|
|
Post by Pacific SMX on Sept 11, 2009 9:54:22 GMT -5
Well, seeing as to how we've sort of meandered off of the subject of the L-1011 to the DC-10, I was lucky enough to have a dad who worked for Douglas Space Division in Huntington Beach at the time of the DC-10 production and rollout. We toured the plant at Long Beach while the first DC-10's airframes were being assembled and then dad took us to the airport for the first DC-10 flight. What impressed me most was how relatively quiet it seemed as well as a short take off roll (I'm sure it was extremely light). As I recall, Douglas sent the '10 out over Palmdale to snub their noses at Lockheed where the L-1011 was sitting on the ramp after rollout but prior to first flight. Nothing like a little friendly competition, eh?
Regards,
Phil
|
|
|
|
Post by chris_c on Sept 11, 2009 13:30:18 GMT -5
About a month after the Chicago DC-10 crash the Wife and I boarded a L-1011 for a flight to LA from Toronto. She was terrified as we boarded, thinking this was the same type as was plastered all over the news particularly that horrifying photo of Flight 191 rolling through 90 degrees just before impact that was reproduced seemingly everywhere at the time. But I knew enough even then to realize that the Air Canada Lockheed was a different aircraft and so enjoyed the trip immensely. And the subsequent Twin Otter jaunt from LAX to Orange County where my sister picked us up.
Oddly it was a scheduled Air Canada flight but was not in Air Canada colours and it had US registration so I would assume it was a lease pending deliver of AC's own planes.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Sept 11, 2009 13:42:38 GMT -5
The MD11 was mentioned only because that's what ashaman thought Simmer Sky was offering as freeware, rather than the L-1011. I'm sure he never meant to relate it to the L-1011 vs DC-10 discussion itself.  |
|
|
|
Post by dc6tryer on Sept 12, 2009 9:31:57 GMT -5
Hi, that was me with the ref to Simmer Sky, and I apologise for all the confusion caused thereby  ...in order to be really helpful, you do have to have some idea of what you are talking about, and I very rarely do, but I still post  Andy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2009 9:53:38 GMT -5
The RB211 was also locked in to Lockheed (who had exclusive rights to the Rolls Royce engine in tri-jet applications) but Lockheed was also locked-in to the RB211 by having Rolls Royce as a risk-sharing partner.
Despite pundits saying that American Airlines' interest in the L1011 was only to get the DC-10 price lower, the L1011 was in fact favored by most of the company's upper management (particularly on the technical side and with the company's Chairman) but for the use of Rolls Royce engines. American had some real issues with the North American customer service (subsequently upgraded to become amongst the best in the USA and Canada but pretty ineffectual in the 1960s) of Rolls Royce because of niggles with the Speys on its BAC 1-11s and some delays in getting maintenance parts. Needless to say this left American VERY leery of Rolls Royce power.
American asked Lockheed if a JT9D- or CF6-powered L1011 would be available, a point that would have put the technical side totally behind a purchase of the Lockheed tri-jet. Lockheed was committed to an exclusivity clause with RB211 applications and that was the end of that as far as polished aluminum L1011s with red, white and blue stripes were concerned.
Boeing's original 747-300 tri-jet was preferred by American's technical department over the DC-10 for reasons of compatibility with the company's short-lived 747 fleet, though the late start on the 747 variant meant the earliest entry into service date was too late for American.
Pan American also (independently) enquired about JT9Ds on TriStars to ensure compatibility with the company's 747 fleet.
|
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Sept 15, 2009 11:12:14 GMT -5
Be it as it may, but I know that at the times R&R was, beside having problem with their new three-shaft engines, under bankruptcy suspicion, and tie yourself in an exclusive contract with such a not so trustful provider, was a rather... unwise choice (to use a polite expression) on Lockheed's part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2009 1:05:11 GMT -5
L1011 was in fact favored by [American] but for the use of Rolls Royce engines. Ironic that they now use RB211-powered 757s... I remember reading that they dumped their ex-TWA 757s because they used Pratts. |
|
|
|
Post by garryrussell on Sept 21, 2009 5:17:37 GMT -5
At the time of the RR trouble and then bankcruptsy it was said that if RR was not saved.with the RB.211,that would be an end of the TriStar as too much ground would be lost in the re design.
That was probably a major influence in the AA descision.
It also was a lesson to designers of big complex long time expensive designs.........don't rely on one engine source.
A profitable engine company could suffer a downturn and bankcruptsy in the aircrafts design periode as happened here and the promised engine may never give the promised performance in the required time.....a la Proteus in the Bristiol Britannia and the alternate Orion being abandoned.
American would have avoided this even if, for them, on paper, it was just what they wanted...They could not risk being stuck with a lemon.
Garry
|
|
...in order to be really helpful, you do have to have some idea of what you are talking about, and I very rarely do, but I still post 
