Why was the L1011 retired/ do you think production should begin again to build more?

Question

Seemed like a very nice plane. I don't understand.

I wish I could've flown on it.

I read that there are still a few around flying. How many active L1011's are left still flying?

Thank you

Answer 1

I don't know why it was retired, but by now the technology has changed and the aircraft would not be viable up against the new designs. Besides, Lockheed has completely gotten out of the commercial airliner business.

Answer 2

The L1011 had a few shortcomings, not all of them from it design, but from some of the choices made.

Firstly, it was available with only one type of engine, Rolls Royce RB211, unlike competing airplane of similar (or different size) who traditionally offered engines by RR, GE or P&W. An airline already having aircraft (of a different make) with GE or P&W engines would then be "forced" to add a new type of engines (the RR ones) which their maintenance technicians may be unfamiliar with forcing the airline to either hire more people of provide additional traning to deal with the specifics of the RB211. But there was more: during the time the L1011 was being developped, Rolls Royce filed for bankcrupcy, delaying the introduction of the L1011 (since this was the sole engine, Lockheed could not fall back on a different supplier), and prompting potential buyers to look elsewhere for their aircraft.

And then, there was the fact this was a single plane model (though with a few variants). Airlines like to have small, medium and large planes from the same maker, so that they can have better deal on purchase (buying a mixed fleet of various planes) and having a degree of commonality between their plane so that maintenance people are already familiar with the design.

All those elements worked against Lockeheed L-1011 fulfilling its promise, and sales were consequently low (a total of 250 planes were made; compare with nearly 600 DC10/MD11 that was its most direct competitor).

There are about 40 of them still flying, 9 of them for the Royanl Air Force, and a few doing odd jobs--like airlifting Pegasus rocket for Orbital Sciences).

Since the last one left the assembly plant in 1985, there are precious few people with experience in building them, and with 20+ years old technology, they would not be competitive in today's market, and would not attrack interest from airlines; it will not go back in production.

Answer 3

I flew the L-1011 -1, -100, and -500 models and absolutely  loved the airplane. It was an elegant machine that was way ahead of it's time. It was FAST... that is a .9 airplane and we made use of that on many occaisions.  We flew the original airplanes with the -22B engines, and got a LOT of ribbing about the steam/smoke cloud they would generate on start up...  the ground controllers were always ready to point out to smaller traffic that they needed to expedite their taxi or file an IFR flight plan because that L-1011 is about to start it's engines and you won't be able to see for 15 minutes.

The -500 aircraft came from Royal Jordanian and had the -524 engines, longer wing and shorter fuselage and different fuel tank arrangement. We could postition anywhere in the world in 24 hours. They had to be modified by adding an extra door to meet FAA requirements, and they were cut out from existing airframes and added just about the trailing edge of the wing to bring the total doors per side back to 4 as on the earlier models.

It had the heaviest controls of any airplane I ever flew, I had a buddy that had flown both the C-141 and the L-1011 and he said that they handled very similar. It is capable of doing a single engine "go around" on a wing engine and is something the Captain must demonstrate for his type rating... and has the irony of actually touching down and bouncing right back into the air when you do it (if the examiner gives you the GA late enough) I am fortunate enough to say that I flew the L-1011 into Kai-Tak which is known as one of the hairiest approaches world wide... and in that much airplane...  I was briefed by someone that had done it several times.. and it sounded CRAZY.. but I did what he said.. and guess what.. it WAS crazy... but the airplane did it.. and you don't get a 2nd chance...and it scares the crackers out of everyone in the back.

It had all the redudant systems that the DC-10 *should* have had... and the DLC  "direct lift control" system was genius.. and made the airplane a dream to fly on tight approaches. I always had a habit of patting my airplane on the nose at the end of a trip...  but it took a 30' ladder so I could only do it once... but it was worth the 40 minute wait to get it.. because that was a marvellous airplane... and they chopped them up out in Arizona...   horrible.

Answer 4

It will always be more efficient to have fewer larger engines, than more smaller ones.  Three-engine aircraft (727, MD11) were designed during a time when 2-engine aircraft couldn't get approval for extended overwater operations.  There just isn't a mission for 3-engine planes anymore.  In commercial aviation.

Answer 5

The L-1011 was potentially the better design. Early DC-10 flight testing revealed a ''tail wagging' mid engine. If you track the rear fuselage shear deflections that would result, you have an explanation for the baggage door problem on the DC-10.

The L-1011 had a development problem with the RR engine, namely the composite fan blades. They failed bird ingestion testing, and the engine went to production with a heavy metal fan blade. GE bought the key players in the composite fan blade dev, and made it work finally.

The GE engine for the Airbus gave inspiration to RR, which embarked on an 'international' next generation engine, which now appears on some airbuses.