Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Last L1011 to fly in usa

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Last L1011 to fly in usa

    So sad to see the last of what is a beautiful aircraft being phased out. The L1011 Tristar is to me one of the best looking aircraft in the skys today "anyone else agree?" hope the military continue to use what is a great success and a triumph to aviation history. Long live Tristar

  • #2
    ATA still operates a couple on charters, but they are being phased out in favor of DC-10's, which were bought from NW.

    Regards
    Tecnanaut
    -Refugee from ADC

    Comment


    • #3
      What? Has ATA gotten rid of theirs?
      sigpic
      http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?userid=170

      Comment


      • #4
        I flew many flights on AC's. I loved the 500 the best as they could carry a sh**load of Cargo as well as being so nice upstairs.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Crunk415balla
          What? Has ATA gotten rid of theirs?
          Almost.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Crunk415balla
            What? Has ATA gotten rid of theirs?
            IIRC one is being retired at the end of march, one at the end of April, and one (the last) in Spring 09.

            Remember there is also a Casino in LAS that operates one as a VIP shuttle.

            Comment


            • #7
              Not to worry, the RAF is installing glass cockpits in ther TriStar fleet, so they will be around for a few more years.

              Comment


              • #8
                Two Accidents

                Lest we forget there are two accidents that would not have happened, had the aircraft been a L-1011 instead of a DC-10, maybe three counting the Turkish incident -

                - United 232, would not have happened due to the fourth and isolated hydraulic system of L-1011

                - AA 191 would not have happened due to mid-spar routing of one of the hydraulic lines on L-1011 as opposed to all 3 lines inside leading edge on DC-10

                Of course this is speculatiion, but I'm a L-1011 fan. Clearly a superior aircraft.
                ASMEL-IA 1978 A&P-IA 1965 First Aloft 1954 DC-4
                Dad: B-24 Ploesti Self: U205A1 private ops Nam

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Uncle Jay
                  - AA 191 would not have happened due to mid-spar routing of one of the hydraulic lines on L-1011 as opposed to all 3 lines inside leading edge on DC-10
                  I don't understand the term mid-spar when it comes to the L-1011? The L-1011 wing had only two spars, forward and rear. The hydraulic lines all ran along the rear spar, except the the lines to the Slat Power Drive Unit which was located in the left had wing right at the root.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Uncle Jay
                    Lest we forget there are two accidents that would not have happened, had the aircraft been a L-1011 instead of a DC-10, maybe three counting the Turkish incident -

                    - United 232, would not have happened due to the fourth and isolated hydraulic system of L-1011

                    - AA 191 would not have happened due to mid-spar routing of one of the hydraulic lines on L-1011 as opposed to all 3 lines inside leading edge on DC-10

                    Of course this is speculatiion, but I'm a L-1011 fan. Clearly a superior aircraft.
                    True. Superior in every aspect. Able to achive a higher cruising speed,(Mach 0.92), More spacious flightdeck, Much more advanced in terms of avionics etc. One of the few times McDonnell Douglas was outdone by the competiton.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      ATA'S L1011's are almost phased out due to the fact that they are hanger queens, they seem to fly a little get worked on alot. Like when I was on my way to Kuwait we had to stop a couple of times and due to maintance on them. I remeber one time the pilot came over the intercom and said I used to be in the Army ill go outside and take a look and see if I can't fix it. Pretty funny now that I think about it. Lovely old ladies hate to see them go.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Tecnanaut
                        True. Superior in every aspect. Able to achive a higher cruising speed,(Mach 0.92), More spacious flightdeck, Much more advanced in terms of avionics etc. One of the few times McDonnell Douglas was outdone by the competiton.
                        And less growth potential, when the market asked for it. The Tristar is a great aircraft, but still the DC-10 out sold it clearly.
                        My photo editing guide - updated and improved Feb. 2010
                        My Nikon D100,D200,D300, D800, D7200 basic spotting settings guide
                        ACIG - the best resource for military aviation information

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The last L-1011 to fly in the US (with US registration) will undoubtedly be the Orbital Science rocket laucher, s/n 1067. Orbital is currently spending millions to retrofit it with RB-211-524 engines.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I remember the TriStar as a relatively quiet aircraft back in 1994 or 1995 when LTU (a German charter operator) operated at least a few TriStar 500s until they were replaced shortly after. The aircraft looked very graceful, characteristic and huge.

                            For several airlines the TriStar was a very good choice as a passenger-aircraft but why wasnīt the TriStar as much as popular as a freighter? Many DC-10s were converted after their life as passenger-jets ended but relatively few TriStars were converted?

                            What were the reasons for ATA Airlines to switch from TriStarīs to DC-10s? Difficulties to get spare-parts?

                            Thanks for answers!

                            Regards, IB M87
                            http://www.MD-80.com / MD-80.com on facebook https://www.facebook.com/MD80com / MD-80.com on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MD80com

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by IberiaMD-87
                              For several airlines the TriStar was a very good choice as a passenger-aircraft but why wasnīt the TriStar as much as popular as a freighter? Many DC-10s were converted after their life as passenger-jets ended but relatively few TriStars were converted?
                              There are several reasons why the DC-10 is a better choice than the L-1011.
                              1. Mac-Dug certified the DC-10 cargo mod on both the DC-10-10 and the DC-10-30 during aircraft production.

                              2. Mac-Doug built cargo door kits for the aircraft to be converted.

                              3. Mac-Doug operated a conversion center at Aeronavali, Venice, Italy.

                              4. Factory engineering support. Mac-Dug and now Boeing continues to support the DC-10 and MD-11 with factory engineered service bulletins, and product support including drawing revisions, service engineers, RAMS (AOG) repair teams and repair parts.

                              5. Structural repair parts. Boeing will fabricate any part you need. It may take a while but you will get it.

                              What were the reasons for ATA Airlines to switch from TriStarīs to DC-10s? Difficulties to get spare-parts?

                              Thanks for answers!

                              Regards, IB M87
                              Same reasons. Without factory support, it's very difficult to operate a fleet of aircraft without a large engineering staff, a very well equipped machine shop and a versatile maintenance staff.

                              The problem is size and scale. It costs almost as much to tool up to maintain a fleet of 10 aircraft as it does to maintain 100. Unless you are going to maintain a large fleet, it just isn't worth it unless you have factory support.

                              During a "C" check at PMD, we found corrosion in the frame member (a "TEE Chord") supporting the 1421 bulkhead between longerons 46 and 48 right hand. This is the bottom of the aircraft just to the right of center (longeron 52 is center) aft of the MLG wheel wheels. The chord runs from the floor line on the left to the floor line on the right. For any that don't know, On an Western built aircraft, left and right is always identified while facing forward.

                              Boeing could not supply the part for replacement during the current maintenance cycle but we worked out an interim (temporary) repair that allowed the aircraft to continue in service until the next "C" check. The interim repair required detailed visual inspections at each "B" check.

                              Boeing had the part waiting for us along with fastener lists and 2 each of the four different part number longeron end fittings attached to the "TEE" chord. All of which we had ordered from Boeing. Boeing supplied (for a fee) an on site service engineer who worked with us to overcome several issues that materialized during the removal.

                              So why? Simple! Support.
                              Don
                              Standard practice for managers around the world:
                              Ready - Fire - Aim! DAMN! Missed again!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X