View Full Version : L1011 Worlds Greatest Airliner or a flying junkyard?
12-27-2002, 01:18 PM
What do you think about the L1011 Flying Junkyard or the World's Greatest? Give reasons images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
12-28-2002, 01:57 AM
Flying junkyard images/smiles/icon_eek.gif I hardly say that about the L10. The world's greatest airliner, not number one but it sure was a great aircraft. I personally love the L1011 I feel it was a very versatile aircraft. Not only did it provide high capacity solutions on short to medium haul routes, it flew allot of long haul routes for the carriers it served.
If it wasn't for the problems at Rolls Royce the L1011 could have easily taken the place of the DC-10 and allowed Lockheed to remain in the commercial aircraft business for along time. Pound for pound, the L10 was a more modern and safer aircraft the DC-10. No L1011 ever crashed because of design flaws like the DC-10. The only fatal accident to stricken the L1011 was Eastern 401, and that was crew error. Since then nobody has died while flying onboard the L1011.
Lastly, she is simply a terrific looking aircraft!
So to answer your question......Yes maybe she was one the greatest airliners to ever be built.
12-28-2002, 02:09 AM
Great Airliner. There have been only five fatal incidents on the L1011. Two were accidents and neither was the fault of the aircraft. Pilot error and wind shear. The other three fatal incidents were on board fire started by a camp stove, even so the aircraft landed safely but the Evac was botched. A Tire exploded inflight killing two people, and a bomb explosion at the gate.
A remarkable record not very many other aircraft that have been flying for 30 years can claim to not have had a mechanical faliure induced accident.
12-28-2002, 04:54 PM
One of if not the best aircraft to ever fly.
12-28-2002, 09:34 PM
It's definitely a great aircraft to fly in. I had an extremely nice ride in a Delta 1011-500 from Atlanta to Miami, and I never felt more comfortable in a widebodied airliner than on this all-to-short flight.
12-29-2002, 05:44 AM
Not to be a "smart-alex". I thought the L1011 was the AMC Pacer (http://www.amcpacer.com) of jetliners. It was great dependable aircraft, but it cost a lot of money to develop and did not sell in the numbers needed to be profitable. I might add that I prefer the L1011 to the DC-10. I hope a good number of L1011s are converted into freighters, so they will be flying for many more years.
<FONT COLOR="black" SIZE="1">[ December 29, 2002 12:56 AM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Lance ]</font>
12-29-2002, 06:13 AM
Please have a look at these statistics:
Are they reliable? Is MD-11 such a bad aircraft?? images/smiles/icon_eek.gif
As a passenger, I think the L-1011-500 was the most confortable aircraft I ever flew... Off course not in terms of Audiovisual equipment, but in terms of its dynamics... Always smooth rides and I barely recall a flight with turbulence... ACS and DLC effects?? I think so... No other modern aircrafts have these passenger-friendly systems...
About the appearence, for me it's the most beautifull aircraft ever built! images/smiles/icon_cool.gif
12-30-2002, 08:14 PM
Oh yeah! The TriStar has always been one of my favorites for looks. In my opinion, in terms of clean lines and aesthetics it beats the DC10 hands-down.
People refer to the L1011 as being very advanced for its time as well. I think I've even heard an L1011 was the first commercial aircraft to complete an entire flight, from takeoff to landing on autopilot (or computer control?).
And though I haven't had the opportunity to fly on one for a long time, I can remember when they were a bit more common I asked a couple members of the cabin crew on a DC10 what aircraft they preferred working on. Their answer: L1011. That's gotta be worth something!
As far as the question about L1011 conversion to freighters... I don't think I've ever seen this happen. Are there many examples? It seems I've heard something about the way the cabin floors were engineered makes this impractical... Anyone know more about this?
12-31-2002, 07:30 PM
I think it was a nice airliner and that's why some of the world's leading airlines including British Airways, SAUDIA, ANA, PanAm, Delta and TWA were big operators of L-1011.
01-02-2003, 01:47 AM
Well, I don't know how may 1011 Freighters are there, but here in Colombia one Cargo Airline operates them...Aerolineas ATC.
01-24-2003, 12:19 AM
The Royal Air Force use them as freighters/tankers.Certainly is a good looking aircraft.
01-24-2003, 05:13 AM
I've always though the TriStar was a better looking aircraft when compared to the DC-10. Based on those stats that Andre has provided, the TriStar sounds like one heck of a great plane.
It would have been great if they had built a higher capacity (300 in three classes) longer range (13000km) follow-on, like the Lockheed equivalent to the MD-11. It would have blown the MD-11 away. I often think about what a great aircraft it could have potentially been had Lockheed of built it. Shame they didn't.
The only thing I didn't like about the L1011 was that the long-range model was considerably shorter and was therefore unable to fully match the mighty DC-10-30.
PS-Love Cathay's colors on the L1011.
It is a beautiful aircraft but at the wrong time. if it had precede the DC-10 and the B-747 it could have been king.
03-12-2003, 03:40 AM
Could not resist dragging this one forward.
Lovely plane to look at, and the airlines liked them at first. but then the twins arrived, specifically the 767-300ER and economics dictated their premature departure from many airlines' service. Air Canada sold their six -500s to Delta ca 1992 to standardize on the 767, as the -1s and -100s were also put out to pasture in MHV at the same time (three were returned to service 1994-96 to fill a short term gap in capacity, and were mainly used YYZ-YVR and YYZ-LAX). I remember living in the north end of Edmonton 1989-1992, and you would see the1011-500 flight coming in from LHR descending towards the International Airport 20 miles south of the city. There were a lot of passenger complaints regarding the lack of overhead storage,as the initial models only had bins outboard, but not in the center. Made for a spacious looking cabin, but lacked seriously in storage space when compared to 747s and DC10s of similar vintage. I first flew one from YYZ-YVR in May 1981, a-500 from YYZ-YVR in August 1989, and my last flight was in one of the aforementioned -1/-100s in August 1994 in J class, really huge seat and spacious cabin, but lacking in those bins, which perhaps was not as much as an issue up front due to the 54" pitch. I hope fly somewhere with Air TransAt before they get rid of theirs, though I also hope to avoid the rear 3-4-3 seating, for which the aircraft was never designed(2-5-2 or 3-3-3 being most common, though quite a few were delivered with economy cabin 2-4-2 seating when new) Believe Hawaian also tried this 10 across config, which was hugely unpopular as people not only had to contend with puny pitch but were crammed in spanwise as well.But this was the fault of a bean counting airline exec, not the basic design of the plane. Rolls Royce's financial problems not-with-standing, I also believe the RB211 engines had more than their share of teething troubles when first introduced, and the initial variants of the aircraft were somewhat underpowered for hot and high operations, which I think the -200 series addressed. I have pictures of N304EA, then with Rich International offloading fuel in 120F heat so they could fly as far as MCI to refuel on a flight to CLE; the aircraft could not manage the pax load and sufficient fuel to fly any further. Our full 767-200 on the other hand left on time with a fuel load of pax and fuel sufficient to get us non stop to YYZ.
ESSENTIAL VAAAPP VAPORIZER (http://essentialvaaappvaporizer.com)
03-12-2003, 03:43 AM
Meant to say in 120F heat at LAS
Marijuana Seeds (http://marijuanaseeds.org/)
03-12-2003, 03:45 AM
With a FULL load of pax-we should be able to edit our messages somehow.
Herbal vaporizers (http://herbalvaporizers.info)
03-12-2003, 10:26 AM
It seems that the DC-10 has a much higher life expectancy than the L1011. Just look at the number of DC-10s flying today compared to TriStars. OK, I know DC-10s outsold the TriStar, but there are still charter airlines and such still operating them. Some airlines are still adding DC-10s to their fleets. We don't see this with TriStars. Yeah there are still quite a few in service, but no one has bought new ones, they're all headed for the graveyard. And L1011F? I havent seen any. DC-10F? Plenty....
If the L1011 is such a great plane, then why aren't any airlines still adding them like the DC-10?
Just a thought.
03-12-2003, 01:30 PM
I think it is a case of more of the DC10s being available on the used markets so when for eg Fed Ex decided to standardize.....The development of the MD10F could not have hurt either, where as very few 1011s were converted to cargo config, the RAF -500 examples being the only ones that immediately come to mind. I know the TriStar was passe by the late 1980s with some airlines, perhaps unfairly so. For eg i know Boeing bought a bunch of them from All Nippon on trade, and rather than flood the market with 15 year old airframes, which would compete with their new products, reduced them to spare parts. And for all the prestige of that Rolls Royce name, the RB 211 never gained the acceptance of its P&W and GE competitors. There are now a lot of DC10s being reduced to scrap, just it happened about ten years later than the L1011 eg the NW DC10-40s and the CO -30s
Shemale Fetish (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/961/fetish/videos/1)
03-12-2003, 04:01 PM
Trijets are always a welcomed sight for me! Even a Swiss MD-11 fasinates me.. with interesting variations like Swiss Asia, and HB-IWB blue belly.
Apart from the MD-11s, Singapore do occasionally get DC-10s and L-1011.
Garuda operates the DC-10s and Orient Thai fly their only L1011. Although its a sad sight to see Orient Thai's daily flight always in the "Cancel" state. :shakehea:
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.