L1011 question(s)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L1011 question(s)
Does anyone know if the -250 has the same engines and thrust rating as the -500? I know they are both RB21-524 variants but I have read that the -250 has a 48000lbs. thrust vs. 50000lbs. for -500.
Also, I have read that the range of an L1011-500 VIP, ie Al Anwa aircraft, is 7000nm. presumably with few people onboard. Would the -250 have similar range in a VIP or corporate configuration?
Thank you.
Also, I have read that the range of an L1011-500 VIP, ie Al Anwa aircraft, is 7000nm. presumably with few people onboard. Would the -250 have similar range in a VIP or corporate configuration?
Thank you.
Do we yet have a PPRuNe replacement for that late, great proponent of the L1011: 411A?
He'd have been on to your case any time now, apolitical.
http://www.pprune.org/where-they-now...ml#post6399678
http://www.pprune.org/where-they-now...ml#post7051650
Presume you've tried the Advanced Search for L1011 threads? If not, here's a sample, which probably won't answer your question, but might be worth a look:
http://www.pprune.org/freight-dogs/4...ml#post5667305
And there are a couple of dozen other Tristar threads. Good luck...
He'd have been on to your case any time now, apolitical.
http://www.pprune.org/where-they-now...ml#post6399678
http://www.pprune.org/where-they-now...ml#post7051650
Presume you've tried the Advanced Search for L1011 threads? If not, here's a sample, which probably won't answer your question, but might be worth a look:
http://www.pprune.org/freight-dogs/4...ml#post5667305
And there are a couple of dozen other Tristar threads. Good luck...
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No-one is ever going to replace 411A!
The engines on the -200, -250, -500 were all the same i.e. the RB211-524B; which produced 50,000 lb of thrust.
The TriStar max payload range wasn't particularly startling, but the British Airways -500 did fly the London to Rio schedule.
I would hazard a guess that at a very light ZFW that the range is quite good. However, without passengers/cargo... what would be the point? Except as a VIP personal jet.
TCF
The engines on the -200, -250, -500 were all the same i.e. the RB211-524B; which produced 50,000 lb of thrust.
The TriStar max payload range wasn't particularly startling, but the British Airways -500 did fly the London to Rio schedule.
I would hazard a guess that at a very light ZFW that the range is quite good. However, without passengers/cargo... what would be the point? Except as a VIP personal jet.
TCF
I think apolitical does want to fly it in VIP config!
Not sure if it's helpful merely to quote from Wikipedia, but it seems to say that the wing, MTOW and fuel capacity of the -500 and -250 are the same, and one assumes that full tanks would be easily possible out of an intercontinental airfield with a low ZFW (empty-tank weight).
Wiki also says the -250 introduced an upgraded version of the RB211-524B engine, known as the -524B4 (or -524B4l), which increases thrust from 50,000lbf to 53,000lbf, as well as offering better sfc. (This upgrade is also, it says, available for the -500 a/c, but not how many had it.) So the plot thickens on thrust?
I guess for a given payload, a full-tanks -250 would be significantly heavier than a full-tanks -500. So that would suggest higher fuel flow, later step-climb, and consequent shorter range. However, it would be interesting to know the comparitive fuel-flows at the same AUW and altitude. Would the longer fuselage of the -250 be an advantage or disadvantage from a drag point of view? Are the horizontal and vertical stabilisers different sizes?
Not sure if it's helpful merely to quote from Wikipedia, but it seems to say that the wing, MTOW and fuel capacity of the -500 and -250 are the same, and one assumes that full tanks would be easily possible out of an intercontinental airfield with a low ZFW (empty-tank weight).
Wiki also says the -250 introduced an upgraded version of the RB211-524B engine, known as the -524B4 (or -524B4l), which increases thrust from 50,000lbf to 53,000lbf, as well as offering better sfc. (This upgrade is also, it says, available for the -500 a/c, but not how many had it.) So the plot thickens on thrust?
I guess for a given payload, a full-tanks -250 would be significantly heavier than a full-tanks -500. So that would suggest higher fuel flow, later step-climb, and consequent shorter range. However, it would be interesting to know the comparitive fuel-flows at the same AUW and altitude. Would the longer fuselage of the -250 be an advantage or disadvantage from a drag point of view? Are the horizontal and vertical stabilisers different sizes?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The empennage of all TriStars as delivered was the same. There was a retrofit larger rudder for the -500 that some operators had to overcome the Vmcg issues on shorter runways. That issue could be worked around in other ways and to some extent was dependant on the state of registry. The UK CAA demanded a more stringent set of certification conditions for Vmcg than the FAA, and this led to a higher Vmcg on UK registered -500s.
