L-1011-500 RNWY performance querry
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mutt
Nope, our -500's are a little bit more exclusive than that. 
Mutt
MuttThere are currently 25 L-1011-500's flying. Only three operators have just two and only one operator has aircraft that I would call more EXCLUSIVE than the others. So now I know who you work for.
Originally Posted by rhovsquared
well before the 767-400 became the largest gal outta LGA TORA = ASDA=7000'
Ive seen L-1011's [not sure which model] DC-10's and maybe IIRC an MD11 depart and have a little to spare
Ive seen L-1011's [not sure which model] DC-10's and maybe IIRC an MD11 depart and have a little to spare
Eastern also used A300s out of LGA but the others stayed with the L1011 until medium-distance widebody flights sort of petered out in the US.
Likewise it was the domestic DC-10-10 that operated out of there, AA and UA to Chicago etc. There's a commercial restriction that prevents operation out of LGA for transcontinentals or other longer routes.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM,
In the fall of 1999 was booked on a Delta L-1011-1 ATL to MIA, one of those flights that was full of cruse passengers. When I got to the airport and checked in I was in formed that there was equipment chage and my seat had been changed. The new equipment was a -500. That was the only -500 I ever flew on a domestic route.
As for the -500 being a "hot rod" we ferried a BA -500 from YYZ to PMD with, no cargo, only the crew and four passengers (7 people total) and very little in the way of catering. I have never experienced a takeoff like that one. I was in the second observer seat and it seemed like they released the brakes and pushed the throttles forward and we were climbing.
In the fall of 1999 was booked on a Delta L-1011-1 ATL to MIA, one of those flights that was full of cruse passengers. When I got to the airport and checked in I was in formed that there was equipment chage and my seat had been changed. The new equipment was a -500. That was the only -500 I ever flew on a domestic route.
As for the -500 being a "hot rod" we ferried a BA -500 from YYZ to PMD with, no cargo, only the crew and four passengers (7 people total) and very little in the way of catering. I have never experienced a takeoff like that one. I was in the second observer seat and it seemed like they released the brakes and pushed the throttles forward and we were climbing.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've finally found an RTOT for a UK certified L1011-500 for Runway 23 at Cambridge, flaps 10º and 22B thrust. It shows a MTOM around 149000kg with 10kt headwind at 15ºC. The ZFM is around 113,000kg, that leaves only 36,000kg disposable load. If you use still air to match 411A's figures (OK, the runway is a bit shorter and this is flaps 10º not 22º) you get a MTOM of 136,000kg and 23,000kg disposable load. It shows what an effect the higher VMCG has.
Last edited by Alex Whittingham; 22nd Aug 2006 at 15:02.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using CAA regulations/data, of course.
Now the FAA was just a bit more...ah, shall we say, less restrictive.
Certainly not 'wrong', just different.
Flaps 22 make a very big difference, but you truly had to go to the AFM performance section, something many pilots would not rather do.
Never understood why....
Now the FAA was just a bit more...ah, shall we say, less restrictive.
Certainly not 'wrong', just different.
Flaps 22 make a very big difference, but you truly had to go to the AFM performance section, something many pilots would not rather do.
Never understood why....
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alex,
I presume that the CAA certificed the L1011 with a 7 kt crosswind, this means that the aircraft has a higher VMCG than a FAA certified aircarft.
I'm still willing to supply the exact figures if anyone crosses my palm with silver
Mutt
I presume that the CAA certificed the L1011 with a 7 kt crosswind, this means that the aircraft has a higher VMCG than a FAA certified aircarft.
I'm still willing to supply the exact figures if anyone crosses my palm with silver
Mutt
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bristol, England
Age: 65
Posts: 1,806
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep 411, that's the point. The CAA use of 7kt of adverse crosswind for VMCG certification had a severe effect on the jet's performance out of shorter fields. The JAA has chosen to follow the FAA's lead rather than the CAA's - consequently the VMCG issue is less apparent than it was.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
**Why would any -500 charts use -22B power settings, when the -500 was never offered with -22B engines?**
Ah well, there you are, it's a Brit thing, performance wise...
Shades of DP Davies, run amok.
Ah well, there you are, it's a Brit thing, performance wise...
Shades of DP Davies, run amok.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would any -500 charts use -22B power settings
It's the old fasioned way of De-Rating the engine so lower VMC speeds can be used. These days you do the same by selecting TO2 or TO3. Clever work around in the early eighties if you ask me.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockheed themselves realised the problem and developed a fix for airlines who regularly operated out of short strips. BWIA used this mod in the Carribbean which was a fibreglass rudder extension that restored the effectiveness of the rudder.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only BWIA, as far as I know.
They had to operate non-stop to LHR, so the TOW was quite a bit.
However, their weights with their -500's were restricted to either 506,000 pounds, and with one airplane, 496,000, I think.
They had to operate non-stop to LHR, so the TOW was quite a bit.
However, their weights with their -500's were restricted to either 506,000 pounds, and with one airplane, 496,000, I think.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer a couple of questions from earlier posts:
The BWIA L-1011's had an extended rudder not a rudder extension. The rudder cord was increased aft of the rear spar with addition of a new, wider, cap assembly. They used the same trailing edge wedge as all other L-1011's. The fairing above the No. 2 engine was also modified so the extended rudder would match with fairing. Unless you know what you are looking for it entire modification is almost un-noticeable. The front spar was modified to by the addition of a counter weight below the existing counterweight. While there was a Service Bulletin to accomplish the modification it was accomplished on only the first two BWIA aircraft, the other three BWIA aircraft were equipped with factory built extended cord rudders. Yes, there were five BWIA L-1011's, four were delivered to BWIA but the fifth (which had been a BWIA option) which was s/n 1250 (the last L-1011 built) was modified to VIP configeration for the Algerian goverment but delivered to Saudia Royal Flight.
All four BWIA operated aircraft were certified with a GTOW of 504,000 lbs. The Saudia Royal Flight aircarft was certified to 510,000 lbs. The change from 504,000 to 510,000 lbs is a paperwork change only (flight manual revision that Lockheed accomplished for a fee) no aircraft modification was required.
The BWIA L-1011's had an extended rudder not a rudder extension. The rudder cord was increased aft of the rear spar with addition of a new, wider, cap assembly. They used the same trailing edge wedge as all other L-1011's. The fairing above the No. 2 engine was also modified so the extended rudder would match with fairing. Unless you know what you are looking for it entire modification is almost un-noticeable. The front spar was modified to by the addition of a counter weight below the existing counterweight. While there was a Service Bulletin to accomplish the modification it was accomplished on only the first two BWIA aircraft, the other three BWIA aircraft were equipped with factory built extended cord rudders. Yes, there were five BWIA L-1011's, four were delivered to BWIA but the fifth (which had been a BWIA option) which was s/n 1250 (the last L-1011 built) was modified to VIP configeration for the Algerian goverment but delivered to Saudia Royal Flight.
All four BWIA operated aircraft were certified with a GTOW of 504,000 lbs. The Saudia Royal Flight aircarft was certified to 510,000 lbs. The change from 504,000 to 510,000 lbs is a paperwork change only (flight manual revision that Lockheed accomplished for a fee) no aircraft modification was required.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZQA297/30,
Royal Jordanian purchased nine L-1011-500's from Lockheed, six were built to RJ specification s/n's 1217, 1219, 1220, 1229, 1238 and 1249. The other three, s/n's 1246, 1247 and 1248 were built to Air Canada configuration. s/n 1250 was in fact delivered to the Saudia's and it is still there today.
morning mangrel,
I think you will find those a Thai Sky and Thai Eye aircraft.
Royal Jordanian purchased nine L-1011-500's from Lockheed, six were built to RJ specification s/n's 1217, 1219, 1220, 1229, 1238 and 1249. The other three, s/n's 1246, 1247 and 1248 were built to Air Canada configuration. s/n 1250 was in fact delivered to the Saudia's and it is still there today.
morning mangrel,
I think you will find those a Thai Sky and Thai Eye aircraft.