Tristar L-1011 FMS & Autopilot
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but there was lead wool in aft overhead of the early aircraft. I saw them putting it in at Palmdale in 1972 and 1973. Came out later with improvements.
Also, air cycles sounded like muted police sirens in early aircraft. The finally put in tuned mounts for them.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trident "Look-Alike"
Noted b377's comment about the B727 being a Trident "look-alike". Yes they do look similar but that is about where any comparison ends. By the way the B727 went into service before the Trident and, as we all know, was a "best seller" for many years for Boeing. Back to the thread though, the L1011 was a magnificent aircraft to crew, the RB211-22B powered variants was a bit "ropey" at high FL's, but still a very efficient and proficient aircraft in which the crew did not suffer the "dog box" flight deck conditions encountered in many other types.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sri Lanka
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASFKAP,
Very valid point. I do not know why nobody picked up on the flying tailplane. DLC probably does not make sense in the day and age of Flap 3 landings on Airbus, although the A318 has partial spoiler deployment for steep approaches.
There are other features though which found their way into other successful programs. FMS is one of them and was introduced on the L1011-200 with Saudia I think and many -500 customers used them. It paved the way for what most of us Airbus drivers take for granted like optimum climb, cruise, descent speeds, optimum cruise flight levels and much more.
Also the Airbus soft cruise looks very similar to that of the -500.
The -500 was the first aircraft in which you could hold a optimum cruise Mach number with the use of FMS and Autothrottle. Small Mach variations are corrected by pitch commands letting the cruise altitude vary by +- 50 ft, whereas larger variations are corrected by smooth throttle adjustments. Looks very similar to our A320 ALTCRZ doesn't it.
Very valid point. I do not know why nobody picked up on the flying tailplane. DLC probably does not make sense in the day and age of Flap 3 landings on Airbus, although the A318 has partial spoiler deployment for steep approaches.
There are other features though which found their way into other successful programs. FMS is one of them and was introduced on the L1011-200 with Saudia I think and many -500 customers used them. It paved the way for what most of us Airbus drivers take for granted like optimum climb, cruise, descent speeds, optimum cruise flight levels and much more.
Also the Airbus soft cruise looks very similar to that of the -500.
The -500 was the first aircraft in which you could hold a optimum cruise Mach number with the use of FMS and Autothrottle. Small Mach variations are corrected by pitch commands letting the cruise altitude vary by +- 50 ft, whereas larger variations are corrected by smooth throttle adjustments. Looks very similar to our A320 ALTCRZ doesn't it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The New Forest, UK
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead wool ?
I did not know such a material had a place in aviation. Are we talking real Plumbum wool? I note comment that fiber glass was used in the TriStar but wonder which jets actually used Pb for acoustic damping and how much it accounted for total weight.
As i always like to know the reason why things are called what they are
any advances on why it was christened a Frisbee fairing ?
As i always like to know the reason why things are called what they are
any advances on why it was christened a Frisbee fairing ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The New Forest, UK
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would undoubtedly be because the specific airline did not know how to avoid the 'clunks'.
Interesting that operators have freedom to do something about such (airline specific) ergonomic features - I pressume it would require manufacturer/FAA approval?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that operators have freedom to do something about such (airline specific) ergonomic features - I pressume it would require manufacturer/FAA approval?
The -500 was the first aircraft in which you could hold a optimum cruise Mach number with the use of FMS and Autothrottle.
All SV and DL long body aircraft had Hamilton Sundstrand FMS units installed (dual installation) which accomplished the specific function mentioned.
And yes, I've flown these specific models as well.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The New Forest, UK
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... in which the crew did not suffer the "dog box" flight deck conditions encountered in many other types.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The New Forest, UK
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, no changes to the airplane at all...only specific operating procedures
Understood, I'll take issue with those heavy handed BA pilots next time.
Last edited by b377; 21st May 2009 at 13:22.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASFKAP
Here is one pilot who did not enjoy the L1011 much. I felt it was too fusy and complicated and kept going wrong! But I had been spoilt by 5 happy trouble free years
flying a proper 3 holer from Long Beech!
Here is one pilot who did not enjoy the L1011 much. I felt it was too fusy and complicated and kept going wrong! But I had been spoilt by 5 happy trouble free years
flying a proper 3 holer from Long Beech!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The New Forest, UK
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockheed, simply designed and built to a higher standard....with proper RollsRoyce engines
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASFKAP
LOL, I will take my chances! Complicated? yes. Understood it? most of it. The DLC in my view was a joke, lockheed only put it on because it was unstable, strange the idea never really took off.
LOL, I will take my chances! Complicated? yes. Understood it? most of it. The DLC in my view was a joke, lockheed only put it on because it was unstable, strange the idea never really took off.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DLC in my view was a joke, lockheed only put it on because it was unstable
I was at a HUGS symposium earlier this week where it was a big selling point for HUGS. DLC was so good that airports got upset.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Greensboro, NC USA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was in first maintenance training class in fall of 1971, ran Tech Services for EAL for northern region from JFK during the B747 and L-1011 eras, became director of aircraft overhaul and years later was the Chairman of one of the last L011 Maintenance and Engineering conferences held by Lockheed in Greenville while at Tradewinds.
Not going to get into a flaming match over lead wool in the upper aft cabin - it was there on earliest EAL aircraft. Yes, the remainder of the insulation was the pink stuff in bags.
Re the air-cycle, they originally bolted them to the cabin floor beams. Not the best idea ever and when I was riding the proving runs for the first delivery to EAL it was really bad. Rising and falling sirens and right under first class too.
The L-1011 did suffer from Lockheeds predilection for over-sophistication just like the Electra and Constellations. I started at Lockheed New York back in 1954 before going to Eastern in 1964 so know them well. The shutdown of the L-1011 effort during the Rolls bankruptcy did mess things up and they lost continuity. Delta mastered the L-1011 better than EAL but only with a lot of dedicated effort. And there is no doubt that that the later aircraft were vast improvements over the initial efforts.
As stated, flying wise, Lockheed has always excelled according to the flight crews I worked with. Sort of a love-hate relationship with the L-1011.
Not going to get into a flaming match over lead wool in the upper aft cabin - it was there on earliest EAL aircraft. Yes, the remainder of the insulation was the pink stuff in bags.
Re the air-cycle, they originally bolted them to the cabin floor beams. Not the best idea ever and when I was riding the proving runs for the first delivery to EAL it was really bad. Rising and falling sirens and right under first class too.
The L-1011 did suffer from Lockheeds predilection for over-sophistication just like the Electra and Constellations. I started at Lockheed New York back in 1954 before going to Eastern in 1964 so know them well. The shutdown of the L-1011 effort during the Rolls bankruptcy did mess things up and they lost continuity. Delta mastered the L-1011 better than EAL but only with a lot of dedicated effort. And there is no doubt that that the later aircraft were vast improvements over the initial efforts.
As stated, flying wise, Lockheed has always excelled according to the flight crews I worked with. Sort of a love-hate relationship with the L-1011.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DLC in my view was a joke, lockheed only put it on because it was unstable
Do a little research on longitudinal scatter and get back to us.
I was at a HUGS symposium earlier this week where it was a big selling point for HUGS. DLC was so good that airports got upset.
I was at a HUGS symposium earlier this week where it was a big selling point for HUGS. DLC was so good that airports got upset.
In fact, at one airline, a few of the Captains would regularly disable the DLC/Auto Spoiler system, so a memo from the L10 Fleet Manager was sent out to these few, and it said in part....'If you want to attempt to land the airplane like a Boeing product, you can do so at another company.'
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not knocking DLC for what it did, it made for a superbly stable approach, my point is that it should not be necessary to resort to such systems. More weight, more cost, more maintenance and more to go wrong