PDA

View Full Version : The Lockheed L-1011 Tri-Star



T-Bird76
08-01-2005, 09:53 PM
I was going through some of my old airline stuff the other day and I found some old L-1011 safety cards and it reminded me of how much I loved the L-1011. The Tri-star was certainly one of the nicest looking planes to have ever graced the skies but aside from its good looks the L-1011 was one of the most and still is one of the most technologically advanced aircraft ever built.

Just some interesting facts about the Tri-Star

-Out of the five that went down the causes were not related to the aircraft malfunctioning or a design flaw.

-Can take off with full nose down trim in place.

-First airliner to be certified for fully automatic all weather landings.

-Full power controls backed up by four independent hydraulic systems vs. the DC-10 and MD-11's three systems.

-Flying Stabilizer to eliminate mis-trim during take-off.

-Lower deck lounge, (not all applications)

-Following Lockheed's tradition of naming their birds after the constellations of space the L-1011 was named the Tri-Star after the three stars of Orion’s belt, which fit nicely since she had three engines.

Simply an amazing aircraft for the time, even the best selling commercial airliner the 737 doesn't have many of the same features the Tri-Star had. Its interesting how history played its part against the Tri-Star, just think if Rolls Royce had never had the trouble they had and delivered the L-1011’s engines on-time?? She would have ruled the sky…

PhilDernerJr
08-01-2005, 10:14 PM
I completely agree that the L-1011 is one of the most beautiful birds ever.

To think I used to watch these things are La Guardia growing up before I was as much into planes as I am now hurts me. I can't explain the excitement I felt last year in LA when I saw the ATA Tristars operating daily.

I have an ATA L-1011 screensaver that I made and I sometimes don't want to touch my mouse because I love looking at those shots no matter how much I look at them.

I love just watching them taxi around. They have such a presence, they stand out more than most other aircraft.

If I could rewind time......

Sulman
08-02-2005, 02:51 AM
It's a wonderful aircraft. In many ways, the legacy of the L1011 is the RB211 program's great success. Without Lockheed's help, I doubt Rolls would have the success they enjoy today.

i_mizrahi
08-02-2005, 03:51 AM
The topic of why one aircraft ends up ruling the sky while another finds it way to the photo albums is a very interesting topic.
Unfortunatelly I don't know the full tri-star stoty.
When did it make its first flight?
What prevented it from becoming a success?
Why did Lockheed ended their commercial aircraft program?

Izhar

PhilDernerJr
08-02-2005, 04:31 AM
The L-1011 was created, along with the DC-10, to fill the demand by airlines like American to carry 300 passengers and operate out of airports with shorter runways such as New York's La Guardia Airport.

With its first flight in November of 1970, it faced problems the previous February when Rolls Royce (maker of the Tristar's RB211 engine) went bankrupt. After RR was saved through government nationalization, production continued until 1983 after having produced 250 of the type.

Though it fought an uphill battle, and did well, for its years, the advanced technology from twinjets such as the Airbus A300 and Boeing 767 made sales decline and force Lockheed to cease production.

i_mizrahi
08-02-2005, 05:11 AM
Thanks for the quick reply.
By the way, did it have an option for other engines, such as P&W or GE?

LGA777
08-02-2005, 08:42 AM
One of my favorite things about the L-1011 was the awesome interior. Not only was it so modern for it's day but for anyone on here who has flown on one you can relate to this unique point, there was so much open space above you. When you sat in your seat and looked up the ceiling seemed another floor away making the whole aircraft seem so much bigger. My only dislike was the windows where a little small and a little high up compared to seat level, kind of the opposite and a a milder version of the CRJ. I had many flights on DL and EA at ages 12-14 when I was not as tall as I am today and I almost brought a phone book along to sit on so I could see out better. I was fortunate enough to have flown many legs on DL and EA, mainly between TPA-ATL plus two on TWA (LGA-STL-SFO) and one each on BA (CDG-LHR) in 1978 (in an all coach, around 360 seat config I think) and a real treat, Gulf Air's Golden Falcon between LHR-CDG on a High School trip during a minor BA strike in 1977 causing our group to get a rare treat thank to BA's employees. I am done rambling now, Thanks for reading.

Ron Peel

cancidas
08-03-2005, 02:42 AM
but the best part of the aircraft is that it still operates to this day, you just have to go to KWBI or CYYZ to see it. :D i smell a day trip!! ron, can you please stop bragging? we all know you're lucky. :D

Yyz717
08-08-2005, 06:10 PM
I'm also a TriStar fan. YYZ was blessed over the years with Air Transat, Royal A/L, and Air Canada fleets being based here.

The acbin was indeed massive. I recall an AC L10 flight MAN-YYZ with 10-abreast in economy. AC initially withdrew the L10 from servive in 1990, then re-enacted a small fleet of 3 from 1994-1997. I flew an AC L10 from YVR-YYZ on business in 1995 and was lucky enough to be bumped up to J. Great 2-2-2 seating and the famous nose-up landing. My last L10 flight was in 2000 on a TS L15 charter from AVI (Ciego de Avila, Cuba) to YYZ. I knew it would likely be my last L10 flight and it was.

Unfortunately, some key Lockheed mistakes limited sales:
1. No long range version to match the DC-10-30 in the early days.
2. No C/F version to match the DC-10-30F in the early days.
3. Only offering the RR engine.
4. Development of the L15 too late.
5. No family of airliners to leverage sales.

Neil

Yyz717
08-08-2005, 06:18 PM
A footnote: in the late 70's when B+A were proposing the 767/310, Lockheed proposed a shrunken L10 dubbed the L1011-400 with 2 engines and a shorter fuselage to compete. AA showed interest but no customer ponied up to be a launch customer and the concept was dropped.

Tom_Turner
08-08-2005, 10:49 PM
A great Airliner.

As I recall (hopefully correctly) the first visit to the NY area was Eastern into LGA.

[Incidentally, LGA has had the airliner in 4 separate airline liveries over the years - the first three are easy - but perhaps not the 4th - no examples on A.net or JP - anyone know the 4th??]

Principal operators to JFK iincluded TWA, DELTA (simultaneous with Delta DC-10s and 747s btw), Eastern, BWIA, Royal Jordanian (I believe), amongst others. ATA were the last operator to JFK as far as I know.

EWR saw some action as well of course, with plenty of Eastern etc, but also Air Lingus and Kalitta amongst the last. Last known (to me) Tri-Stars to EWR were Saudi Royal flight and a late night ATA - both in 2005.

- Tom

LGA777
08-10-2005, 08:58 PM
Tom, the fourth was AC. never got a shot but remember seeing one at least 3 or 4 times in the mid-late 80's. replacing several 72S's, DC-9-30's the way the 762/763 replaces several 319's present day on weather/ATC events or sometimes the morning after. For anyone not aware the first 3 Tom is referring to are DL/EA/TW.

Regards LGA777

Tom_Turner
08-10-2005, 10:26 PM
Right you are Ron! :)

I had seen the AC Tri-Star on approach to LGA while in Manhattan one day..a shocking site! Would've been great if someone had a shot of it at LGA. The story I had heard was that they were in EAs hands for a bit someway/somehow, but I suspect you are correct that they were indeed AC flights.

Anyways, over the last couple of years, I was able to find a couple of sources (not availale to me now though) that appear to verfiy the Caravelle and the Convair 880 both had short tenures at LGA as well. (Not Air Canada of course...). Who knew? Would be great if some images came to light of those instances.

- Tom

FlyingColors
08-14-2005, 07:35 PM
Another L1011 high note...

There was never a loss of life or craft loss in the 20 some odd years TWA operated her!

The last passenger operator at EWR was a charter coming and going to Las Vegas............sorry, can't recall the name.

Only few a Eastern flight twice............ I will never forget the sound of those engines at take off!

And yes Ron the windows did have some flaws, but it was the only aircraft I know that had two window shades! One would block off all together, and the other was a transparent sun tint! Just one more over designed feature!

Derf
08-14-2005, 08:49 PM
Another L1011 high note...

There was never a loss of life or craft loss in the 20 some odd years TWA operated her!


Sorry, I had to post the link of a TWA L-1011 Loss at JFK
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/313641/L/

FlyingColors
08-14-2005, 09:34 PM
WOW!
Nice pic!

One of the history books on my shelf must have missed that one....was the ship in service when that happened?!

If I get a chance I'll take another look.... I stand corrected!

Mike

Derf
08-14-2005, 11:43 PM
WOW!
Nice pic!

One of the history books on my shelf must have missed that one....was the ship in service when that happened?!

If I get a chance I'll take another look.... I stand corrected!

Mike
This aircraft was written off on JUL 30th, 1992, when it aborted t/o, overrun RWY at JFK and burnt out. Luckily no casualties (292 pax).



NTSB Identification: DCA92MA044 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 46435.
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of TRANS WORLD AIRLINES
Accident occurred Thursday, July 30, 1992 in JAMAICA, NY
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/9/1993
Aircraft: LOCKHEED L-1011-385-1, registration: N11002
Injuries: 1 Serious, 9 Minor, 282 Uninjured.
IMMEDIATELY AFTER LIFTOFF THE STICK SHAKER ACTIVATED, AND THE FIRST OFFICER, WHO WAS MAKING THE TAKEOFF, SAID 'YOU GOT IT.' THE CAPTAIN TOOK CONTROL, CLOSED THE THRUST LEVERS, AND LANDED. HE APPLIED FULL REVERSE THRUST AND MAXIMUM BRAKING, AND TURNED THE AIRPLANE OFF THE RUNWAY TO AVOID A BARRIER AT THE END. A SYSTEM DESIGN DEFICIENCY PERMITTED A MALFUNCTIONING AOA SENSOR TO CAUSE A FALSE STALL WARNING. THE SENSOR HAD EXPERIENCED 9 PREVIOUS MALFUNCTIONS, AND WAS INSPECTED AND RETURNED TO SERVICE WITHOUT A DETERMINATION ON THE REASON FOR THE INTERMITTENT MALFUNCTION. THE FIRST OFFICER HAD INCORRECTLY PERCEIVED THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS STALLING AND GAVE CONTROL TO THE CAPTAIN WITHOUT PROPER COORDINATION OF THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

DESIGN DEFICIENCIES IN THE STALL WARNING SYSTEM THAT PERMITTED A DEFECT TO GO UNDETECTED, THE FAILURE OF TWA'S MAINTENANCE PROGRAM TO CORRECT A REPETITIVE MALFUNCTION OF THE STALL WARNING SYSTEM, AND INADEQUATE CREW COORDINATION BETWEEN THE CAPTAIN AND FIRST OFFICER THAT RESULTED IN THEIR INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO A FALSE STALL WARNING. (NTSB REPORT AAR-93/04)

moose135
08-15-2005, 09:12 AM
This aircraft was written off on JUL 30th, 1992, when it aborted t/o, overrun RWY at JFK and burnt out. Luckily no casualties (292 pax).

My dad is a retired TWA mechanic (retired about 1 1/2 years before this incident) so I remember it well, and we've discussed it many times - actually, we were talking about it a few days after the AF crash in Toronto.

The NTSB report blamed maintenance & the cockpit crew for the incident, but what gets overlooked was that there was a fuel leak and fire as the a/c was on its takeoff roll. There were reports of fire trailing the a/c on the rwy, and TWA maintenance crews who responded along with airport rescue teams saw fuel on the runway. Aborting the takeoff may very well have saved lives, rather than taking a burning a/c up in the air.

Derf
08-15-2005, 01:13 PM
I was told by a guy I met that the Pilot put the aircraft down hard and fast
because he knew that he was out of runway but would rather overrun
than have an aircraft that may have been not correctly set for flight....i.e.
systems left in maintenance mode or such..... That may have been the
cause of your fuel on the runway, but would also love to know where it
was on the runway.......probably the end.
I can say that a pilot (If he thinks the plane will not fly) will put a plane
down.....Period.

There are many cases where pilots aborted after V1 due to an engine
stall/birdstrike/bladeloss where the plane was perfectly flyable but the
Pilot did not, or felt the plane could not make an emerengcy landing.
These are things that pilots are very well trained on and practice often,
yet when it does happen, they are sometimes so sure that the aircraft
WILL NOT fly that they do go against ALL TRAINING an abort.


I put myself in his shoes and the stall warning goes off, it is a now or
never second that the pilot must continue till its end. When I would sit in
the 727 and had the stick shaker go off, or the Ground Proximity
warning, or stall...... It made you jump, this guy was a couple of feet in
the air and he decided to put it back down.... It did not matter if his plane
was fully engulfed with flames at that point, He mad a decision that was
to put her down after V1 with no other information than

1. his plane was FLYING
2. Stall warning

and he did an abort......THE PILOT WAS WRONG!


I wish I could come to his defense but those were the only two things he
was aware of and his training trained him otherwise.... If he did have an
aircraft on fire, he would have still made the wrong decision if he did not
know about it. The only reason that a pilot should rush and get it down
quick is Fire. I think the fire was due to slamming the aircraft into the
ground to abort the flight. It sounds logical. If there was fuel flowing
from the wing it should not be a big problem and those aircraft had a F/E
who’s job it was to balance the aircraft fuel.....this would have been
noticed very quickly with a 3 person crew as in the L-10/DC-10/727/747
aircraft.

It is just too clear and if there was any fire, the few hundred or so
passengers would have been screaming bloody murder about why they
HAD to abort. It the passengers did not say anything about it (They
would have by the truckload!) there would not have been a fire.

PhilDernerJr
08-15-2005, 01:19 PM
u guys R 2 smart 4 me.

727C47
08-16-2005, 09:19 AM
I love that ship too! I remember EA L-10s, and TWA L-10s arriving into JFK,& EWR< and I remember spotting EA L-10s back in '78 flying the Expressway visual into LGA, from the Ridgewood,NJ overlook, which gives a stunning view of the NYC skyline with a 75x refractor, that allowed me to spot high altitude arrivals into JFK close enough to read liveries back when I was a kid in love with all this (still am). Up through early this year I was still seeing Air Transat L-10s in CUN, and a Saudia L-10 at BOS. Great lines, Great ship.

jakbar
08-16-2005, 09:26 AM
As "younger" photographers who have never had the privilege of flying on an L1011 (or, in my case, even seeing one), Brian and I have been talking for a long time about going down to BWI to try to catch a picture of the ATA L1011 before its too late. Is that our best bet for catching a picture of an L1011 on the East Coast?

We'd probably try to do this sometime soon before it gets too cold. Does anyone know whether there is any pattern whatsoever to the ATA L1011 arrivals/departures at BWI, or is it completely random?

Yyz717
08-18-2005, 02:23 AM
Tom, the fourth was AC. never got a shot but remember seeing one at least 3 or 4 times in the mid-late 80's. replacing several 72S's, DC-9-30's the way the 762/763 replaces several 319's present day on weather/ATC events or sometimes the morning after. For anyone not aware the first 3 Tom is referring to are DL/EA/TW.

Regards LGA777

Of course! Why didn't I think of that! I'm pretty sure AC never scheduled the L10 into LGA, but as you say used it on an ad hoc basis to cover weather delays and backups, much as the AC 763 is now seen occasionally in LGA.

Incidently, AC DID schedule the 762 into LGA (one or two summer or fall periods in the late 80's) for one of the YYZ-LGA dailies.