Lockheed Martin - this is for you - L-1011 New Generation

[lynn789]

a new tristar would need much more refinment to stop passenger cabin noise and vibration. I recall continuous bumps , shuddering,thuds and too much noise.
I was near the wing with an intersting ex B24 pilot going along the italian alps long time ago, we both agreed that the noise and vibration in cabin from engine made it impossible to talk.

it was said lockheed had forgotten how to quieten cabins for paying passengers

[twochai]

It even caused the collapse of the civil airline program of Locheed, that says it all.

Excuse me? I think it was the inverse: Lockheed's mistakes, assisted by the loss of market share resulting from the R-R bankruptcy, caused the eventual collapse of the 1011 and derivatives.

[Graybeard]

IIRC, the 1011 lacked the payload/range to be competitive with the DC-10 and 747. The DC-10 is a pilot's airplane, and the 1011 is an engineering marvel of efficient design.

it was said lockheed had forgotten how to quieten cabins for paying passengers

Back in the day, a McDouglas rep told me that Lockheed design engineers were much smarter than DAC and Boeing engineers. They all had the problem of the 3600 rpm N1 buzzsaw noise at takeoff. LCC worked hard and eliminated most of the noise at the source, drilling vanes, etc. BAC and DAC merely added a ton of sheet lead to the sidewalls of their planes so the pax wouldn't hear the buzzsaws so loud.

Guess what? At cruise the DC-10 and 747 had quiet cabins, thanks to that ton of sheet lead, while the L-1011 had all the unmuffled noise.

GB

[aterpster]

Greybeard:

Guess what? At cruise the DC-10 and 747 had quiet cabins, thanks to that ton of sheet lead, while the L-1011 had all the unmuffled noise.

As fuel prices become a big deal in the mid 1980s we slowed down mach cruise for our fleet except the L1011, which remained at 0.86 for a comfortable deck angle.

[hawker750]

glhcarl

Quote: Only one airline that operated both the L-1011 and the DC-10 (the TriStar's closest rival) chose to keep the DC-10 over the L-1011.

I assume you are referring to BOAC/British Airways. When BOAC operated the 10-30 in 1975 they had the best dispatch reliability of any aircraft in their fleet and normally operated with zero items in the DDM log

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

The DC-10 is a pilot's airplane

It was also a festering, steaming pile of cow dung in terms of safety in it's original form, due to rushed development in a desperate bid to beat Lockheed to market.

LCC worked hard and eliminated most of the noise at the source, drilling vanes, etc. BAC and DAC merely added a ton of sheet lead to the sidewalls of their planes so the pax wouldn't hear the buzzsaws so loud.

Guess what? At cruise the DC-10 and 747 had quiet cabins, thanks to that ton of sheet lead, while the L-1011 had all the unmuffled noise.

Unfortunately the DC-10 cabin became very noisy when the rear cargo door blew out and took the floor with it - *briefly* very noisy in one tragic case. 346 dead because of a known design flaw and a "gentlemen's agreement" (none may dare call it a bribe) to prevent a legally-enforceable fix to that design flaw is something for which MD should never be forgiven.

[aterpster]

DozyWannabe:

Unfortunately the DC-10 cabin became very noisy when the rear cargo door blew out and took the floor with it - *briefly* very noisy in one tragic case. 346 dead because of a known design flaw and a "gentlemen's agreement" (none may dare call it a bribe) to prevent a legally-enforceable fix to that design flaw is something for which MD should never be forgiven.

AAL almost lost one over Detroit for the same reason.

Then, there is the UAL DC-10 that landed upsite down killing over 100 folks. It would have been a total wipe-out except for a captain willing to listen to a very sharp deadheading pilot.

[rbaiapinto]

It was not a great aircraft in it's day it was a dog. It may have been reasonably nice to fly for those who had not flown a lot nicer, but it was a maintenance nightmare, always going tech and it caused the financial collapse of more than one airline, Caledonian in it's last reincarnation being one. It even had the last laugh on poor old 411, went tech with 200 passengers in an out of the way place. 411 took it so personaly he finally blew his own main fuse. Why resurect something that did not work in the first place? Did I fly it? Yes and did not rate it. Let it RIP in the boneyard. It even caused the collapse of the civil airline program of Locheed, that says it all.

In order to rebate these allegations, we must first line up and understand the time-frame for the creation of L-1011.

In the second part of the sixties, Lockheed starts the development of a new wide-body aircraft. Lockheed by then had already its name carved in stone with models like Electra (the fastest commercial aircraft in its era) and few years later, by the Constellation. These were milestones in the history of aviation.

Originally conceived as a twin reactor, it was later added a third one in order to be able to operate from high and short fields, such as La Guardia (7000'/2100m), oriented to North American market, from coast to coast.

Around the beginning of the 70's, both Lockheed and Rolls Royce were with financial problems. The development of this L-1011 was one of the most financially onerous, due in part for the design of such an innovative aircraft and the technical bankrupt from RR around 1971.
This, was a major financial setback for Lockheed and without any chance of changing the engines, (since the design was already made and developing a new design for different engines would probably mean more delays and financial issues).

To “help” this situation, the economic climate around final 60's was hard, like these days, near a recession, provoking some re-evaluations and renegotiations in aircraft purchasing.

With all these delays and financial issues on the way, one of the greatest potential clients, American Airlines decided to purchase the DC-10, which was developed earlier and ready to operate.

So with all these major setbacks, Lockheed decided to upgrade its first known as American coast to coast to an intercontinental aircraft, widening its base of potential clients. And that was the origin of L-1011 Tristar.

When reaching to the 80's, the competition was fierce, with Boeing launching the 767 and the new European consortium Airbus launching the A300/310.

In early 80's, these facts made sales from L-1011, fall sharply, which later lead to the cancellation of L-1011 program.

About airline companies, I don't have facts to affirm that it was a specific type of aircraft that lead to an airline company to bankruptcy, but it's somewhat odd such an event. I would say for something like that to happen, perhaps the issues were about management, economic climate, commercial positioning, etc...

The DC-10 is a pilot's airplane, and the 1011 is an engineering marvel of efficient design

In order to substantiate this we can enumerate some of its features.

The flight controls based on 4 (four) different independent and redundant hydraulic systems using ailerons and spoilers (depending on speed) to maintain and increase stability and reduce induced drag, thus reducing fuel burn.
System known as Active control had as an working principle an installation of accelerometers in fuselage and wingtips, which detected vertical accelerations and by so deflect the ailerons in order to reduce wing bending due to a redistribution of lift forces, making until today the smoothest aircraft to ride on. All this was accomplished in a automatic way, without interference of pilots.

Above M.65 the system known as Maneuvering Direct lift control (MDLC) was in charge using the spoilers instead.

The solution found by Douglas to these issues was the installation of winglets, which were by then been studied and tested!

The Direct lift control (DLC) which was previously referred, its another Engineering wonder from Lockheed design team. This system made use of inboard spoilers controlling its deflection on final approaches, so that the control of vertical speed could be done without changing attitude or speed.
This results in a smooth and constant pitch attitude approach, working automatically in manual or autopilot.

It was the first wide-body aircraft to have an digital auto-pilot, been this one, one of the most accurate ever built, instead of the old analog systems.

The Performance Management System was and still is in my opinion one of state of the art systems ever built. Instead of constant changes in throttle to maintain optimum Mach number, which some airlines preferred to increase mach no and thus resulting in higher fuel burned, Lockheed came up with another revolutionary technique.
This Flight Management system maintained airspeed precisely by changing the aircrafts attitude. This was also done automatically which resulted as well with better fuel efficiency, extended engine life and less fatigue for the passenger due to constant power changes.


The engines were, nevertheless the delays, one of the reasons for the success of this model, known as "Whisperliner". These RB211 engines had one more shaft than usual, who should permit a reduced rotation speed resulting in less noise. That was confirmed few posts ago by mogas-82.

Its construction and assembly techniques were also pioneers, using in its design semi-monocoque panels with a thicker coating diminishing the transverse beams resulting in a significantly weight reduction as well as an reduced production and assembly period.

It was introduced an new and advanced welding technique, thus eliminating the need of thousands of rivets, with its drilling which enabled a better corrosion protection.

So to sum up, when you say it caused the termination of civil airline program of Lockheed, it's with any doubt true, but one must look and see what were the reasons and accomplishments made at that time.

This was by far, the most advanced aircraft of the era and I believe with some changes (already referred to) still is.

Perhaps now, the market is prepared to receive such an advanced aircraft!

[DozyWannabe]

Originally Posted by aterpster

AAL almost lost one over Detroit for the same reason.

Well, that was the *reason* for the Gentlemen's Agreement, wasn't it? I seem to recall reading that the only reason that one didn't end up as a smoking hole was because the Captain in that case was a senior training pilot for AA and was alarmed when told by MD that the DC-10 had no manual reversion in case of total hydraulic loss, leading him to practice differential thrust control and landings in the sim. I'd be willing to bet money that he was the only line pilot that knew how to do that at the time.

Ironically, that it didn't end up as a smoking hole was the fact that allowed MD to persuade the head of the FAA, against the recommendations of Chuck Miller and the NTSB, that an AD wasn't required to fix the problem (they had a very real fear that an AD that early in the aircraft's service life would sink the aircraft, and MD with it).

Legend has it that Miller was so incensed when he saw the same damage pattern on the THY cargo door that he essentially told an investigative journalist to look at the Windsor Incident DC-10.

Then, there is the UAL DC-10 that landed upsite down killing over 100 folks. It would have been a total wipe-out except for a captain willing to listen to a very sharp deadheading pilot.

That wasn't specific to the DC-10 though, tail damage of that magnitude also brought down the JAL 747. However AA191 revealed that despite the most glaring factor behind the crash being the non-approved engine change procedure, another supposed DC-10 failsafe (hydraulic slat retraction) was not failsafe, and the designers had failed to consider that failure mode too.

[oldchina]

rbaiapinto

I wonder why I bother to reply to such garbage. I don't know where that operating cost table came from, but it's pure bull****.

The 1011 was too clever by half and so complex it was a maintenance man's nightmare.

Cathay Pacific routinely spent much less on maintaining the 747-200 than they did on the Tristar.

And Lockheed never worked out how to make a full-size long haul version.

As for the pax, it vibrated and was noisy. So what if the pilots liked it, who cares?

You must have something better to do than promote an old dinosaur of a plane. The world has moved on.

[overun]

l have no interest in the affairs of Lockheed-Martin but am curious as to why a rather large blue and white sign advertises their presence just north of Ampthill in Bedfordshire ?

[GarageYears]

The last L-1011 was delivered in 1985... the idea of this ever being manufactured again is so far out of reality that is beggars belief! Talk about a flight of fantasy...

Given the way technology moves on, I doubt whether it would even be possible to build one that could legally be certified to fly. Remember 1985 was the same year Microsoft introduced Windows 1.0... a large chunk of the electronics would certainly no longer be available.

- GY

[Mr Optimistic]

l have no interest in the affairs of Lockheed-Martin but am curious as to why a rather large blue and white sign advertises their presence just north of Ampthill in Bedfordshire ?



Locations | Lockheed Martin UK

[overun]

Wow !

So it was Ampthill then ?

So what do they do there then Mr Smartypants ?

[OldCessna]

Ah don't we miss good old 411A now.

Where's Got the T Shirt?

I seem to think Sands, Orbital, RAF, Barq etc all like them!

Don't get too many bits falling off and cracks appearing in a 3 year old aircraft as we see nowadays!

[hawker750]

OldChina says is right, too clever by half. I remember having to hand fly it 4 hours from mid artlantic because the overhead panel resembled a 12 volt christmas tree operating on 24 volts.At least 3 of the QRH checks said "hand fly and land at nearest suitable". Repeated alt/control/deletes had no effect. Yes the auto pilot/autothrottle had some "novel" features like climbing or descending the aircraft instead of power changes. I wonder how this stacked up when RVSM certification was sought?
The only problem I ever experienced with the DC10 was saying awake in that lovely quiet, comfortable cockpit (once, of course, they had worked out how to keep the doors shut, but don't all great aircraft have minor irritating teething problems?)

[Graybeard]

System known as Active control had as an working principle an installation of accelerometers in fuselage and wingtips, which detected vertical accelerations and by so deflect the ailerons in order to reduce wing bending due to a redistribution of lift forces, making until today the smoothest aircraft to ride on. All this was accomplished in a automatic way, without interference of pilots.

ACS was invented for the -500 so they could extend the span without beefing up the wing. This gave the plane greater range. I never rode on a -500, so don't know about its ride, but Lockheed has always been known for a very stiff wing and more abrupt ride. Stiff wings seem more prone to crack, like the C-5, C-130 and Electra.

It was the first wide-body aircraft to have an digital auto-pilot, been this one, one of the most accurate ever built, instead of the old analog systems.

The original L-1011 AP was analog. Digital AP was developed in the late 1970s for the -500 series. Even the analog AP was good for Cat IIIc. The digital was dual-dual like the original. Boeing chose the simpler triplex for the 767 and all subsequent planes.

GB

[glhcarl]

ACS was invented for the -500 so they could extend the span without beefing up the wing.

Partially true, ACS was used on the C-5 first and adapted to use on the -500.

I remember having to hand fly it 4 hours from mid artlantic because the overhead panel resembled a 12 volt christmas tree operating on 24 volts.At least 3 of the QRH checks said "hand fly and land at nearest suitable".

What a dirty rotten shame, you actually had to do your job for 4 whole hours!

The 1011 was too clever by half and so complex it was a maintenance man's nightmare.

Only if the maintenance man had less than average skill!

The chief pilot at an operator that flew both the L-1011 and the DC-10 explained the difference between the two this way: It takes a little more effort the get the L-1011 in the air. But once it is in the air I realize that any extra effort was more than worth it.

I am still waiting for Golden Rivit to tell me where the 7075-T6, that has caused the most of the TriStars to be parked, is located.

[Mr Optimistic]

Overun, it's the old Hunting Engineering. They don't do anything that flies with people in.

http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/news...lsspring11.pdf

Pg 6.

[thermostat]

L1011 vs DC-10

How many people were killed by each aircraft. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating".
And what about the Swiss Air MD11 that went down in Canada?
Not one L-1011 loss was due to the aircraft design.
The LEDs locked down.
The floor had equalizing valves.
Control wires ran along the side (not under the floor)
DLC on approach, etc, etc, etc............

I agree. Re-engine and upgrade to glass, this would be the queen of the skies.