Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:10 pmHello fellow avimaniacs ...well what a day! 8.5 hours in a portacom ....alone, doing nothing, absolutely nothing. So , read a book on TriStars (as you do)
Ive always loved all the tri jets , but Lockheed's baby is a particular favorite .
I wasn't aware it (L1011) was developed alongside the development of the RB211 and the DC-10 .
The story of the RB211 is a story in it self , an amazing amount of "rough" testing including holding them in full reverse right down to zero forward speed at idle power. To reduce brake wear when taxying , the mid (tail) engine was run in reverse , and engines where shut down and started in reverse on a regular basis . The engine was air tested on a VC-10.
The tristar almost didn't make it at all, due to money problems with Rolls Royce , cost over-runs on the C-5 project and the cancellation of the Cheyenne .... but the airlines saw something they liked and it pulled through.... well, thats a very basic picture of the situation.
The construction of the TriStar was state of the art for the time , things like using thicker skins over the frames ... therefore , less stringers needed.
They were assembled in a purpose built building at palmdale , that could handle 39 of them at once ..... one out the door every two days at full capacity.
The RB211 was used through the whole production life (models 1, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250 and 500) The airframe grew from 54.2m on the 1011 to 54.2 on the 250 , oddly the 500 was 50.04 m with a larger wingspan 50.09m , compared to the rest at 47.35 .
As the RB211 developed , so did the thrust , starting at 42,000 pounds , and ending (for the tristar) at 50,000 pounds .
Sorry, didn't mean to bore you , but Im a trivia sponge....
Ive always loved all the tri jets , but Lockheed's baby is a particular favorite .
I wasn't aware it (L1011) was developed alongside the development of the RB211 and the DC-10 .
The story of the RB211 is a story in it self , an amazing amount of "rough" testing including holding them in full reverse right down to zero forward speed at idle power. To reduce brake wear when taxying , the mid (tail) engine was run in reverse , and engines where shut down and started in reverse on a regular basis . The engine was air tested on a VC-10.
The tristar almost didn't make it at all, due to money problems with Rolls Royce , cost over-runs on the C-5 project and the cancellation of the Cheyenne .... but the airlines saw something they liked and it pulled through.... well, thats a very basic picture of the situation.
The construction of the TriStar was state of the art for the time , things like using thicker skins over the frames ... therefore , less stringers needed.
They were assembled in a purpose built building at palmdale , that could handle 39 of them at once ..... one out the door every two days at full capacity.
The RB211 was used through the whole production life (models 1, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250 and 500) The airframe grew from 54.2m on the 1011 to 54.2 on the 250 , oddly the 500 was 50.04 m with a larger wingspan 50.09m , compared to the rest at 47.35 .
As the RB211 developed , so did the thrust , starting at 42,000 pounds , and ending (for the tristar) at 50,000 pounds .
Sorry, didn't mean to bore you , but Im a trivia sponge....
, the facts and details , Lockheed almost went under .. Rolls Royce created the many problems and was save itself by a Government bail ... course the competition with the DC-10
