L-1011 Tristar as ugly as it gets?
Apr 22, 2020, 11:47 pm
#91
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London
Programs: BA Silver Seigneur des Horaires des Mucci.
Posts: 2,047
My memory of the Tristar growing up near Luton Airport was the the brightly coloured Tristars of Courtline
It was a thrill as a kid to see them, across the fields, parked up near the runway
Later flew them ex BA operated by Caledonian on charters to
Turkey !
(Have to say I preferred the Boeing 727s of Dan Air)
It was a thrill as a kid to see them, across the fields, parked up near the runway
Later flew them ex BA operated by Caledonian on charters to
Turkey !
(Have to say I preferred the Boeing 727s of Dan Air)
Apr 23, 2020, 12:48 am
#93
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,668
The RB211 development for the TriStar bankrupted RR in the early 70s and were quickly nationalised by the governmen.....otherwise within days the RAF and a lot of NATO air forces would have been rapidly grounded. As part of the deal, RR Motor Cars was separated and sold and have been nothing to do with the RR aero engine side ever since. Every year, RR Motor Cars pays RR Aero Engines a nominal fee (£1 I believe) for the continuing use of the famous RR logo.
BEA originally selected the DC10 as their choice but with the airline being state owned they were "encouraged" let's say to order the L1011 due to the British engine content. Technically the L1011 was far superior and whilst the DC10 designers went for the minimum redundancy they could get away with, the TriStar had many new and novel safety and enhanced redundancy features. These safety limitations would haunt McDonnell Douglas, designers of the DC10 for a decade or more with some very high profile incidents and crashes in the 70s and 80s where changes were mandated (AA Detroit, THY Paris, AA Chicago, UA Sioux City). When the conditions of all 3 crashes were repeated in simulators and real flight tests in the contemporary wide bodies of the time (L1011, 747 and A300) the experts concluded none of the crashes would have occurred under the same circumstances in those aircraft. It is fair to say with the Chicago and Sioux City crashes there were additional circumstances but nonetheless, the lower hydraulic redundancy and lack of system separation the DC10 designers chose chose ultimately caused the DC10 to crash whereas the others did not.
By the time the BCAL DC10 fleet was inherited by BA at LGW in the late 80s, the poor design issues had been largely ironed out and the type gave sterling service for a decade or so. BA operated type in parallel with the LHR L1011 fleet for 7-8 years with the DC10s outliving the TriStar in BA colours. In the economic recession of the early to mid-80s and to improve BAs balance sheet in the run-up to privatisation, the entire and virtually brand new fleet of the long-range L1011-500 was sold to the RAF for a new tanker and troop transport fleet. The RAF finally retired them about 5 years ago with as far as I know, only 1 or 2 L1011 frames still flying in the world. Many DC10s (and MD10s) still fly in the US for FedEx and UPS as cargo planes.
The L1011 was a great plane, technically very much ahead of its time at EIS and proved to be very, very safe
BEA originally selected the DC10 as their choice but with the airline being state owned they were "encouraged" let's say to order the L1011 due to the British engine content. Technically the L1011 was far superior and whilst the DC10 designers went for the minimum redundancy they could get away with, the TriStar had many new and novel safety and enhanced redundancy features. These safety limitations would haunt McDonnell Douglas, designers of the DC10 for a decade or more with some very high profile incidents and crashes in the 70s and 80s where changes were mandated (AA Detroit, THY Paris, AA Chicago, UA Sioux City). When the conditions of all 3 crashes were repeated in simulators and real flight tests in the contemporary wide bodies of the time (L1011, 747 and A300) the experts concluded none of the crashes would have occurred under the same circumstances in those aircraft. It is fair to say with the Chicago and Sioux City crashes there were additional circumstances but nonetheless, the lower hydraulic redundancy and lack of system separation the DC10 designers chose chose ultimately caused the DC10 to crash whereas the others did not.
By the time the BCAL DC10 fleet was inherited by BA at LGW in the late 80s, the poor design issues had been largely ironed out and the type gave sterling service for a decade or so. BA operated type in parallel with the LHR L1011 fleet for 7-8 years with the DC10s outliving the TriStar in BA colours. In the economic recession of the early to mid-80s and to improve BAs balance sheet in the run-up to privatisation, the entire and virtually brand new fleet of the long-range L1011-500 was sold to the RAF for a new tanker and troop transport fleet. The RAF finally retired them about 5 years ago with as far as I know, only 1 or 2 L1011 frames still flying in the world. Many DC10s (and MD10s) still fly in the US for FedEx and UPS as cargo planes.
The L1011 was a great plane, technically very much ahead of its time at EIS and proved to be very, very safe
Apr 23, 2020, 1:29 am
#94
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,656
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...3_edited-3.jpg
Apr 23, 2020, 1:48 am
#95
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London
Programs: BAEC, AA, Emirates, Hilton, Hyatt, Taj Hotels
Posts: 2,345
A very nice aircraft for the passenger I seem to remember. Wasn't this the plane which had all the galleys underneath the cabin accessed by a lift? Gulf Air named theirs '5 Star Tri-star' and they had a sort of lounge in First Class back in the 70s/80s.
When we lived in AUH in the mid-80s BAs flights were mostly Tri-Stars - going on to KUL/MNL as has already been said, but I think some also went to Islamabad. I think they had a fairly limited range as twice we had to pit-stop in Paris and Brussels on the way back to LHR when Syrian airspace was closed.
When we lived in AUH in the mid-80s BAs flights were mostly Tri-Stars - going on to KUL/MNL as has already been said, but I think some also went to Islamabad. I think they had a fairly limited range as twice we had to pit-stop in Paris and Brussels on the way back to LHR when Syrian airspace was closed.
Apr 23, 2020, 2:01 am
#96
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2002
Programs: Mucci des Hommes Magiques et Magnifiques
Posts: 19,094
I remember a BA Tristar run to HKG I did in the early eighties routing (if I recall correctly) MAN-MUC-BAH-BKK-HKG.
I also flew a tristar from JFK - MAN in the mid eighties, I seem to recall it was in British Airtours colours?
I also did many flights on Cathay’s Tristars when based in HK in the eighties.
Enjoyed the aircraft
T
I also flew a tristar from JFK - MAN in the mid eighties, I seem to recall it was in British Airtours colours?
I also did many flights on Cathay’s Tristars when based in HK in the eighties.
Enjoyed the aircraft
T
Apr 23, 2020, 3:11 am
#98
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,595
My memory of the Tristar growing up near Luton Airport was the the brightly coloured Tristars of Courtline
It was a thrill as a kid to see them, across the fields, parked up near the runway
Later flew them ex BA operated by Caledonian on charters to
Turkey !
(Have to say I preferred the Boeing 727s of Dan Air)
It was a thrill as a kid to see them, across the fields, parked up near the runway
Later flew them ex BA operated by Caledonian on charters to
Turkey !
(Have to say I preferred the Boeing 727s of Dan Air)
Apr 23, 2020, 3:41 am
#100
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,613
I did a LHR-JFK-DCAxIAD-LAS-LAX-HNL-LAX-LHR in the late 80's on TWA as part of a tour. The trans-continental and HNL flights were on the Tristar. I seem to recall that TWA was 2-5-2 in Y.
I always seemed to end up in the middle seat of the 5 near the back... It wasn't too bad as everybody on the tour had got to know each other, so we were all together. My fear of flying tended to get greatly exaggerated as it meant the 2 nice girls sat either side of me and "comforted" me
Am I correct in saying that the tail engine was only used for take off? I seem to remember that once we got to cruise, you could hear the engine wind down - although maybe I'm imagining that.
Rain Man and Major League were on every flight!!
I always seemed to end up in the middle seat of the 5 near the back... It wasn't too bad as everybody on the tour had got to know each other, so we were all together. My fear of flying tended to get greatly exaggerated as it meant the 2 nice girls sat either side of me and "comforted" me
Am I correct in saying that the tail engine was only used for take off? I seem to remember that once we got to cruise, you could hear the engine wind down - although maybe I'm imagining that.
Rain Man and Major League were on every flight!!
Apr 23, 2020, 4:18 am
#101
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,668
I did a LHR-JFK-DCAxIAD-LAS-LAX-HNL-LAX-LHR in the late 80's on TWA as part of a tour. The trans-continental and HNL flights were on the Tristar. I seem to recall that TWA was 2-5-2 in Y.
I always seemed to end up in the middle seat of the 5 near the back... It wasn't too bad as everybody on the tour had got to know each other, so we were all together. My fear of flying tended to get greatly exaggerated as it meant the 2 nice girls sat either side of me and "comforted" me
Am I correct in saying that the tail engine was only used for take off? I seem to remember that once we got to cruise, you could hear the engine wind down - although maybe I'm imagining that.
Rain Man and Major League were on every flight!!
I always seemed to end up in the middle seat of the 5 near the back... It wasn't too bad as everybody on the tour had got to know each other, so we were all together. My fear of flying tended to get greatly exaggerated as it meant the 2 nice girls sat either side of me and "comforted" me
Am I correct in saying that the tail engine was only used for take off? I seem to remember that once we got to cruise, you could hear the engine wind down - although maybe I'm imagining that.
Rain Man and Major League were on every flight!!
Both Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas looked at producing twin versions of the L1011 and DC10 to compete with the new fangled wide-body twin from Airbus....the "Bi-Star" and just "DC10-Twin" where mooted names. This would not be as simple as it looked by simply removing an engine and designing a new vertical stabiliser and rear empennage because of major CofG isses with the removal of such a lot of weight aft of the wing.
Both companies carried out market and design studies and concluded there was really no market for wide-body twins beyond a limited domestic market - remember this was way before ETOPS and no manufacturer or airline could ever foresee that flying long routes over water with just two engines, miles from a diversion airport would ever be allowed....
Apr 23, 2020, 4:20 am
#102
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: MEL
Programs: QF, Virgin Australia
Posts: 192
L-1011 cabin width = 5.77m
747 series cabin width = 6.10m
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-body_aircraft
Apr 23, 2020, 4:33 am
#103
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold, LH Sen, MUCCI, Junior Jet Club.
Posts: 8,101
I loved the Tristar. When we lived in Lisbon (well Cascais) in the mid 1980s we would occasionally use TAP to get back to London and occasionally it would be on a L-1011-500 rather than their 727s. J was referred to as "Navigadores" Class (Navigators) and I remember they had a very nice world map on the bulkhead with all the routes of the Portuguese Discoveries like VdG and so on. And of course, big fluffy business class recliners in a 2-2-2 config, such a contrast to Club Europe on the 757s.
Then off we went to Bahrain which was Tristar heaven with Gulf Air -200s on the main routes such as to London. By the time we arrived the Tristar was nearing the end of service and was slowly being replaced by 767s and A340s. They'd lost some of the luxe features like the onboard library, the bar (who says EK are innovative...) and the swivel seats in F that allowed pax to dine face to face like in a QSuite (who says QR are innovative...) but they still had a underfloor galley, served by a lift. I remember going up and down several times as a child, there was lots of space down there but it did feel very utilitarian. Galley duty was considered plum duty amongst the GF stewardesses (and they were almost all stewardesses) as they could go down after takeoff, change into PJs, cook 300 meals, do hair, nails, makeup...emerging in London ready for a night on the town. I remember the noise in the rear galley was horrendous, only separated from the turbine of the RB211 by a thin bulkhead and some soundproofing.
GF bar:
GF F cabin with face to face dining:
GF example at BAH - you can see the window for the underfloor galley just forward of the wing root:
(some carried N- registrations as used to get swapped with TWA)
The BA examples were not as plush but still nice to fly on. Ultimately the aircraft was very advanced for its time (direct lift control, anyone?) which made it complex and expensive to maintain, and the engine issues at the start hobbled range and performance. The early Tristar models for BA were specced for BEA, for short trunk routes in Europe, but then BA decided to send them off to places like Saudi. A friend of my father's was BA manager in Riyadh in the 80s, sending a full Tristar back to London in August even in the middle of the night was a nightmare, they used to regularly file a flight plan to Frankfurt and then 'divert' to London once the winds had been worked out to be favourable. The -500 model was much improved but heavier with fewer pax. The DC-10 in comparison was a DC-8 in drag and much easier to look after but with an appalling safety record in the early years. Funnily enough its successor the MD-11 also had performance/range issues when it launched, leading to SQ cancelling their (RR-powered Trent 500...no relation to the engine that ended up on the A340-600) order.
Then off we went to Bahrain which was Tristar heaven with Gulf Air -200s on the main routes such as to London. By the time we arrived the Tristar was nearing the end of service and was slowly being replaced by 767s and A340s. They'd lost some of the luxe features like the onboard library, the bar (who says EK are innovative...) and the swivel seats in F that allowed pax to dine face to face like in a QSuite (who says QR are innovative...) but they still had a underfloor galley, served by a lift. I remember going up and down several times as a child, there was lots of space down there but it did feel very utilitarian. Galley duty was considered plum duty amongst the GF stewardesses (and they were almost all stewardesses) as they could go down after takeoff, change into PJs, cook 300 meals, do hair, nails, makeup...emerging in London ready for a night on the town. I remember the noise in the rear galley was horrendous, only separated from the turbine of the RB211 by a thin bulkhead and some soundproofing.
GF bar:
GF F cabin with face to face dining:
GF example at BAH - you can see the window for the underfloor galley just forward of the wing root:
(some carried N- registrations as used to get swapped with TWA)The BA examples were not as plush but still nice to fly on. Ultimately the aircraft was very advanced for its time (direct lift control, anyone?) which made it complex and expensive to maintain, and the engine issues at the start hobbled range and performance. The early Tristar models for BA were specced for BEA, for short trunk routes in Europe, but then BA decided to send them off to places like Saudi. A friend of my father's was BA manager in Riyadh in the 80s, sending a full Tristar back to London in August even in the middle of the night was a nightmare, they used to regularly file a flight plan to Frankfurt and then 'divert' to London once the winds had been worked out to be favourable. The -500 model was much improved but heavier with fewer pax. The DC-10 in comparison was a DC-8 in drag and much easier to look after but with an appalling safety record in the early years. Funnily enough its successor the MD-11 also had performance/range issues when it launched, leading to SQ cancelling their (RR-powered Trent 500...no relation to the engine that ended up on the A340-600) order.
Apr 23, 2020, 4:44 am
#104
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: LHR, LGW
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 3,436
Fantastic photos and insight. Thanks BahrainLad
All the weight of those items on that table of four, including gammon(?) and quite thick table covers, would probably keep the likes of O'Leary up at night. How times have changed.
All the weight of those items on that table of four, including gammon(?) and quite thick table covers, would probably keep the likes of O'Leary up at night. How times have changed.
Apr 23, 2020, 4:50 am
#105
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
Fantastic photos and insight. Thanks BahrainLad
All the weight of those items on that table of four, including gammon(?) and quite thick table covers, would probably keep the likes of O'Leary up at night. How times have changed.
All the weight of those items on that table of four, including gammon(?) and quite thick table covers, would probably keep the likes of O'Leary up at night. How times have changed.