Lockheed Martin - this is for you - L-1011 New Generation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: FL805
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockheed Martin - this is for you - L-1011 New Generation
This is a message addressed to Lockheed Martin (that's because I know they will read this 
) and fellow ppruners who want to contribute in a constructively manner.
Sorry the terms in English, but not being native, sometimes we mix our mother tongue with English one.
Let's get to the point:
L-1011 Tristar was a great aircraft as all of the pilot community recognizes. It's technological advances and it's new systems were a radical change in the design of an aircraft. As long as I'm deepen my knowledge about this aircraft I get more and more surprised with the level of innovation these new systems represented. Even today there is no match for the kind of engineering LM engineers came up to.
So the issue is as follows:
- It seems there is a high demand for aircraft these days and the trend still looks it will continue.
- On the long-haul there's hardly no competition apart from B/AB.
- The airline industry is waiting for a competitive long haul aircraft, so it can launch new business models on the long range.
- Boeing has recently decided to upgrade it's 737 with new engines, using a frame already designed and fully tested and with a relatively small amount of designing and engineering will be able to introduce a very competitive aircraft, which seems it will have a great success.
Looking at this, wouldn't it be a good move from LM to grab the L-1011 Tristar, upgrade its navigation and control systems to the new modern glasscockpits thus eliminating the 3rd crew, using this new Leap X engines instead of the three engines and with a relatively small amount of investment, come up with a strong long haul option?
This new L-1011 BISTAR would seem to me that with a very competitive price, superior technology and reputation from Lockheed Martin would have all the necessary to be a case of success.
There are companies, at least in Europe, who are waiting for some years now, that the long-haul equipment reduce it's acquisition prices, so that they can be able to launch new operations. However (Boeing and Airbus guys will not like me very much for saying this) this market is in the hands of two manufacturers. So perhaps the price for these type of air planes will be hard to reduce.
I have nothing against Boeing or Airbus, on the contrary, I do like very much their aircraft. I just think that it's a shame that such a good (excellent) plane as it is (still flying) L-1011 with its innovation systems couldn't be continued and improved, that's all.
Hope to ear some more elaborated and constructive comments from the community!
Regards!
) and fellow ppruners who want to contribute in a constructively manner.Sorry the terms in English, but not being native, sometimes we mix our mother tongue with English one.
Let's get to the point:
L-1011 Tristar was a great aircraft as all of the pilot community recognizes. It's technological advances and it's new systems were a radical change in the design of an aircraft. As long as I'm deepen my knowledge about this aircraft I get more and more surprised with the level of innovation these new systems represented. Even today there is no match for the kind of engineering LM engineers came up to.
So the issue is as follows:
- It seems there is a high demand for aircraft these days and the trend still looks it will continue.
- On the long-haul there's hardly no competition apart from B/AB.
- The airline industry is waiting for a competitive long haul aircraft, so it can launch new business models on the long range.
- Boeing has recently decided to upgrade it's 737 with new engines, using a frame already designed and fully tested and with a relatively small amount of designing and engineering will be able to introduce a very competitive aircraft, which seems it will have a great success.
Looking at this, wouldn't it be a good move from LM to grab the L-1011 Tristar, upgrade its navigation and control systems to the new modern glasscockpits thus eliminating the 3rd crew, using this new Leap X engines instead of the three engines and with a relatively small amount of investment, come up with a strong long haul option?
This new L-1011 BISTAR would seem to me that with a very competitive price, superior technology and reputation from Lockheed Martin would have all the necessary to be a case of success.
There are companies, at least in Europe, who are waiting for some years now, that the long-haul equipment reduce it's acquisition prices, so that they can be able to launch new operations. However (Boeing and Airbus guys will not like me very much
for saying this) this market is in the hands of two manufacturers. So perhaps the price for these type of air planes will be hard to reduce.I have nothing against Boeing or Airbus, on the contrary, I do like very much their aircraft. I just think that it's a shame that such a good (excellent) plane as it is (still flying) L-1011 with its innovation systems couldn't be continued and improved, that's all.
Hope to ear some more elaborated and constructive comments from the community!
Regards!
Mistrust in Management
Removing the centre engine I presume?
Going to need to overcome so major C. of G. problems in addition to solving many other issues.
Not ever going to happen in my opinion.
Not ever going to happen in my opinion.
You are talking about a company that simply doesn't have the production capacity to produce large aircraft any more, and the updating of a 50 year old design.
No, sorry. The 1011 was a great aircraft in it's day, but it's day has gone.
No, sorry. The 1011 was a great aircraft in it's day, but it's day has gone.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: some rock
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand what you mean - nice looking TriStar on GPS for less than $500k. But it's just like with a car for which to be fixed one would have to pay way more that for a good running used one.
Look at the alternatives:
-727 plenty of planes around - the 200s have about the same mission profile - and look at the operation cost (http://bit.ly/pVsymw - info a little outdated from 2000 but still huge difference -
Also there are tons of other alternatives like A300, A310, DC10 ... that are all up for grabs with enough pilots to fly them and still some spare parts and service programs.
- Other alternatives are former Soviet countries with plenty ACMI available Antonovs and Ilyushins operated for next to nothing due to cheap pilots and operators and clients who don't give the slightest s*it about safety.
Your project would reqire a lot of $$$ to accomplish for an aircraft that is way too outdated with a market of a lot of more fuel efficient aircraft coming along in the next few years and with a very limited amount of available airframes that have much time before reaching DSO time.
- They are waiting for Boeing to fulfill its 777F orders and for the A350.
- You can't compare this to the TriStar - in 2010 Boeing had 376 deliverys of 737s while there were only 250 TriStars ever built. The difference in development cost overhead/delivered aircraft will be very high for your idea in comparison to the 737 MAX
So unless some really braindead wall street investor helps out with it (i.e. if the brochure is shiny and sparkly you may get a deal) - not a chance.
Look at the alternatives:
-727 plenty of planes around - the 200s have about the same mission profile - and look at the operation cost (http://bit.ly/pVsymw - info a little outdated from 2000 but still huge difference -
- L1011-500 block hour w/o fuel $3075 - fuel cons. 1589 gph
- 722 - block hour w/o fuel $1874 - fuel cons. 1064 gph
Also there are tons of other alternatives like A300, A310, DC10 ... that are all up for grabs with enough pilots to fly them and still some spare parts and service programs.
- Other alternatives are former Soviet countries with plenty ACMI available Antonovs and Ilyushins operated for next to nothing due to cheap pilots and operators and clients who don't give the slightest s*it about safety.
Your project would reqire a lot of $$$ to accomplish for an aircraft that is way too outdated with a market of a lot of more fuel efficient aircraft coming along in the next few years and with a very limited amount of available airframes that have much time before reaching DSO time.
- The airline industry is waiting for a competitive long haul aircraft, so it can launch new business models on the long range.
Boeing has recently decided to upgrade it's [sic] 737 with new engines
So unless some really braindead wall street investor helps out with it (i.e. if the brochure is shiny and sparkly you may get a deal) - not a chance.
Last edited by mogas-82; 2nd Sep 2011 at 14:31.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: FL805
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that the L-1011 was conceived as a twin, but due the existing runways they've putted another engine.
Eliminating one engine, that of course would create different pitch moments and weights, which I think a design/engineering team would perfectly solve it. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is somehow feasible without a radical change.
Hey, they do have to do some kind of work
About the age of the airframe its not that different from the 737. B737 first flight was in 1967 and L-1011 was 1968.
About running costs, thanks for the table mogas-82, superb! we can compare the L-1011 with old engines with some actual frames:
Ok! I was trying to put here an excel table but I will try it some other way!
So taken from your report [mogas-82] the total operating costs are not that different when compared to (some) other long range frames!
I'm surprised as well, comparing with actual 340 and 777, even with the 330!
Now imagine we take one of the engines out and change the other two by a much more fuel efficient ones? I would think that this, as a saying in my country "has legs to walk" (It just means that it could be a good and feasible idea).
Now about logistics!
That's were you caught me Wiz!
I imagine that they don't have the production line set-up right now.
But this is all a component of an investment plan. They don't have but they did and still have for the military ones.
If looking from an economical point of view, this project would have some degree of execution and the revenues could cover the investment.
One component of the investment would be the production line itself, which would be, among others, a major task to be carried on.
I'm not looking for an investment partner or something like that, I'm just a recent CPL holder who happens to be an Engineer as well and like to study air crafts. And I'm overwhelmed by this Lockheed wonder.
Feel free to point me out my spelling and grammar errors, I appreciate it.
Eliminating one engine, that of course would create different pitch moments and weights, which I think a design/engineering team would perfectly solve it. I'm not saying it's easy, but it is somehow feasible without a radical change.
Hey, they do have to do some kind of work
About the age of the airframe its not that different from the 737. B737 first flight was in 1967 and L-1011 was 1968.
About running costs, thanks for the table mogas-82, superb! we can compare the L-1011 with old engines with some actual frames:
Ok! I was trying to put here an excel table but I will try it some other way!
So taken from your report [mogas-82] the total operating costs are not that different when compared to (some) other long range frames!
I'm surprised as well, comparing with actual 340 and 777, even with the 330!
Now imagine we take one of the engines out and change the other two by a much more fuel efficient ones? I would think that this, as a saying in my country "has legs to walk"
(It just means that it could be a good and feasible idea).Now about logistics!
That's were you caught me Wiz!
I imagine that they don't have the production line set-up right now.
But this is all a component of an investment plan. They don't have but they did and still have for the military ones.
If looking from an economical point of view, this project would have some degree of execution and the revenues could cover the investment.
One component of the investment would be the production line itself, which would be, among others, a major task to be carried on.
I'm not looking for an investment partner or something like that, I'm just a recent CPL holder who happens to be an Engineer as well and like to study air crafts. And I'm overwhelmed by this Lockheed wonder.
Feel free to point me out my spelling and grammar errors, I appreciate it.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are talking about a company that simply doesn't have the production capacity to produce large aircraft any more, and the updating of a 50 year old design.
Additionally, the Lockheed Martin Marietta plant has been undergoing a large expansion and since they managed to build C-5's and C-130's, and C-141's, C-130's and JetStars, F-22's C-130's and P-3's simultaneously there would be more than enough room for a commercial airliner.
Oh yes, the Lockheed Martin plant in Fort Worth, that was where the B-36 was built?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@glh
While the physical production plant may still be present, the capability to certify and produce a civilian aircraft may have atrophied. The skillsets between civil and military only overlap to a degree, not completely.
And certification standards would be a huge hurdle - the scope of change being described would almost certainly run afoul of the Changed Product Rule, which would largely eliminate any grandfathered certification credit for much of the design. If you aren't going to get any benefit from keeping an old design, you're probably as well starting with a clean sheet. And I don't think anybody other than the big two is interested in a clean sheet widebody these days...
While the physical production plant may still be present, the capability to certify and produce a civilian aircraft may have atrophied. The skillsets between civil and military only overlap to a degree, not completely.
And certification standards would be a huge hurdle - the scope of change being described would almost certainly run afoul of the Changed Product Rule, which would largely eliminate any grandfathered certification credit for much of the design. If you aren't going to get any benefit from keeping an old design, you're probably as well starting with a clean sheet. And I don't think anybody other than the big two is interested in a clean sheet widebody these days...
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: some rock
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
figures
The file I linked in my post is as mentioned very outdated and only viable for a very general estimate.You need to modify at lest the cost of fuel - that report stated on page 3 $0,7/gal. and those days are clearly over now. However I am somewhat surprised to see that the L1011 seems to be cheaper to operate than a DC-10-40 while both have about the same MTOW
. So maybe I was wrong to say that there is no way to make it work.
After looking over a few figures of the L1011 I agree that it may have some potential. However getting new engines will be very tricky. One of the most important aspect of the L1011 that I've seen is that it's not very noisy on takeoff (stage III) so why bother changing the engines then anyway? According to a table (http://bit.ly/pnrhGd page 7 - sorry couldn't find a better file) it's even better than A330 and A340 in terms of noise emissions. So you might be on to something.
However I see the priorities a bit different. If companies should use these TriStar they need:
1. enough spare parts available in within hours or a few days max.
2. experienced personnel on the flight deck and on the ground
3. (as you wrote) modern avionics
Good luck!
. So maybe I was wrong to say that there is no way to make it work. After looking over a few figures of the L1011 I agree that it may have some potential. However getting new engines will be very tricky. One of the most important aspect of the L1011 that I've seen is that it's not very noisy on takeoff (stage III) so why bother changing the engines then anyway? According to a table (http://bit.ly/pnrhGd page 7 - sorry couldn't find a better file) it's even better than A330 and A340 in terms of noise emissions. So you might be on to something.
However I see the priorities a bit different. If companies should use these TriStar they need:
1. enough spare parts available in within hours or a few days max.
2. experienced personnel on the flight deck and on the ground
3. (as you wrote) modern avionics
Good luck!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would anyone go through all the time and expense when you already have 777 and Airbus long haul aircraft already? Both are large (the 777 carries as much as a Classic 747 freighter for for less fuel burn) and proven designs. The next generation aircraft are close, the 787/A-350 with more modern materials and systems will increase efficiency.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: FL805
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks for the contributions!
So, the actual L-1011 has similar or cheaper operating costs than actual competition, with better features such as noise emissions, passenger comfort (this is always subjective, but assuming lesser noise, combined with the increased stability from the Active control systems, equals to better comfort) and flying characteristics that are a no match for any of these days aircraft, even the speed, only the 777 can reach the cruise speed of the Tristar.
So, with all these features which still are ahead or in-line with current competition, we can assume if we would change the engines using modern ones, with improved efficiency, less emissions and noise, replace the commands for a fly-by-wire system and using new glass cockpit navigation avionics, we would have a strong (very strong) option in the long range aviation market, without any doubt!
This kind of upgrade was made by both Boeing and Airbus, with their Neos and Maxs!
It could be a very lucrative move for Lockheeed I think, having still the production facilities, so they can produce the aircraft, with a relative small amount of investment, they can place in the market an incredibly saleable machine.
And afterwards, perhaps move to create a new civil aircraft design using all the knowledge gained in the military. (But that's another story!)
So, the actual L-1011 has similar or cheaper operating costs than actual competition, with better features such as noise emissions, passenger comfort (this is always subjective, but assuming lesser noise, combined with the increased stability from the Active control systems, equals to better comfort) and flying characteristics that are a no match for any of these days aircraft, even the speed, only the 777 can reach the cruise speed of the Tristar.
So, with all these features which still are ahead or in-line with current competition, we can assume if we would change the engines using modern ones, with improved efficiency, less emissions and noise, replace the commands for a fly-by-wire system and using new glass cockpit navigation avionics, we would have a strong (very strong) option in the long range aviation market, without any doubt!
This kind of upgrade was made by both Boeing and Airbus, with their Neos and Maxs!
It could be a very lucrative move for Lockheeed I think, having still the production facilities, so they can produce the aircraft, with a relative small amount of investment, they can place in the market an incredibly saleable machine.
And afterwards, perhaps move to create a new civil aircraft design using all the knowledge gained in the military. (But that's another story!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: FL805
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We never forget who we are working for....
)I'm just changing my career and after my graduation as a pilot I've increased my knowledge about air-crafts and their aerodynamic characteristics, studying quite a few and came up to find this technology wonder, which I think it's a shame that it hasnīt had a better story, but if Lockheed Martin become conscious of the equipment it has on his hands, perhaps they can realize they can return to the civil aviation market and making a profit of it
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Age: 75
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: The 1011 was a great aircraft in it's day, but it's day has gone.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
As far as being a maintenance nightmare? The L-1011's dispatch relibility rate was higher that any other wide first generation widebody. So either maintenance was not that big a problem or the airlines that flew the TriStar were highly skilled.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In the library
Age: 85
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hawker 750 says It was not a great aircraft in it's day it was a dog.
As a ground engineer with a global airline, I worked the Tristar through out it,s, life before they were sold to various operators including the RAF.
In all that time I only had admiration for it, years head of it`s time & if there was one in a museum this side of the atlantic I would be one of the first volunteers.
All the crews I came into contact with loved it.
A dog NEVER!!!!!
tristar 500
As a ground engineer with a global airline, I worked the Tristar through out it,s, life before they were sold to various operators including the RAF.
In all that time I only had admiration for it, years head of it`s time & if there was one in a museum this side of the atlantic I would be one of the first volunteers.
All the crews I came into contact with loved it.
A dog NEVER!!!!!
tristar 500
Worked the '10' and the 'Tribastard'. Both a bloody nightmare.
To be fair, the Tristar was better looking.
Lots of Overtime though.
To be fair, the Tristar was better looking.
Lots of Overtime though.