Tristar L-1011 FMS & Autopilot
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anybody remember anything about the RSB (recovery speed brake) on -500s? I think it was a UK CAA design restriction for high Mach No. flight.
Fitted to all -500 aircraft, as I recall.
Autothrottles.
I have personally performed at least 200 autolands (to CAT 3B minima) with manual throttles...and yes, it is allowed with our ops specs.
A requirement for our present training.
Train hard, fight easy.
A more or less simple concept to understand.
NB.
Some may have noticed...I like the L10.
Why?
Simply because...it was designed by folks who were very practical in their outlook, and...had the engineering expertise to ...make it all happen.
Lockheed, Collins, Litton, etc.
A superb airplane for (even) 'modern' folks...that is a forty year old design.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
"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.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: UK
Age: 70
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!
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!!
