Talk:Lockheed L-1011 TriStar

Primary Users

Should the former primary users be lised in the airline infobox? Other major aircraft (Boeing 707,Douglas DC-3, Douglas DC-6 and every other retired aircraft that I can find) no longer have current primary users do not have that section in the infobox while the L-1011 does.

WOuld there be a way to note that those users are former primary users and haven't used the L-1011 in years. Spikydan1 (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to list the major historical users of aircraft no longer in primary service. It's the norm on military aircraft articles. We should probably take this up at WT:AIR, as this issue will affect more than just this article. There is probably a way to note that these are historical users, but it would probably need to be done to the template coding. THere are editors in the WPAIR project that maintain the template, and they may have some ideas on how to accomplish this, with or without changing the template. Btw, the tempate is a standard one for aircraft, not just airliners. Also, it's usually best to leave the template fields in place, and just remove the text to the right of the equal sign. - BillCJ (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• A quick fix would be to add small text after the operator, like British Airways (original) or Delta Air Lines (historical), depending on what's the clearest word. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where the retired bit came from as the aircraft is still in-service it is normal to list the current users, when the type is withdrawn it would then change to the largest ever operators, is Tristar a special case? MilborneOne (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean "retired"...I meant with just a few in service and no major operator...no one has more than a few of them in their fleets (Just like the aircraft I listed in my first comment). Spikydan1 (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on what MilborneOne wrote, should we remove the primary users section until the L1011 is pulled from service to follow the format of other aircraft that are still in service? Spikydan1 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• For now, I've added historical in small text after the former users listed in the Infobox. There needs to be something so passerbys can understand why fomer operators are listed. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

May 27, 1985 incident

The description "The crash resulted from the aircraft landing just past the old runway threshold, which was a different color from the recently laid extension to the runway." seems very different to the official AAIB report here : http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/2_1987_g_bbai.cfm which attributes the accident to a lack of braking effect on the wet runway. The "serious damage" claim also seems a bit strong, the report mentions some damage around the collapsed nosewheel and engines. Jamesripon (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right and the aircraft was not seriously damaged and nobody was hurt, I would suggest that it could be deleted as being non-notable rather than re-writing it. MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, deletion seems sensible. Jamesripon (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Going through the images available to use on the Commons, I found a picture of the prototype L-1011 in Lockheed's horribly ugly orange/white paint scheme. Though I wish it were more aesthetically pleasing, the infobox image really should be of the plane in its manufacturer's colors so I moved the ATA photo into the text. Anynobody(?) 04:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not an accepted standard for infobox pics. Generally the only requirement is that it be one of the best photos of the type, preferably in flight. Very few prototype photos exist anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Colorful image. Shows the center engine area well also. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's a good image to have, but I didn't catch that it was not elsewhere in the article before (and it may well have been in the article some time ago, IIRC.) Thanks for adding it in, Jeff. - BillCJ (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Airstair

From the variants section: "(The L1011-1) variant was also the only wide-body ever to have the option for a full-height built-in airstair incorporated into the design, although it remained an option on other variants."

I did add a {{Clarify}} and I still don't understand this. How can the -1 be the only variant with an airstair option if that option was available on other variants as well?

I can think of two different things the author may have had in mind: a) the -1s all had airstairs. It's confusing (at least to me) to call that an option, or b) they were on offer all the time but only -1s were actually ordered with an airstair. I think that should be spelled out as well. --ospalh (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, I missed the contradiction before. I removed the last part "although it remained an option on other variants" for the reasons you state. I don't have books with enough detail on the L-1011 to mention airstairs on -1. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I subsequently modified this posting. I know for a fact that the Tristar is not the only wide-body that had the option for built-in airstairs. The Russian Ilyushin IL-86 has built-in airstairs incorporated into the design. It's one of the most prominent features of the aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-86 Maryland Pride ... a Wikipedia contributor (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The wording now says "one of the few widebodies..". That seems pretty fair and reasonable. -fnlayson (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Through most of the TriStar's history the Soviet Union was not a signatory to the relevant international airworthiness agreements and so in effect Russian civil airliners were not certificated for use in Western countries. This is one of the reasons that few western airlines bought Russian-built aeroplanes in the 1950s-1980s. So, the claim about the airstairs was probably valid when the TriStar entered service and served throughout the 1970s and 1980s. I can't remember the first Russian airliner built to comply with Western airworthiness requirements, but IIRC, it was introduced into service as late as the mid-1980s.

Soviet-built airliners were able to be operated to Western airports from the Eastern Bloc countries, but to base and operate a commercial aeroplane in a Western country required it to be certificated to the required Western civil aviation standards. Being based solely in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Bloc airlines were exempt and allowed to operate to western airports without the relevant certification, whereas if they had been based in Western Europe they would have needed to be certified by Western civil aviation authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul complete

My overhaul of this page is now complete. As ever, those interested in aviation history and ensuring technical accuracy should appreciate this; references have been more than doubled, as well as reformatted for greater detail. Hope it proves interesting. Kyteto (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

'Below target sales'

I have just read the source given to suggest this. The article makes very interesting reading and is certainly very insightful. It is fairly critical of the TriStar programme but I doesn't say explicitly that sales were 'below average'. It does however suggest the following.

• Lockheeds trouble with the bankruptcy of Rolls Royce and then the nationalised Rolls Royce being doubtful over Lockheeds viability.

• Lockheed being troubled by high production costs.

• Lockheed and MacDonell Douglas not being able to compete effectively with Boeing and losing ground to Airbus.

Personally I think the article misses the largest nail in the coffin for the TriStar, that being the switch to more efficient twin-engine wide-body aircraft like the A300 and the 767, although in 1981 it may not have yet seen this coming.

Break-even sales are very difficult for manufacturers to predict as the aircraft is developed years before production starts and production is intended for a very long time. Furthermore they are subject to changes in fortune with exchange-rates and commodity prices.

There is no suggestion of a target set by Lockheed and any number would be below their ideal. I'm fairly sure Boeing would have liked to have made more 737s and Airbus more A320s despite production being higher than anyone would have probably anticipated. The problems seems a little more complex than has been suggested (250, while not earth shattering is respectable).

Can anyone find anything more on this? I think it is a little unfair to write the project off as a failure with such an over simplistic explanation.

I would say that proportional to sales there are more of these in service than DC10s, early 747s or early A300s (but that is perhaps more my own observations). I remember flying on an early TriStar from Turkey in 1998 (at the time this seemed unusual, but there still seems to be a supprising number still in service with fringe airlines) - Incidently I saw a Hawker Siddley Trident which looked to be still operating at Faro Airport in August. Is my perception accurate or just chance? I don't know.

Digression aside, I think we need to elaborate on the commercial success (or lack-of) of the L1011 Trident. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Delays in developing longer range L-1011 versions hurt its sales. So its sales in the 1980s were slow. I don't believe the L-1011 got enough sales to meet its break even point. So its sales were below the company's target, not some 'average'. -fnlayson (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

We're all only guessing at a break-even point however. We don't actually know of one, certainly there is no such thing mentioned in the citation. We also don't know of any apparant target set by the company. Yes they would have estimated a break-even point and estimated potential sales but I'm not sure they would have set a definite target, certainly we do not know of one. If we are to make the claim that sales fell below the stated target we need to know exactly what this is. The source provided does not make this claim, however it does go on to build a far more complex argument than we do on this page. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Lockheed was already in financial trouble over the development of the C-5 that had been agreed as a fixed-price contract which the US government then went back on, reducing the number of C-5s required, which - along with inflation - created financial problems for Lockheed. The original contract had been agreed on the USAF ordering 58 C-5As and then an additional 57 C-5Bs. This 115 aircraft order was later reduced to just 81 aircraft causing serious financial problems for the company, as the aircraft were being produced at a loss. This resulted in court action between Lockheed and the USG, which was still on-going when RR went into receivership. "Perspective on TriStar"

Fixed-price contracts were later discredited, for reasons that will now appear obvious to anyone reading the article.

Incidentaly, the contract under which RR developed the RB211 was also a fixed-price one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Some more on the Lockheed response to RR's going into receivership in a 1971 Flight article here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Test-flight incident

An aircraft engineer who worked at Lockheed Burbank in the 1970's told me that during development, an L-1011 lost the entire passenger cabin during a test flight. Supposedly it fell out of the airplane. Fortunately the crew were unaffected. The engineer is credible, but I am unable to find anything regarding this online. --Bobbozzo (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

How can the cabin/interior fall out without major hole in the fuselage? This is too unclear for me to believe. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Could be a failure similar to Aloha Airlines Flight 243 which was a Boeing 737. Bizzybody (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely, if it had been notable it would be in the public domain lost the entire passenger cabin out of context sounds like a pressurisation fault. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Advanced L-1011?

Here's a small scan from a personal Lockheed employee notepad, from a letter I recently received. File:Advanced_L-1011_Tristar_procurement_logo.jpg I don't know if Advanced refers to the aircraft or if this was the logo for the Advanced procurement group or team - working in advance of start of production to source components. Perhaps some retired Lockheed employees know about this, especially if other groups had their own logos or just had their name in place of Procurement in this logo. I think it would be a good addition to the article to illustrate how Lockheed's development process operated for this aircraft. Bizzybody (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC) I worked for Lockheed in the 1970's as a Flight Engineer instructor and I don't recall this story at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphF1011 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Pop culture reference

In the episode "How To Fire a Rifle Without Really Trying" of the series King of the Hill, Hank Hill incorrectly refers to a "McDonnell Douglas L-1011 wide-body". Notable enough for inclusion? I know it's a minor appearance, but it is mentioned by name and and is appears twice. --76.16.85.100 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)