Tristar's Direct Lift Control
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 3,984
Likes: 568
From: Where the Quaboag River flows, USA
411A, you might chime in being the L1011 expert.
I believe hydraulic fusing came in as a result of the Saigon C-5 crash where an aft cargo door failed and took out all four systems. The Galaxy had fuses everywhere and never lost more than two systems in my knowledge. The 1011 pilots, in my experience, said the L1011 was like the C-5, but perfected. At Eastern, the L1011 was U/S so often our cleaners wouldn't hustle a job on it because it wasn't anywhere in a hurry, but the -9 or 727 at the next gate was leaving.
I would agree on the lav system problems. The C-5 lavs were right over the landing gear logic panels, the inevitable leaks cause all kinds of unpredictable gear problems. Also, I don't know if it was Dynatube, but the swedged hydraulic fittings were a nightmare. Not always capable of being repaired except at C-5 bases and not always then. I blew a #1 system pressure line just inside the fuselage over France. Filled the cargo area with hydraulic mist and fluid, landed back in Germany. Before undoing my seatbelt, the hydraulic folks were talking about a 72-hour repair. They were right, too.
Dreary stories, but the 1011 and it predessor were magnificant techological marvels...........WHEN THEY WORKED.
GF
I believe hydraulic fusing came in as a result of the Saigon C-5 crash where an aft cargo door failed and took out all four systems. The Galaxy had fuses everywhere and never lost more than two systems in my knowledge. The 1011 pilots, in my experience, said the L1011 was like the C-5, but perfected. At Eastern, the L1011 was U/S so often our cleaners wouldn't hustle a job on it because it wasn't anywhere in a hurry, but the -9 or 727 at the next gate was leaving.
I would agree on the lav system problems. The C-5 lavs were right over the landing gear logic panels, the inevitable leaks cause all kinds of unpredictable gear problems. Also, I don't know if it was Dynatube, but the swedged hydraulic fittings were a nightmare. Not always capable of being repaired except at C-5 bases and not always then. I blew a #1 system pressure line just inside the fuselage over France. Filled the cargo area with hydraulic mist and fluid, landed back in Germany. Before undoing my seatbelt, the hydraulic folks were talking about a 72-hour repair. They were right, too.
Dreary stories, but the 1011 and it predessor were magnificant techological marvels...........WHEN THEY WORKED.
GF
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
Ferrydude,
Give a call to Lockeed Greenville, and ask for Robert Taylor, the TriStar support manager.
He will have the information you require.
Or, call a few old ex-DAL guys, who were in L10 fleet management.
They will set you straight.
Hey, spend a quarter for the telephone.
Give a call to Lockeed Greenville, and ask for Robert Taylor, the TriStar support manager.
He will have the information you require.
Or, call a few old ex-DAL guys, who were in L10 fleet management.
They will set you straight.
Hey, spend a quarter for the telephone.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
From: NY
We still have amazing advances from Lockheed (very proud company indeed) F-22 Raptor.... that also has DLC.... it lifts directly outta the field with no runway
although I can honesty say would not want a Boeing ICBM chasing me either...
although I can honesty say would not want a Boeing ICBM chasing me either...
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
From: Near LOACH intersection
Hmm, the Boeing partners in the F-22 Raptor might take issue with your assessment of where the "amazing advances" came from. In any event, it is now Lockheed/Martin, a very different company than the Lockheed that existed at the time of L-1011 development.
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/
-my favorite company anyway
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
From: uk
The Tristar DLC system certainly allowed a very stable approach attitude, but having flown a few wide body a/c since the Tristar, I could not say that the difference is detectable in the cabin. From the pilot's point of view, it did allow a more rapid change of vertical speed during the approach, since lift was directly affected by spoiler deflection via a simple stick pitch input, rather than having to change wing angle of attack through a change in aircraft attitude.The system gave a rapid response in the go-round, with virtually no sink after the TOGA button was pressed.The secret of a smooth landing in the L1011 was to always keep some positive back-pressure on the control column, after the flare was initiated, until touchdown.This stowed the spoiler panels from the 7 degree null position to 0 and helped to cushion the touchdown, which could be really smooth. Any relaxation of the back-pressure, or forward pressure ( you don't really do that in the flare, do you?) redeployed the spoilers to ( or beyond ) the 7 degree position and could dump the aircraft on the runway.
To answer a previous question: yes, the Tristar could land on a 2500m runway and we often did that. As I remember, things became challenging around 2200m, depending upon weight. Landing on full length 09R at LHR after an air-test, admittedly a minimum weight, we used max autobrake to stop. There was no time to pull reverse above idle before we reached taxy speed and we had to apply power to taxy forward to clear at the old runway threshold (block 79). The ground roll was around 800m or less, you can check it for yourself. That said, most modern jets can pull up extremely quickly. Its a shame that the only thing that simulators cannot simulate is max braking, it is literally a breathtaking experience. The Tristar was a good 'stopper' and much better than the DC10, which was very weak in that respect. (Yes, I flew both)
To answer a previous question: yes, the Tristar could land on a 2500m runway and we often did that. As I remember, things became challenging around 2200m, depending upon weight. Landing on full length 09R at LHR after an air-test, admittedly a minimum weight, we used max autobrake to stop. There was no time to pull reverse above idle before we reached taxy speed and we had to apply power to taxy forward to clear at the old runway threshold (block 79). The ground roll was around 800m or less, you can check it for yourself. That said, most modern jets can pull up extremely quickly. Its a shame that the only thing that simulators cannot simulate is max braking, it is literally a breathtaking experience. The Tristar was a good 'stopper' and much better than the DC10, which was very weak in that respect. (Yes, I flew both)
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
From: Stockholm Sweden
When I was involved (as an engineer) with Nordic East, we ran regular trips ARN-CFU which has a 2375m runway and no taxiways. The crews seemed to handle it with no problems and we were in full charter config with 350pax(only small L4 R4 doors).
I was an engineer on the Tristar for 7 years with GF and then Line maint for TWA at ARN then the Nordic operation based at ARN. Loved the aircraft. It went wrong a lot but didn't let us down much. So much was allowable in the MEL. In our days with the two Nordic Tristars we changed one engine time expired in three years. In the same hangar Premiar changed 22 CF6s on their ex DL DC10s!
I was an engineer on the Tristar for 7 years with GF and then Line maint for TWA at ARN then the Nordic operation based at ARN. Loved the aircraft. It went wrong a lot but didn't let us down much. So much was allowable in the MEL. In our days with the two Nordic Tristars we changed one engine time expired in three years. In the same hangar Premiar changed 22 CF6s on their ex DL DC10s!
