L-1011 TriStar - Why It Failed, Vol. I: Dawn of the Jets
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 янв 2025
- In Volume One, we explore why Lockheed decided to build the L-1011 TriStar, the world's most advanced commercial airliner in 1970! Seriously, this plane could fly and land itself... in the 70s!
We'll start by taking a look at Lockheed's success in the commercial market before the L-1011 TriStar. was launched. Lockheed had a solid reputation with airlines of the time, thanks to their propeller-driven aircraft (Electra and Constellation) and the Lockheed JetStar.
We'll also briefly touch on the dawn of the Jet Age of travel, a busy and crowded time for the commercial aviation market. In less than a decade, the market expanded immensely. We went from one jet aircraft, the DeHavilland Comet, to well over a dozen!
As Volume One wraps up, we'll discuss American Airlines and the role they played in the development of Lockheed's L-1011 TriStar. So sit back, relax, and enjoy Volume One!
At 2:36, a quick salute Honor Blackman (aka Pussy Galore), 1925-2020! My first JetStar.
Some cool trivia: This aircraft had three separate names: L-1011, TriStar, and L--093 (Lockheed's internal model number). Got some aviation trivia you'd like to share? Wrong information in the video? Hit me up!
To my knowledge, all materials used are public domain and/or copyright-free. Please contact me if there are any issues with content.
Facebook: / fansofflight
Instagram: / fansofflight
RCT3 Channel: / scaremenga
----
Fans of Flight, 2020.
I worked for Lockheed back in the day in Santa Clara CA.
The company had arranged for a low-level L1011 flyover for the employees and it scared the shit out of us. So close, so fast.
I flew for Eastern from 1976 to 1989 based in SJU & MIA, the L-1011 was my favorite out of the whole fleet. 👍
Me too…1985-1989…best Airline people and pilots in the business. Bar none.
My uncle was Senior Captain at Eastern during that time and was one of the very first Airbus pilots, Norman Smith. Also flew ewr-mia-sju
My father, BB Clark, was a senior L-1011 captain in the 70's and 80's with Eastern. He loved that aircraft.
I was an EAL line mechanic 76-87, mostly at EWR. We used to say the L1011 was a great aircraft above 10,000 ft. Maintenance reliability was very poor, especially with the RB211-22B engine. I left EAL before the strike and spent the rest of my career with Airbus.
The L-1011 was a wonderful technology success. The Market was the failure, not the L-1011.
It cost too much, yes.
The Tristar was definitely a case of a product being so far ahead of its time that the market could barely utilize it to its potential. Truly a wonderful plane and the best flying experience i ever had. Made trips in a 737 feel like a ride in a WW2 bomber
I loved flying on the Tri-Star!
I father worked at Lockheed for 37 years he said that after Lockheed had to bail out Rolls Royce on their power plant problems that the set back killed the L1011 'some airlines didn't trust Rolls Royce to live up to its commitments supporting the engines due to its financial problems and it irresponsible government support in the UK! Lockheed should have certified the aircraft with other engines but Lockheed got in to deep with Rolls Royce ! To bad most advanced aircraft of its time !
Only flew on this plane once, not being a frequent flyer.......but, aside from the dingbat sitting next to me, it was just a wonderful, comfortable and memorable flight. I hadn't been on a wide body previously and with the emergency exit row seat couldn't believe the legroom!! Mine was an Eastern flight, New York to TPA.
Same here, flew on an L-1011 once to Hawaii from California. It was my first flight. Still remember sitting on my dad’s shoulders and being amazed at the second engine in the tail.
We walked around the back (think it has a pass through lavatory) and I remember being concerned the engine would “steal” oxygen from the cabin. I was also surprised at how quiet it was… other than the lavatory area, which was deafening.
Such a great video!
Where is the sequel?
I have travelled on many different planes. My favourites include the VC10, the Tristar and the A340. All smooth and comfortable. I travelled on the Gulf Air Tristar which had been on display at the Farnborough Air Show. Beautifully fitted out, even in Economy.
The L-10-11 didn’t fail though.
compared to the dc10's sales and proliferation across many airlines, perhaps
I flew on quite a few wide bodies in the 70s and 80s and the L1011 was my favorite. I always felt safer on that plane. It seemed ahead of it’s time and the flight always seemed to go more quickly when I was lucky enough to fly on one. It was a beautiful jet.
I remember Eastern Airlines had an Tri-Star for their shuttle service from LaGuardia to Boston airport for $16 and you paid on the plane the shuttle was the best thing ever. The plane was absolutely full at every flight.
Correction: the Constellation was not a turboprop airliner, it was driven by four radial piston engines.
It is also notable that they produced aircraft in WWII, notably the P-38 Lightning. They also produced the US’s first operational jet fighter, the P-80/F-80 Shooting Star.
Had R-R delivered the engines on time and on spec the 1011 would have dominated the industry. But the delay meant the airlines bought other products to keep flying while the 1011 was stalled in production. And by the time it was available the market was already sold on other products. So what killed it was one (hyphenated) word. R-R.
The L1011 was, by far, a successful line airliners! Eastern, TWA, and Delta, for example, utilised them heavily on both domestic and international/intercontinental routes!
i worked on the l;-1011 back in 80s 90s she was the bast airplane ever built and should be flying yet today
the L-1011 is better than anything made today
my favorite pax plane ive ever been on. was a pleasure to fly on. i was a kid, and always looked at the equipment type after flying the 1011 once. After that, I was always let down whenever I didn't get to fly it again. Only had that chance 2 or 3 times. I later found out just how lucky I was to have flown on it at all!
Designing, certifying, and setting up the production facilities for a big passenger jet requires a massive investment. The manufacturer needs to deliver and get paid for a large number of the new airplanes before this investment gets past the break-even point into profitablity. Going into the 70's the market for new widebody planes was strong and the the L-1011 was a very good airplane, but Lockheed had a late start competing in the wide-body arena, while DC-10s and 747s were already being delivered to airliners. L-1011 deliveries were further delayed by Rolls-Royce's engine difficulties, and Lockheed only sold 250 L-1011s. The plane was an engineering success but the project lost money for Lockheed.
The only L-1011 still flying is called the Stargazer. It's owned by Northrop Grumman and is used to launch satellites into orbit.
The title of this is ridiculous. It didn't fail. It lead the way to everything on aircrafts that is on them today but 50 years ago. Not a failure.
I concur.
Just think. The center engine was able to be serviced from inside the cabin, not special equipment to service the center engine. Great and comfortable aircraft. Flew it many times, so sad to see it gone. 👍👍👍. 7-13-2023
That's not just incorrect, it's laughable that anyone would consider that a possibility.
In what universe is the Constellation a turboprop airliner?
We flew Eastern every year from 71-early 80s on a Boeing 727 Whisper jets . The wings of man!
Mechanics at Eastern used to call the L-1011, “The Hog” as in maintenance hog. A cash cow for mechanics wanting overtime . Great airplane to fly in if it got off the gate (oh those engines!).
At 2:12, you claim that "... before the L-1011, Lockheed had limited success in the commercial jet market...", saying at 2:16, that "... in the past, they had built a small number of popular turboprop airliners ...", before going on at 2:23 specifically to cite the Lockheed Constellation as an example of the latter.
First of all, the Constellation was NOT a turboprop airliner - it had radial reciprocating engines. Of the only civil Constellation variants intended to have turbo-prop engines - to wit: the L-079B, the L-1149, the L-1249B, the L-1449 and the L-1649B none ever proceeded beyond the proposal or planning stages.
Secondly: "... a small number ..." and: "... limited success ... "? Are you kidding? Lockheed manufactured and delivered 856 examples of the Constellation, to be operated by over 90 air carriers., making the Constellation one of the most successful airliner programs ever.
In contrast with the contemporaries of the Constellation: Douglas manufactured and sold only 80 x DC-4s; 704 x DC-6s; and 338 x DC-7s, whilst Boeing sold a grand total of just 56 x Boeing 377 Stratocruisers, to the airlines.
So, as a former DC-8-73, Boeing 747-200/-300/-400 and Lockheed L-1011-200 TriStar pilot myself, it is at 2:28 that I stopped watching your video.
The L1011 was a beautiful airplane. I just don't understand why it wasn't that much of a success. It was overshadowed by the development of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, and overtook it as a more successful subsonic tri-jet. Though both were really great enough airplanes, the DC-10, and the Lockheed L1011 were both given praise by the airlines that chose to use them. Even though the DC-10 later, went on to be a successful freighter airplane, in which the L1011 was just an airplane used for passenger service.
I loved the L-1011. Flew it frequently.
"Lockheed" really REALLY needs to get back into the airliner market/race!
In the mid 80's, my Dad took me to Greater Pittsburgh Airport to see the British Airways 747-200 that flew in once/wk. Unfortunately(at least initially), we were disappointed to hear that it was a TriStar serving the route that eve. I didn't mind 1 bit once I saw it. I thought it was the coolest thing since slice bread. I've been into aviation & had a love for the L-1011 ever since. ✈️✌️
I understand the L-1011-500 was the true "long-range" variant". I never understood where the L-1011-200 sat, as I'm pretty sure TWA and Delta had flown them across the pond a few times to Europe.
Unless I missed something, this video doesn't explain why the DC-10 garnered significantly more sales, nor does the video promote the L-1011's abilities vs. the DC-10.
I planned this to be a 3 part series, but the other 2 parts are delayed. Kinda like the RB211. Fitting
deregulation & the FAA giving a fkg passenger plane a hidden "burn time" for its wiring harness are 2 major factors leading to the early demise of what could've been a great reliable plane.
Where's volume 2?
3:59
@@79sdv10no, that says Part 2, NOT Volume 2
Greetings. My 2nd favourite jet from the day. I flew on many. .and loved it. The 747 my 1st and the DC-8 my 3rd. The 727 comes in at 4th. However I liked the 737 Bcuz of the initial high climb rate after takeoff. What a rush from the others Thx 4 the share.
wait, this is just an intro to not yet released follow up video?
The Constellation was not a turboprop.
Awesome and very reliable plane!🙂
I agree, I loved flying on the L-1011, it was a great plane.
If only Lockheed managed a long range Tristar variant early enough to compete with the DC-10-30......it shoulda been Lockheed's match. Instead we ended up with the MD11 which gotten eaten up with ease by the A340/330.
what do you mean more range for the lockheed? the DC-10-30 had a range of 4600 miles, the l1011-500 a range of 7000 miles.
A Long Range TriStar ??? Enough to Compete with the DC-10-30 ??? I have No idea what you meaning. It was Lockheeds match to the DC-10, A Much Better Match, it was.
@@ImperialDiecast the -500 shares the same economies of scale seat cost per km flown issue that the A310 and A340-500 were retired for and that the a330 800neo and 787-8 face
being shorter, carrying less passengers and using just as much fuel as the original L-1011 1 and 250 variants, thus reducing the profit margin basically spelled its demise
It was popular for an L-1011 model yes, but when it was introduced, the DC-10-30, A310 and 767 were in the market.
Ah, these old DC-10 haters, you know nothing
The background music is louder than The narrator
What's the title of the music used in the background?
A great aircraft on our history.
God I miss the TriStar. A wonderful plane ❤❤❤
1970s-1990s provided you are flying Manila to Hong Kong Kai Tak you do get a Cucumber sandwich colour Cathay Pacific L-1011. Same time frame KIX-HND ANA L-1011
You got a sub
One of the problems is the L-1011-1 only had a range of 7,410km. The DC-10-30 had a range of 9,600km
the later L1011-500 did almost 10.000km but came too late probably
And with a lot less pax
The nail in the coffin for both the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and the Lockheed L-1011 was the introduction of the widebody twin-jets like the Airbus A300B2/B4, and the Boeing 767.
A300 was 13 years before the 767
No, the nail was ETOPS.
@@geofflancaster8542 Yeah. Which allowed widebody twins to fly longer, hurting the demand for tri-jets as well.
Flew on one once... Scared the crap out of me listening to the engine(s) spool up... Darned thing *shook and vibrated so danged much,* I wondered if it was safe to take off in the thing! First plane I flew on was an Electra as a kid in 1967...
So not a DC 10?
Couldn't the narrator over the back ground music
The music is a bit too loud and distracting.
Still the best sounding airplane!
cool video, however, you need to work on the audio.
It's cockpit window are black! Just like the A350! Well on the L-1011 demonstrator anyway.
Seen your title, why the Tristar failed. Why I'm not watching your content. The Tristar was a success for the airlines who operated it.
Yes !! It was Socialist Britian's gov owned R-R who FAILED. They couldn't deliver engines per contract
Why did the L-1011 TriStar fail ? Because of the hyphen.
Yep the one between the two Rs.
@@anvilsvs What is Rs ?
@@ritzgj3666 Rolls-Royce, the engine supplier.
It didn't fail ?
Its Engineering & technology were highly successful.
But British engine supplier (R-R) failure totally screwed the wonderful L-1011. An aviation tragedy.
I once flew on one between LA and Chicago in 1979 and it was the noisiest airplane I ever flew on…I will never forget it.
As far as I'm concerned , it outlasted the DC-10 and did not gain a notorious reputation. That in itself, makes it a success. Lockheed should have stayed in the passenger market.
I’ve heard good things
Re do the voice over
That’s it?
My best friend's father worked on the design of the L-1011. It was superior to the DC-10.
I question Frank Koch's competency.
Constructions again the tristar is good air planes do again any problem fixed
Quite the stupid title, the L1011 was a huge success, it flew until the rise of the big twins and beyond.
Lose the background music and Ill subscribe to your channel.
So I guess your page folded 3 yrs ago....🙄
Why are the videos so crappie, were there no worth of shit cameras back then
Only Boeing and Dassault know how to build a 3 engine jet
Get rid of music!
Another failure was the MD DC-10.
This video is so factually incorrect in so many areas. Do some research before you put this CRAP out.
You didn't tell us why it failed; so you failed. THUMBS DOWN ( all 4 ).
Where's the next volume?
The Connie and electra were not turbo props, they were radial props.
> Let's not forget that for a time the *Lockheed Tri Star* was the world's most expensive glider & nearly bankrupt the company into oblivion saved only by one vote in the Senate for a $1 billion govt. loan. With 50 to 49 with one vote abstaining.
- Just think; a world today without Lockheed's super SR-71 making Skunk Works Divison.
Captions don't dwell long enough on the screen. Very annoying! They should be up for 3-5 seconds or more depending on length. You received an immediate dislike from me because of that.
Some of thoze cations were Jibberish... Made no sense!
Cut-out that bloody-awful music!👺
*Narrator's vocal fry and backward placement are unbearable.