|
Post by sak1134 on Sept 10, 2009 6:10:31 GMT -5
I need some help, I screwed up and lost my copy of Eric Cantu's L-1011. I was wondering if anyone can help me find a copy. Vistaliners/EAL virtual has closed it's doors and I haven't found it in the usual spots. I'm an EAL fan (Dad worked there for 20+ years) and the L-1011 is essential to my collection.
Tom, if this belongs somewhere else please shuffle it there.
Thanks Steve
|
|
|
Post by chris_c on Sept 10, 2009 7:08:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sak1134 on Sept 10, 2009 8:46:20 GMT -5
Thanks very much, and I agree with you, when I look out at the wings and see hair driers instead of ceiling fans I am still taken aback
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Sept 10, 2009 9:10:26 GMT -5
Hi, Yes, moved to the Chat forum.
|
|
|
Post by dc6tryer on Sept 10, 2009 11:38:17 GMT -5
hi, I think the aircraft from Simmers sky is a tri-Star, freeware with a VC as well.
andy.
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Sept 10, 2009 13:38:03 GMT -5
Hmmm... last time I checked the Simmers sky gave as freeware an MD11, not a Tristar...
|
|
|
Post by dc6tryer on Sept 10, 2009 15:19:31 GMT -5
Hi,
Is there a difference?? ;D
Andy.
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Sept 10, 2009 16:19:03 GMT -5
Douglas and Lockheed fans would say yes...
|
|
|
Post by doylebob on Sept 10, 2009 17:20:00 GMT -5
Excellent site, Thanks
|
|
|
Post by dc6tryer on Sept 11, 2009 2:29:06 GMT -5
Hi, ''Douglas and Lockheed fans would say yes... '' I'll get me coat... Andy
|
|
|
Post by pilotgod on Sept 11, 2009 5:36:00 GMT -5
Put simply, the DC-10 likes to lose engines, literally, remember Chicago where the one on the wing fell off, or how about Sioux City? The L-1011 didn't really have that issue, there was the crash at DFW, but that was weather related.
|
|
|
Post by johnl on Sept 11, 2009 7:39:50 GMT -5
I don't think I've ever seen a L-1011, and the only Tristars I've seen are the "Clockwork" ones (Trislanders) made by Britten-Norman which Aurigny still fly over my head between Southampton and Alderney. Noisy little things, but at least they have propellors!
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Sept 11, 2009 9:16:34 GMT -5
To put a vote in for the DC-10 that accident was not the plane's fault, but the maintenance at AA. There *was* the incident that ended with the plane crashing at Sioux City, and that led to some hydraulic improvements to avoid total hydraulic failure if such catastrophic things happen. After these changes (and the underfloor door fix) the DC-10 was quite reliable. The main problem with the Tristar (as I understand it) was that it was over-engineered and thus more expensive to maintain and operate - something that could be said for most Lockheed airliners. Also, the long range version was smaller and thus was worse economically. The DC-10 was gratifyingly profitable.
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Sept 11, 2009 9:25:53 GMT -5
Put simply, the DC-10 likes to lose engines, literally, remember Chicago where the one on the wing fell off, or how about Sioux City? What does the DC10 have to do with the MD11? Beside a certain similarity and the belonging to a common design, they were very different planes. Even if the MD11 was a sort-of successor of the DC10. And anyway, both of the accidents you wrote about were not really fault of the plane in itself. The accident in Chicago was due to bad maintenance, the techs that dismounted the engines in that plane used a non-standard removal and mounting engine procedure. Trying to force the engine on and off in that non-standard way they managed to shatter part of the supports of engine 1 and it failed catastrophically in take off. Sioux city instead... was still maintenance fault, as the hub of the low pressure compressor of engine 2 ( obviously not controlled for faults correctly) exploded in flight throwing the blades in a lethal corona, and some of them managed to sever off all three redundant high-pressure circuits. Too simple to give to the plane the complete fault of shoddy work made by men.
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Sept 11, 2009 9:30:57 GMT -5
The main problem with the Tristar (as I understand it) was that it was over-engineered and thus more expensive to maintain and operate - something that could be said for most Lockheed airliners. Also, the long range version was smaller and thus was worse economically. The DC-10 was gratifyingly profitable. Then there was the fact, as I read, that the necessity to wait for the chosen R&R engines made the plane enter the market a little too late as well, losing market to the Douglas planes.
|
|