Lockheed Martin - this is for you - L-1011 New Generation
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too flew the both the 10 for 5 years and the 1011 for about the same. I much prefered the 10.
A true story from about 1975/6. LAX - LHR BOAC/BA and the cabin crew asked if a 1st class passenger could come up and say hello. Of course in those days it was welcomed. We were just over the tip of Greenland at the time so the view was great. The American gentleman came up and after a bit of small talk asked, "Well guys how would you like to be in the cockpit of a 1011 right now? I replied that it would be my worst nightmare. He enquired as to why. I replied that if I was in the cockpit of a 1011 right now it would have run out of fuel about an hour ago and we would all be extremely wet. He looked crestfalllen, said his good byes but left his card on the centre consol. After he had left I picked up the card.......CEO of Lockheed. Unuf said about comparisons
A true story from about 1975/6. LAX - LHR BOAC/BA and the cabin crew asked if a 1st class passenger could come up and say hello. Of course in those days it was welcomed. We were just over the tip of Greenland at the time so the view was great. The American gentleman came up and after a bit of small talk asked, "Well guys how would you like to be in the cockpit of a 1011 right now? I replied that it would be my worst nightmare. He enquired as to why. I replied that if I was in the cockpit of a 1011 right now it would have run out of fuel about an hour ago and we would all be extremely wet. He looked crestfalllen, said his good byes but left his card on the centre consol. After he had left I picked up the card.......CEO of Lockheed. Unuf said about comparisons
Reengine, upgrade to fly-by-wire and glass cockpit would you think this would be an valuable and viable option in the medium term long range market?
How may people have to tell you-NO!!!!
What you are proposing (particularly the Fly-By-Wire bit) would be an entirerly new aircraft, new certification, new manufacturing.
MUCH better to star with a clean sheet.
Aircraft design has moved on- do the same!!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again it's just my opinion and nothing more, but I thought the L1011 was a better handling aircraft than the DC10. Hawker 750 needs to get over that issue and move on. His opinion is just as valid as mine, simply not the same one. The DC10 accident record speaks for itself.
I seriously doubt that any L1011 that was being used in transatlantic ops would be so fuel limited that somewhere abeam Greenland they would be in a fuel critical state. Gross mis-statements like these do nothing to further this tread.
As for making a new version of the L1011, not likely for any number of reasons that can be found in all of the previous threads. Case closed.
I seriously doubt that any L1011 that was being used in transatlantic ops would be so fuel limited that somewhere abeam Greenland they would be in a fuel critical state. Gross mis-statements like these do nothing to further this tread.
As for making a new version of the L1011, not likely for any number of reasons that can be found in all of the previous threads. Case closed.
I always liked the Tri-Star. In tech school we studied her systems and design features. System redundancy and fail operational design features were well thought out and elegant. It was well ahead of other designs of the era. I only rode on one once and remember the experience being pleasant enough. But then I was on my way home having just completed my term of Army service!
The DC-10 was demanded in greater numbers for several reasons related to airline cost/profitability metrics. Additionally, the RB-211 being the only engine option on the L-1011 undoubtedly soured some potential airframe sales. The comparative accident record does indeed speak for itself. And EAL 401 was much more of a CRM lesson than a design lesson even though the lack of A/P mode reversion warning WAS ill thought out. (though not really an airplane design issue per se)
But all that said, time rolls on and Lockheed's only entry into the civil jet airliner market is relegated to history along with all their other great civilian planes. Lockheed was a great company in it's time, but that time is in the history books. What remains of the company today bears little relation to the one that produced all those revolutionary designs.
So let's appreciate the achievements of the past with due reverence while recognizing that new market entrants must be just that: NEW! Newly evolved designs utilizing modern materials technology and construction techniques which optimize profitability for builders and airlines alike. It's all about payload revenue versus cost of delivery and old designs were not optimized for the kind of efficiencies that rule today's market. Fuel prices, labor costs and myriad other differences between today and yesterday demand lighter and more performance efficiency optimized design.The design of the aircraft must incorporate features which recognize that maintenance tasks must be simplified to accommodate an ever decreasing maintenance workforce comprised of ever less capable technicians making ever less wages. Kost Kontrol is King! (but assuming HUGE acquisition burdens is somehow okay due to evolved tax liability and accounting methodology)
Anyway, so long to the Tri-Star, Connie and Lodestar. And not to forget the Jetstar, an airplane which paid for most of my pilot ratings by requiring I work allot of overtime as an A&P mechanic! So long and fare thee well old friends. I'll visit you in a museum and relive some good memories after parking the next generation disposable plastic jet at the FBO!
The DC-10 was demanded in greater numbers for several reasons related to airline cost/profitability metrics. Additionally, the RB-211 being the only engine option on the L-1011 undoubtedly soured some potential airframe sales. The comparative accident record does indeed speak for itself. And EAL 401 was much more of a CRM lesson than a design lesson even though the lack of A/P mode reversion warning WAS ill thought out. (though not really an airplane design issue per se)
But all that said, time rolls on and Lockheed's only entry into the civil jet airliner market is relegated to history along with all their other great civilian planes. Lockheed was a great company in it's time, but that time is in the history books. What remains of the company today bears little relation to the one that produced all those revolutionary designs.
So let's appreciate the achievements of the past with due reverence while recognizing that new market entrants must be just that: NEW! Newly evolved designs utilizing modern materials technology and construction techniques which optimize profitability for builders and airlines alike. It's all about payload revenue versus cost of delivery and old designs were not optimized for the kind of efficiencies that rule today's market. Fuel prices, labor costs and myriad other differences between today and yesterday demand lighter and more performance efficiency optimized design.The design of the aircraft must incorporate features which recognize that maintenance tasks must be simplified to accommodate an ever decreasing maintenance workforce comprised of ever less capable technicians making ever less wages. Kost Kontrol is King! (but assuming HUGE acquisition burdens is somehow okay due to evolved tax liability and accounting methodology)
Anyway, so long to the Tri-Star, Connie and Lodestar. And not to forget the Jetstar, an airplane which paid for most of my pilot ratings by requiring I work allot of overtime as an A&P mechanic! So long and fare thee well old friends. I'll visit you in a museum and relive some good memories after parking the next generation disposable plastic jet at the FBO!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: FL805
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn't agree more!
The only thing is that for LM to reenter civil market, IMHO the right approach should be, first reengineer Tristar, like Airbus did with Neo and Boeing with MAX, with a relative small investment and start to receive revenues, which I think L-1011 has the potential for it, even more with the right upgrades. The extent of those upgrades should be analysed in a cost/benefit point of view.
After this, LM could then, with a much more secure and stable position, start its endeavour in a:
That's the path to be undertaken for LM in the return to Civil Market.
In the other hand, in my country we have a saying that says " A cat who has been burned by hot liquid is afraid of cold water" and perhaps LM is comfortable as it is and do not want to grow and expand any more than it is now!
The only thing is that for LM to reenter civil market, IMHO the right approach should be, first reengineer Tristar, like Airbus did with Neo and Boeing with MAX, with a relative small investment and start to receive revenues, which I think L-1011 has the potential for it, even more with the right upgrades. The extent of those upgrades should be analysed in a cost/benefit point of view.
After this, LM could then, with a much more secure and stable position, start its endeavour in a:
Newly evolved designs utilizing modern materials technology and construction techniques which optimize profitability for builders and airlines alike
In the other hand, in my country we have a saying that says " A cat who has been burned by hot liquid is afraid of cold water" and perhaps LM is comfortable as it is and do not want to grow and expand any more than it is now!
Last edited by rbaiapinto; 14th Sep 2011 at 14:27. Reason: Text correction
