Simviation Forum - Tri Star

	Search the archive:

Simviation Main Site | Site Search | Upload Images

Simviation Forum › Real World › Specific Aircraft Types › Tri Star

(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1

Tri Star (Read 476 times)

Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 1:55pm

Gary R. Offline
Colonel
If God is you're co-pilot,
switch seats.
PA, USA

Gender:
Posts: 811

I don't think the aviation world was fair to the old L1011 Tri Star. When it came to grace, comfort and performance no DC-10 or airbus is quite like it. One can onlyhelp but wonder what continual engine and avionics upgrades would have meant for the Tri Stars continual use. Expensive to run it may have been but it doesn't appear either that Lockheed ever gave a whole hearted committment to keeping it flying and economical.

AMD 2800xp on gigabyte vt600l k7 triton overclocked @ 2.3 ghz, 768 PC 3200, 128 DDR 6600GT AGP, 60 gig,5200 rpm maxtor, 160gig 7200rpm WD, Sony FD Trinitron 19

IP Logged

Reply #1 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 2:11pm

C Offline
Colonel
Earth

Posts: 13144

I can't really see how engine upgrades could have helped, the Rb 211 is still pretty good. Maybe it lost its footing a little too early and arrived just at the time Airbus were getting a foothold in the market...

IP Logged

Reply #2 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 2:21pm

Craig. Offline
Colonel
Birmingham

Gender:
Posts: 18590

having flown on both the DC10 and tristar, can say i like the DC10 alot more. I think you'll find the MD11 had a role in the demise for the L1011 it just couldn't compete, added to the crash of eastern 401 and the introduction of safe & efficient twin jets, the L1011 just couldn't compete.

IP Logged

Reply #3 - Jan 2^nd, 2005 at 3:19pm

Nexus Offline
Colonel
The greater of two evils...

Gender:
Posts: 3282

The TriStar project broke Rolls Royce and nearly broke Lockheed.
The Dc-10 wasn't superior in terms of cost and operating expenses, but the DC-10 could offer something the early L1011 models could not: Long range. It wasn't until the late 70s/early 80s when the TriStar could give the DC-10 a run for the money...but it was too late. Overall the L1011 was a very popular aircraft for both crew and passengers alike, but it was not as versatile as the DC-10, which also came with different engine variants...the L1011 was only equipped with RR engines.

It's not economical to fly a three-engine aircraft with a 3 crew layout. Compare that to a twin aircraft with just 2 crews. The 767 can cover the same distance as the L1011.
The last 3-blower, the MD11 (despite a 2 crew layout)stands no chance to the newer Airbusses.
It consumes some 15% more fuel, compared to the A330...and even 25% more on ultra-long range flights, compared to the A340. And the MD11 is an aircraft that was designed many years after the L1011.

IP Logged

Reply #4 - Jan 3^rd, 2005 at 7:49am

Felix/FFDS Offline
Admin
FINALLY an official Granddad!
Orlando, FL

Gender:
Posts: 1000000627

The Tri-Star - had its early problems not happened/been solved fast enough, would have given the DC-10/MD-11 a run for their money.

There were twin jet versions considered/ planned, and with the advent of the latest engines and avionics, a long range twin would have been possible.

In the end, Lockheed could not overcome the headstart that MD, Boeing and even Airbus had.

Felix/FFDS

IP Logged

Pages: 1

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Home

‹ Board

Top of this page