Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Tristar L-1011 FMS & Autopilot

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Tristar L-1011 FMS & Autopilot

Old 11th Mar 2010, 20:20
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 7
The CAA didn't like the perfectly acceptable solution of having the stick shaker operate at high speed (in place of RSB) as well as when approaching the stall.

The BA TriStars that went to the RAF (and became K1/KC1s) had RSB fitted (CAA certified). The Pan-Am ones (that became the C2/C2A) had the high speed shaker fitted (FAA certified). They were later brought into line and RSB fitted to the C2/C2A.

The CAA were concerned that at high altitude when a small margin existed between a Mach exceedance and the aerodynamic stall, the pilots would be confused as to the meaning of the stick shaker!

411A is right, my current 1970's -500 is just as advanced (and in some ways more so) than my last glass cockpit, HUD-equipped late 1990's designed piece of kit! It is a beautiful aircraft that rewards the skilled and saves the buffoons!
wheezykid is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2010, 21:31
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 455
The CAA didn't like the perfectly acceptable solution of having the stick shaker operate at high speed (in place of RSB) as well as when approaching the stall.

The BA TriStars that went to the RAF (and became K1/KC1s) had RSB fitted (CAA certified). The Pan-Am ones (that became the C2/C2A) had the high speed shaker fitted (FAA certified). They were later brought into line and RSB fitted to the C2/C2A.

The CAA were concerned that at high altitude when a small margin existed between a Mach exceedance and the aerodynamic stall, the pilots would be confused as to the meaning of the stick shaker!
You are correct, Recovery Speed Brakes (RSB) were on CAA registered -500's only. Lockheed agreed with you and argued with the CAA that the stick shakers were more than effective and RSB was not required. However, the CAA would not accept Lockheed's data and RSB was added at the same time the extended wings/active controls were retrofitted.

Several years later, after BA sold their -500's to the RAF, Lockheed had to prepair a service bulletin for the two (2) Air Lanka -500's BA leased. The service bulletins incorporated the RSB computers and the addtion of vortex generators on the outer wing.
glhcarl is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2010, 21:41
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Like they said in ground school:
"P.F.M. (Pure F******* Magic), Works good, lasts long"
Mostly true, but when it went wrong, bring in the pros, the pretenders can't hack it.
ZQA297/30 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2010, 14:35
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 9
Oil Consumtion on RB211-22B

REALLY SORRY THIS POSTING IS SO LATE. I ONLY JUST DISCOVERED THE THREAD AND THIS ORIGINALLY CAME UP IN ABOUT MAY 2009.


I worked on the BA Tristars, as a lubricants specialist for a major supplier of Synthetic Gas Turbine Lubricants, and back in the late 70's high oil consumption was an issue on some engines. Normal oil consumtion ran at anything up to a pint an hour per engine. Some engines were maintained to a high standard and burned considerably less, others were way up there at a pint and more.

Every once in a while, an engine would suddenly start to burn oil in quantity, requiring a manual shutdown. It transpired, the engine had a habit of producing flash fires within the oil system, ie: internal. This essentially burned off the oil vapour, creating very fine soot which eventually blocked the scavenge filters. When this happened the oil pump merrily bashed on, filled the bearing housings and eventually, quite quickly actually, vented the oil out of the bearing housing vents and over the side. The F/E would notice high oil consumtion from the rapid depletion of engine oil, resulting in a manual engine shutdown.

The cause of the flash fires was discovered on the test beds at Derby and an engineeriung fix quickly solved the problem once and for all.

So those posting personal knowledge of high oil consumption may well have been flying at a time when this problem was around. Those who have never seen it may well have experience with the type since about 1980.

I hope this helps.

On a nostalgic note a trip to RAF Brize Norton is always a treat. L1011 flying DLC and VC10 flying in one place on the same day. Pure joy!!
Lubricant Specialist is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.