Talk:Lockheed L-1011 TriStar

McDonnell / Douglas Merger

This page asserts that the DC-10 / L-1011 rivalry led to the McDonnell and Douglas merger; the DC-10 page says that design was a product of the merger. Who's right? Everything I try to find about the McDonnell Douglas merger turns up stuff about their merger with Boeing in the 90's.

Johndodd 04:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Douglas merged with McDonnell in April 1967. As soon as I have my sources lined up, I will work on changing references in the article. --BillCJ 21:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The design work on the DC-10 began the same year as their merger. There could not have been a DC-10/L-1011 rivalry at that time. The extra resources from the merger surely helped. -Fnlayson 16:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

Who wrote this?

Reedy Boy 15:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The Lockheed L-1011 TriStar was hands-down the finest civilian airliner of the 1970's and 1980's, and really wasn't surpassed until Boeing unveiled the 777 almost 20 years after the TriStar took to the air. Most of the world's TriStar fleet has been retired because these aircraft are now uneconomic to operate, not because they are unsafe or too old.

Although the accompanying Wikipedia article gives a good overview of the L-1011, it omits the fact that the L-1011's flight control systems were among the most advanced in any civilian aircraft for almost a decade. For example, the L-1011 had the first Autoland capability, allowing for safe landings in "zero-zero" conditions that kept DC-10's and 747's circling for clearer weather. It is no coincidence that Delta Airlines, during its heyday of TriStar operations, was also one of the most "on-time" airlines in the world. Also, the L-1011's Direct Lift Control (DLC) active aileron system allowed the TriStar to literally float down to the runway in a level attitude, rather than require constant nose-up or nose-down maneuvers. Further, the larger rudder of the L-1011 gave it better manueverability and control as compared to the DC-10.

The few TriStar disasters on record demonstrate the safety of the aircraft. The first crash, Eastern 401 in 1972, was due to the crew being distracted. Although the aircraft literally flew itself into the Florida Everglades, there were still numerous survivors due to the TriStar's substantial structure. Similarly, the Delta 191 crash in Dallas in 1985 was the result of windshear, and although the crash was rated "unsurvivable," the TriStar's stout structure again allowed for numerous survivors. Very few incidents occurred which could be attributable to the aircraft design or manufacture itself.

It is unfortunate to see so many TriStar's now being stored in desert resting places or dismantled for parts. I have enjoyed many smooth rides on Delta and Eastern TriStars, and regret to see such a venerable aircraft "put out to pasture" not because they have exceeded their operational life, but because they are too expensive to operate in the increasingly cut-throat airline industry.

Title change

The title of this thread should say "Lockheed L-1011 Tristar" instead.

Supercool Dude 01:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The RAF now only operate 3 tri-stars. Red7 22:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The RAF operate 9 tri-stars 4 KC1's, 2 K1's, 2 C2's and 1 C2A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.228.228 (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Metrication

This article needs metrication.--Arado 15:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done that. I suppose that was the reason for the cleanup tag, but I'm leaving the tag there for now because the article lacks continuity. It is also unclear at times. I'll see what I can do to fix that. Willy Logan 23:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous

The link to the image "An L-1011 formerly flying for Pan Am awaits her fate" is incorrect. The airplane in the image is a Boeing 727 as evidenced by the lack of engine mounts on the wings and the engine mounts on the aft end of the aircraft. I couldn't figure out how to remove the link, so maybe somebody else can fix it.

"Aircraft" vs "Airplane"

Someone changed the remaining occurrences of "airplane" to "aircraft". While I don't mind the one in the Accidents section (and I removed the second because it was redundant), the replacement of "airplane" by "aircraft" in the context of Lockheed promoting the relative safety of the Tristar is a bit odd. "Aircraft" is a generic term for any air-going vehicle, be it a blimp, a balloon, a helicopter, an airplane, a rocket, etc. When Lockheed promoted the Tristar as being one of the "safest airplanes in the world", that's exactly what they meant. (Furthermore, they were comparing it largely to other Transport-category airplanes, and specifically to the DC-10, also an airplane.) For that reason, I've put this mention back to "airplane", as there is a subtle but important distinction.--chris.lawson 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree. Someone was really being weak-minded and imprecise. An airplane is an airplane, but aircraft is a much less-specific term that does include Zeppelins, airships, helicopters, etc. I really frown on the use of less-precise words when precise ones are available. For the life of me, I cannot understand those who used "person" when either "man" or "woman" is available.

"Man" is also a shorter word, and in lots of uses, "man" means "human being", and not necessarily one of the male sex. For example, an "airman" is either a man or a woman, and also, "airman" is a perfectly-valid rank for an enlisted man or woman in the USAF. Women's basketball teams also play a man-to-man defense whenever they want to.

Citing "never been a crash... due to mechanical failure"

I put a fact tag back on "There has never been a crash of an L-1011 due to mechanical failure" because it really needs one. The guidlines indicate that "Attribution is especially needed for... information that is contentious or likely to be challenged, and superlatives and absolutes...". Perhaps a link to a database would suffice, but some kind of support is definitely needed for such a claim. ENeville 19:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem, as I identified when I removed the tag, is that you're unlikely ever to find a single source that supports this claim. What are we going to use as a ref, the entire NTSB database? I mean, I can list all 40-some accidents on record there, but that makes for a rather unwieldy reference :-p (I totally agree that something like this would be cited in an ideal world, but I'm a realist, too.)--chris.lawson 00:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I hear ya. I guess just a link to the database would suffice for me. Now I suppose the whole trivia section will get 86'd. :-P ENeville 16:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Operator Table

Hey, After it being added and just double spaces between it, i thought wiki tabling it would be best

I can perfectly see what you mean about there not being the correct place

How about a section after deliveries?

Reedy Boy 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Where it was certainly wasn't the right place for it, though. (And apologies for not catching that sooner.)--chris.lawson 00:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Enhanced TriStars

Royal Air Force Lockheed TriStar some of which for years covered the air bridge to the Falkland Islands will be undergoing flight management and communications systems improvements following the award of a £22 million contract to Marshall of Cambridge Aerospace.

See: http://www.mercopress.com/Detalle.asp?NUM=9148 81.86.144.210 21:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding verification

Back in lare 1968 or early 1969 (I can't recall which), I sat in on a meeting of the Equipment Selection Board of American Airlines in the Boardroom in Manhattan during a presentation to CR Smith by my father on the merits of the L1011 and DC-10. The consensus in a show of hands was that the 1011 was preferred over the DC-10 in all areas other than the lack of an engine choice. CR even said that "I don't mind having no choice of engine if it's a Pratt but I'll be damned if we get stuck with another Rolls after the 400". There was a lot of heated discussion, much of it focusing on the fact the DC-7 had been a dog and how CR (and my dad) were not predisposed to go back to Douglas. CR in admitted to the fact had a bias towards Lockheed, since they handled the LEAP program supporting the Electra as well as they did, despite long odds and mentioned that's how a manufacturer looks after a client, so perhaps it was American's turn to support the manufacturer. The fact Lockheed was contractually bound to the RB211 was stated by a guy from corporate legal when the question was raised about getting a L1011 with GE or Pratt & Whitney power.

I entered the meat of this in the L1011 section (after conferring with my Brother who was also there) to make sure I recalled things correctly, but now it's been exorcised. I assume that's because of a lack of verification. In this case, what suffices as sufficient verification? The only thing I have as a physical manifestation of the meeting is a Topping model of an early configuration L1011 in the American lightning stripe with meatball 'Astrojet' colour scheme, and I have to admit as a 16-year-old I wasn't taking notes or minutes of the meeting.

The comment from the bloke who wrote the Lockheed book stating that American had decided on the DC-10 and was only talking with Lockheed to get MDD to drop the price sure comes off as biased and cynical to a high degree. But hey, since it's in print it must be true, right? American took aircraft selection very seriously, and was - under CR, at any rather - far more interested in getting the right plane (and paying a frag more for it) than the right price on the wrong plane. What I saw that day would have placed L1011s and not DC-10s in American's fleet.

So is this just useless information I've been storing all these years?

Bwob 02:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can publish an article somewhere else, then this information will be worthy for Wikipedia. There's a strict "no original research" rule here--if the information cannot be found in a printed or electronic source somewhere, it isn't included. - Sekicho 02:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

PSA lower deck seating

PSA (defunct US carrier acquired by US Airways) took deliveryu of 2 L-1011-1 with lower deck seating. The lower deck is potentially less safe if the landing gear fails. For this reason, strakes were added to the front lower fuselage for structural reasons (act as skates). See photo at http://www.psa-history.org/hangar/l10.php I'm looking for a reference about the strakes. Archtrain 16:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Replacement of photo in infobox?

The photos in the article are interesting (RAF and OSC). However, both photos are of unusual variants. Anyone have a photo of a L-1011 Tristar in a passenger configuration, preferably of an airline that operated several L-1011s for many years (Pan Am, Royal Jordanian, ANA, TWA, Delta, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Gulf Air, etc.) Archtrain 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Commons page? There are 5 airliner pics there, so take your pic. THey may not be the best ones, but it's a start. - BillCJ 18:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image has been switched. There was only 1 flight airliner image on the Commons page. I used a different Stargazer image with it releasing the rocket too. Good idea Bill. -Fnlayson 21:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Commonly referred to as just L-1011"

Is it? Was it? My recollection is that is was commonly referred to as "TriStar." Perhaps it depends whether you're talking about passengers or airlines referring to it. Any thoughts? ... richi 14:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just an impression I have - but isn't it also a geographic issue? L-1011 being the common usage in the U.S. and Tristar being common in the UK. Not sure which camp the ROW falls into. Mark83 14:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always heard it called L-1011. Probably a US think there, like Mark83 says. But I think it is common enough to make that statement true. It doesn't say "most commonly called.." -Fnlayson 16:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reckon in my native Derby (where the engines were made) they called it Tristar... (or, when RR went down, 'probably the heaviest glider ever made'...  :-()) Bob aka Linuxlad 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Lockheed failure up front?

I think it would be appropriate to briefly mention in the opening paragraph that the failure of the L-1011 to sell enough caused Lockheed to abandon the commercial market. This is mentioned later, but I think it is a significant fact that warrants higher attention in the article. Any objections? Mlouns 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's generally better to present things in chronologically. I think the Design and development section is laid out fine. Do you mean add something in the lead? -Fnlayson 16:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean -- mentioning it in the lead paragraph. Mlouns 17:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says "Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" -- The lead does not do that at present and the fact that Lockheed quit civil aircraft as a result of this aircraft is entirely worthy of mention. Good catch. Mark83 21:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added a sentence on this and used reference from later mention. Reword/rework if needed. I don't think sales of 250 planes is poor by itself, only poor relative to what their target (500+). -Fnlayson 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For a European manufactuer (at this time), 250 would have been excellent! I suppose the real significance is the comparison with Lockheed's U.S. competitors. Mark83 22:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears to not be the raw number of sales so much (which I agree is decent) as that number compared to what was needed to be profitable. Compared to the dollars of R&D investment, the sales were low enough to scare Lockheed out of commercial sales forever. Mlouns 22:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

ATA

Maybe note that ATA's L-1011s will be superseded by the DC-10s it has picked up after they were retired by Northwest? Dan 13:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Plans, designs, and number of engines

I intended to explain on the talk page the nature of yesterday's edit but I lost power and had to shut down in a hurry, so sorry for the confusion. The original wording went like this: "The aircraft was originally conceived as a design having two engines but such plans were abandoned in favor of a third engine." The problem here is that plans aren't abandoned in favor of engines; they're abandoned in favor of other plans. My edit sought to correct that. The source cited doesn't indicate whether the plans were modified or completely abandoned, with new plans drawn up in their stead, but the latter seemed extraordinarily unlikely. In any case, the source didn't support the previous wording any more than it supported the new wording in the first of my two edits. It did, however, support the wording in my second edit (as I would have made clear if I'd had the chance, and as anyone who bothered to check the source would have seen); it is, as BillCJ asked in his edit summary, what the source said (although intentionally not verbatim). Anyway, Father Goose's most recent edit seems fine, too—just closer to verbatim than I was comfortable with. Rivertorch (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)