Why has the Tristar not been that enduring?

, and too unreliable.

I’m not really sure that it was that unreliable compared to it’s main rival the DC-10, it’s just that when the limits were written on what snags could be carried down route, Lockheed edged way on the side of caution.

When I used to work on Tristars much the same sentiments as above were echoed by the the airlines reps, it’s just that if the Tristar had the same, relatively minor snag as a DC-10, the Tristar book would say ground the aircraft and fix it, where as the DC-10 book would say carry it until you got back to your base station.

Nice Aircraft I got one one coming back from Toronto with Air Transat but I did notice at the back there was a strange whirling noise right through the flight.
Still I thought it was better than the other big tri jet the DC 10 I flew on.

It could be said that the Tristar was the last jetliner to be built that ‘looked good’?

Although I guess looks are personal viewpoint…..

Yes the Tristar is a very attractive big jet,lots of good looks. I flew to the Falklands and back in the 1980’s. Shortly after they had opened Mount Pleasent airport.It was an ex Pan Am L1011-500,now with 216 SQN RAF. For all you Tristar fans the RAF Tristars are still doing sterling work supporting UK forces all over the globe. They are very flexible, operating in the same roles as the other RAF beuty the VC10! The tanker Tristar can give away 3 times the avgas of a VC10, to keep the fast jets on station.

Yes the Tristar is a very attractive big jet,lots of good looks. I flew to the Falklands and back in the 1980’s. Shortly after they had opened Mount Pleasent airport.It was an ex Pan Am L1011-500,now with 216 SQN RAF. For all you Tristar fans the RAF Tristars are still doing sterling work supporting UK forces all over the globe. They are very flexible, operating in the same roles as the other RAF beuty the VC10! The tanker Tristar can give away 3 times the avgas of a VC10, to keep the fast jets on station.

You have to remember that the last Tristars were built around 1983, that makes them 26 years old. I bet there’s not that many DC-10’s of that age around either.

There are about 37 of that age currently flying, not including those that are in storage and potentially flyable.

The L1011 was an extraordinary aircraft.

It was a smooth flying, stable airplane that pilots and passengers loved. One of the reasons it flew so well was because the tail was so large, particularly the horizontal stabilizer. The all flying horizontal stabilizer on the L1011 was only 2 feet smaller in span than that of the 747! It also had an extremely elegant flight control system which included systems not installed on any other major airplanes of that era (DLC and ACS to name a few).

However, because it was so advanced at the time it was introduced, and because so few were built, it was never truly a finished design. In a word, it was very unreliable. Had Lockheed been able to continue to sell them, they would have no doubt improved the problem systems which contributed to the unreliability: Flight Controls/Flaps, Autopilot, Cargo doors, Pack Valves, APU, Thrust Reversers. It should be stated that the APU and T/R’s were responsibility of the supplier.

The L1011 was heavy. It never made weight specification and therefore never made the fuel/range specifications. It flew at 6-7 degrees nose up, and I have been told that the early ones flew at 7-8 degrees nose up.

The L1011 was only offered with one engine choice. This hurt the program because some airlines will only purchase from one engine provider, or at least did so only at that time. NWA jumps to mind, they were a loyal PW customer and required Douglas to put the PW engine on the previously GE powered DC-10. Furthermore, its sole engine provider was in receivership during a critical early portion of the L1011 program.

The L1011 was safe. It put the DC-10 to shame with regard to crash statistics. The major L1011 accidents were largely the result of operator error and were entirely preventable.

In retrospect, one could argue that the 747 was too big for the time that it was built. Airlines have been purchasing smaller and smaller airplanes for the last 30 years or so. Thus, the DC-10 and L1011 would have been perfectly positioned to sell many hundreds of airliners had the too-big 747 not been built.

Finally, the twins have out performed the tri-jets in this seat range. The fuel efficiency of the 767-300ER, and later the A330 and the 777, have pushed the tri-jets out of the market.

Too summarize: too few built, too inefficient versus twins, and too unreliable.

I believe civilians can actually fly to the Falkland Islands on one of these still?

Does anyone know what rules were applied to the Tristar (and DC10 for that matter) when operating over large areas of ocean? Were they any different from ETOPS?

Maybe someone with authority can also state what a double engine failure would have meant for a tri-jet? Could it have limped along with one engine?

Stonesfan, Take a trip to Brize where the RAF are still flying their 30 odd year old ones, as Passenger/freight and Tanker variants :diablo:

You have to remember that the last Tristars were built around 1983, that makes them 26 years old. I bet there’s not that many DC-10’s of that age around either.

Ah the Tristar ! a cracking aircraft, I flew a series 500 with Royal Jordanian in the late 90s from Amman to Kuala Lumpur, I have to say it was probably the smoothest and most comfortable flight I have ever been on.

Stonesfan, Take a trip to Brize where the RAF are still flying their 30 odd year old ones, as Passenger/freight and Tanker variants :diablo:

The main reason is ‘quanity’:

Lockheed built 250 L-1011’s.

McDonnell Douglas built 386 (plus 60 KC-10’s).

Basically the Tristar was designed for coast to coast flying within the United States… whereas the DC10 was built for domestic and International routes…by the time the L1011-500 long range was developed …the DC10 was well ensconced with the Majors and the fuel saving twins were coming onto the scene