuart Johns, former head honcho of Cathay Pacific Airways maintenance and get set straight. Cathay operated up to 19 Tristars with plenty of Brit and Australasian expats leading the way. They were maintained to as good a standard as any and better than most. As for 411A's assertion that any civil outfit being run by ex-Military people is doomed to failure, equally absolute crap. Stick to the facts guys and keep your prejudice's to yourselves. I think 411A flies a kite as well as the L1011, which by the way the Brits had much input into as far as the design of the auto-flight system was concerned, to say nothing of the RB211 family of engines.

Urban legend, Old Fella, nothing more.

Now, as to the Brits and the L1011 are concerned...it's not the individuals themselves, it clearly is the (for want of a better term) organizations.
Cathay Pacific did just fine with the L1011, in actual fact, they made huge profits with the airplane, just as Delta...and many other aircarriers did.

However, strangely enough, BA (in the past) and the RAF (now) just simply seem to be unable to keep the airplane going...and yet, many other airlines could, and in fact made handsome profits with the specific airplane.

Therefore, we must look at the absolute failure of the Brit 'organizations' to cut the mustard.

A fine how-do-you-do, wouldn't you say?
The Brits invented the jet engine, and RADAR, and LORAN...and a host of of other major accomplishments (not to mention the best kept secret of WWII, Bletchley Park) and yet, they simply could not keep a rather fine three-engine Lockheed airliner going.

One wonders why?:ugh::ugh:

Answers on a postcard.

L1011
 

Cathay made huge profits out of the L1011 because they got about 10 aircraft from the Arizona desert for "peanuts", refurbished them and flew them on high density routes. As for the input of the Brits into the autoflight system, that was a very strong "urban myth" within HK which indicated that the British Trident team was heavily involved. If you know something which differs from that "urban myth" 411A, please share the info with the rest of us. By your own admission, (Tech log Cat IIIC thread 2ndMarch2009) Smiths and Hawker Siddley who designed the Trident autoflight system are the ones to thank for the L1011 precise Autoland system.

Only because Smiths and Hawker Siddley did it first, Old Fella, not that they assisted with the L1011 design.
The Smiths system on the Trident was triplex, the automatic approach/land system on the L1011 is dual/dual.
It was, if I recall correctly developed by Collins Radio, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

And, you just proved my point about profits that could be made with the 'ole TriStar (Cathay Pacific is but one example)....properly maintained, the airplane was (and still is) a good performer.

AFSKAP, I'm not picking on you, but,...

It seems to me that 411A [like Brian Abraham says, has been in the aviation industry since the time when flying really was dangerous; jets were new and wierd and death was always around you,...as such I feel his discussions have a lot of merit and much of what he says is sound airmanship I don't agree with all of his views but someone like that is NOT a dinosaur:*---I say [too] frequently that 'the mountains don't know your name ---- but ---Pilots who've been around as long as 411A definately know their names!!!

sometimes you just seem to attack him without merit that's very ungentlemanly [ and very unbecoming of an aviator] conduct

Chill:cool:

PA

Curious??
 

So who is this new Airline??

Cathay recruited from BA for their expertise
 

ASFKAP. Of course Cathay Pacific Airways recruited from BA. They also recruited from Qantas and Air New Zealand, as well as from other sources, not just because of any L1011 expertise, but to grow their engineering capacity as the airline fleet grew. Cathay took delivery of their first L1011 only a year after BA took delivery of their first example of type, so just how much more expertise and experience than Cathay, on the L1011, did BA have? Cathay became one of the largest non-USA based operators of the type and through their engineering arm HEACO became an approved RB-211 overhaul facility and gained major L-1011 heavy servicing contracts from other operators. BTW, BA were among those who sent their B747's to HEACO for the Section 41 Inspections and Mods. And in defence of 411A, the Tristar is a great example of advancement for its time and did not, as you claim, require two ground engineers to be carried to keep it going. Tech delays were a rarity with Cathay Pacific and no ground engineers were carried, just a crew who knew their aircraft technically as well as operationally.

Yup, and we are certainly not surprised.
Of course, CX has rather good tech support at each outstation I would suspect, as for an adhoc charter operator (like us) that tech support is simply not available, so we carry our own.

One wonders....perhaps the RAF would do well to adopt the 'enroute tech support' that most charter carriers have, in this way, perhaps they would not be AOG half the time.
Or more....:}:ugh::ugh:

Out station support
 

411A, yes CX did have good tech support at outstations, some contracted and others CX employees. The whole point is, however, the Tristar rarely gave any significant problems which were not able to be covered within the MEL limitations due in no small part to the quality of maintenance they received. Personally, I am a Lockheed fan whilst at the same time acknowledging that the Boeing products are very reliable and practical aircraft. From a crew perspective I always found the Lockheed product made provision for crew comfort much better than did Boeing. The B747 seemed to me to be just as cramped for space as the B707 despite the obvious difference in size. The Lockheed's were much more spacious and overall a nicer environment in which to work. The ground engineers would generally enjoy maintaining the Boeing's more so than the Tristar I suspect, if only because the Boeing's were less complicated. Maybe the RAF have not put in enough backing for their engineering people, certainly I do not believe the Brits lack anything in their technical abilities, civvy or military.

ASFKAP:

This is professional PILOTS network, therefore we ALL* talk lots of HOOEY :}sometimes, but it does not negate his value to Pprune:=

besides, he's pretty thick skinned, I don't think that he cares:zzz:


*Except John_Tullamarine, but I think, instead of having sweet ol' Misses Tooey for kindergarten, He was down the hall in Lester:E's class [see some of his W&B posts:ok:]

PA:)