DBWI: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar Fails?

[Bahamut-255]

The Lockheed L-1011 Tristar

Essentially a return to Civil Aviation for Lockheed since the Constellation IIRC, and made back it's Development Cost by ~1983.

The question I have is: What would have happened had the Tristar - a plane that had to, and actually did, live up to its Promise of being able to Land Itself - Failed Commercially? What would've filled the resultant gap made for mid-sized Widebody's? DC-10 despite it's safety record? Hawker-Siddeley Trident? Something - or even anything - else?

And what of Lockheed itself, had it been forced to nurse a wound like that?

 

[Anime Ninja]

That would be a shame, it was known a flag ship aircraft of the Commonwealth, the RAF, RCAF and RAAF all flew it as a transport, and tanker.

For the mid-range wide-body, what would replace it, the DC-10? I know that they built some but it was so quickly designed that it had huge safety issues.

For Canada, it was a god send, Orenda Engines built most of the engines when RR had "issues" but that is for another posting.

Of course there were rumors that Lockheed bribed Japan and others to get them to buy their jets, they were never proven.

 

[WILDGEESE]

That would be a shame, it was known a flag ship aircraft of the Commonwealth, the RAF, RCAF and RAAF all flew it as a transport, and tanker.

For the mid-range wide-body, what would replace it, the DC-10? I know that they built some but it was so quickly designed that it had huge safety issues.

For Canada, it was a god send, Orenda Engines built most of the engines when RR had "issues" but that is for another posting.

Of course there were rumors that Lockheed bribed Japan and others to get them to buy their jets, they were never proven.

These "huge safety" issues you are on about were nothing to do with the build quality or design of the aircraft.

These issues where either pilot error, engine failures (nothing to do with Douglas as they don't design their own engines) and ground staff cutting corners in the operation of the said aircraft.

When these were cut out the aircraft had a no worse safety record than the L1011.

 

[Anime Ninja]

These "huge safety" issues you are on about were nothing to do with the build quality or design of the aircraft.

These issues where either pilot error, engine failures (nothing to do with Douglas as they don't design their own engines) and ground staff cutting corners in the operation of the said aircraft.

When these were cut out the aircraft had a no worse safety record than the L1011.

It did take almost 10 years for them to fix the issues, by that time the Tristar was everywhere. The Freight version of the DC-10 was a more success. The issue was that people just saw that the DC-10 as an unsafe aircraft. I see why they call the next version MD-22.

 

[Bahamut-255]

That would be a shame, it was known a flag ship aircraft of the Commonwealth, the RAF, RCAF and RAAF all flew it as a transport, and tanker.

For the mid-range wide-body, what would replace it, the DC-10? I know that they built some but it was so quickly designed that it had huge safety issues.

I heard about those Cargo Doors too, amongst other things...

For Canada, it was a god send, Orenda Engines built most of the engines when RR had "issues" but that is for another posting.

An Emergency Nationalisation is an "issue"? True, Rolls-Royce did eventually manage to produce a fantastic engine for Lockheed, but they sure took their time getting there.

That said, Orenda being one of two willing to make the engine with an S-Band for the tail-mounted engine was a stroke of fantastic good fortune in hindsight.

Of course there were rumors that Lockheed bribed Japan and others to get them to buy their jets, they were never proven.

I know for sure they did bribery, but with different planes. Military Jets IIRC. They admitted it.

It did take almost 10 years for them to fix the issues, by that time the Tristar was everywhere. The Freight version of the DC-10 was a more success. The issue was that people just saw that the DC-10 as an unsafe aircraft. I see why they call the next version MD-22.

A major Achilles Heel for McDonnell-Douglas. Proof that even if you can make it great, a start that terrible will cost you.

But my Original Question still stands. What would be the effects of the Tristar failing? For Lockheed? And others? i.e. Boeing, MD, later Airbus?

 

[WILDGEESE]

It did take almost 10 years for them to fix the issues, by that time the Tristar was everywhere. The Freight version of the DC-10 was a more success. The issue was that people just saw that the DC-10 as an unsafe aircraft. I see why they call the next version MD-22.

1st

Actually the next version was called MD-11

The Md-12 was the double deck version of the MD-11 with 4 engines.

2nd

You do know that the DC-10 outsold the L1011 by at least 130 aircraft.

Total sales

L1011 250
DC-10 380 plus 60 KC-10

 

[Zheng He]

These "huge safety" issues you are on about were nothing to do with the build quality or design of the aircraft.

These issues where either pilot error, engine failures (nothing to do with Douglas as they don't design their own engines) and ground staff cutting corners in the operation of the said aircraft.

When these were cut out the aircraft had a no worse safety record than the L1011.

This is a great example of just how hard it is to kick a bad reputation once it is obtained. I was 9-10 years old when a lot of this happened and I remember seeing it on the evening news and forever after to me the DC-10 = Death in the Sky...

 

[Bahamut-255]

1st

Actually the next version was called MD-11

The Md-12 was the double deck version of the MD-11 with 4 engines.

2nd

You do know that the DC-10 outsold the L1011 by at least 130 aircraft.

Total sales

L1011 250
DC-10 380 plus 60 KC-10

OOC: The 250 Tristars Sold you seem to be quoting is the OTL Sales. This DBWI stated already that here, it was a commercial success so had to have sold more than twice that, as so to recoup the Development Cost - which was achieved by around '83.

IC: But even that rebranding couldn't help them, the MD-12 never even leaving the design board.

After all, the ~250-Seat Long-Range Widebody Plane turned out to be a more limited market than first thought. Once Lockheed were established into it, it took until the twin-engined Widebody was permitted on such routes before the Tristar started falling out of favour.

 

[SactoMan101]

Actually, what saved the TriStar program was Rolls-Royce offering the much more powerful Trent 700 engine, which made it possible for Lockheed to build a twin-engine version of the plane by 1988. The L-1022, as the plane is known today, built with ETOPS certification in mind and had ranges of 5,600 nautical miles for L-1022-200 longer version and 6,400 nautical miles for the L-1022-100XR shorter version (OOC: it duplicated what Airbus did with the A330), and Lockheed couldn't keep up with demand.

 

[James Ricker]

The DC-10 had an excellent safety record, unfortunately it had a glass jaw. Accidents that would have sent other aircraft back to the airport proved fatal to the DC-10.

 

[Ashley Pomeroy]

My hunch is that Lockheed would have withdrawn from the commercial airline business - which is what they did, because the Tristar was a failure. It had a troubled development, and sold half the airframes required to just break even, losing a tonne of money in the process. Lockheed had to resort to bribery to persuade Air Nippon to take it, which resulted in the Japanese Prime Minister being arrested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

I learn that the scandal even inspired a suicide attack(!):

"Lockheed hired underworld figure Yoshio Kodama as a consultant in order to influence Japanese parastatal airlines, including All Nippon Airways (ANA), to buy the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar instead of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10. On February 6, 1976, the vice-chairman of Lockheed told the Senate subcommittee that Lockheed had paid approximately $3 million in bribes to the office of Japanese Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka for aid in the matter.

Lockheed paid ¥2.4 billion to earn the contract from ANA. ¥500 million of the total was received by the Prime Minister. ¥160 million was received by ANA's officials. ¥1.7 billion was received by Kodama. On October 30, 1972, ANA announced its decision to purchase 21 Lockheed L-1011 Tristars, which cost approximately $5 million each, even though it had previously announced options to purchase the DC-10.

In March 1976, in a protest at the scandal, actor Mitsuyasu Maeno made a suicide attack on Kodama's Tokyo home by crashing a light aircraft onto it. Maeno died and two servants were injured. Kodama himself was unharmed."

It was by all accounts a terrific aircraft. Conceptually similar to the Hawker Siddeley Trident - a trijet with advanced avionics - albeit that it was larger and had a surplus of engine power. But it came a distant fourth to McDonnell Douglas and Airbus, and ended up being Lockheed's final airliner.

 

[highwayhoss]

Actually, what saved the TriStar program was Rolls-Royce offering the much more powerful Trent 700 engine, which made it possible for Lockheed to build a twin-engine version of the plane by 1988. The L-1022, as the plane is known today, built with ETOPS certification in mind and had ranges of 5,600 nautical miles for L-1022-200 longer version and 6,400 nautical miles for the L-1022-100XR shorter version (OOC: it duplicated what Airbus did with the A330), and Lockheed couldn't keep up with demand.

Making the Tristar into a twin-engine aircraft (called the "Bistar" by some wags ) was a game changer; it reduced weight, maintenance costs and fuel consumption. Eliminating the third engine and the corresponding ducting and intake not only reduced weight but also meant the plane was no longer restricted as to what engines it could mount; it was the fact that the original Tristar could only mount the Rolls-Royce RB211 that nearly scuttled the program when the RB211 ran into problems. It was only with the approval of loans to both RR and Lockheed by the US and British governments that both programs were saved.

(OOC: The Trent 700 was not certified until 1995; maybe ITTL Lockheed asks RR to develop a much more powerful engine to enable the Tristar to need only two?)

 

[fscott]

This is a great example of just how hard it is to kick a bad reputation once it is obtained. I was 9-10 years old when a lot of this happened and I remember seeing it on the evening news and forever after to me the DC-10 = Death in the Sky...

Open till the DC-10 Douglas aircraft was known for high-quality airplanes. The DC-10 was rushed into production without the normal safety features that bowling was already uses for instance the stick Shaker which would have saved the plane in Chicago when the engine fell off they are too cheap to buy one for the copilot so they had no idea they were when they followed the rules and cut back on their Ascent rate which made them stalled in the sky. They didn't put enough in there hydraulic fluid lines going to each engine which means if you lose one you're going to lose probably all three. It could have also in those lines put reverse valves that stop fluid from running out should there be a break giving them some control. The door if it was just the people loading and unloading the plane they would just train them not redesign the door. And In fairness to Boeing on the 747 they had some door issues also. I too will not fly on a DC-10 when they were still available. I had a flight from Houston to Boston via Chicago and I was assured by American Airlines and guess what it was a DC-10. I left the plane and they ended up putting me on a 727 that was leaving an hour later give me a couple of meal vouchers and my luggage. Evidently I'm not the first person who declined a DC-10 because nobody seem surprised than they were basically handing me a package it says we will put you on another flight here's complementary XXNX and we're sorry. The irony with a DC-10 was American Airlines went to Douglas and said look like he's building l-1011 something like it to keep the price down and so they lose an engine going out of Chicago which any plane should be able to fly out of and did and it was an American Airlines plane karma is a real bitch. If Rolls-Royce wasn't competent to build the engine for the l-1011 they never should have taken the contract they're the ones that fucked Lockheed over cuz the l-1011 was a Great plane. The DC-10 basically just put another Circle Nails in the coffin of now McDonald Douglas and they manage to stay afloat with there in the series which were upgraded dc-9s. But after that they were never really competitive. The md-11 which was an updated DC-10 was a total disaster it didn't meet the fuel burn rate its distance range, I think the Air Lines because her bus is now in the picture better decided they really didn't want to take a chance on a old design that wasn't that good to start with. I never had any hesitancy to fly DC nines MD 80s and the 90s prove to be reasonably good airplane.

 

[SactoMan101]

Making the Tristar into a twin-engine aircraft (called the "Bistar" by some wags ) was a game changer; it reduced weight, maintenance costs and fuel consumption. Eliminating the third engine and the corresponding ducting and intake not only reduced weight but also meant the plane was no longer restricted as to what engines it could mount; it was the fact that the original Tristar could only mount the Rolls-Royce RB211 that nearly scuttled the program when the RB211 ran into problems. It was only with the approval of loans to both RR and Lockheed by the US and British governments that both programs were saved.

Well, when Airbus did its research into the A300B9 during the early 1980's (essentially a lengthened A300B4), Rolls-Royce offered what was then called the RB.211-700 engine with engine thrust as high as 69,000 lb. for eventual growth versions. That piqued the interest of Lockheed, who asked GE and Pratt & Whitney to develop a similar engine but both GE and P&W said it would take some time to develop. By 1987, Rolls-Royce finalized the design of the RB.211-700, but because it was quite a bit different than the RB.211-524 then being used on the 747, they decided on a new name: Trent 700. The L-1022-100XR got the Trent 765, and the L-1022-200 got the Trent 768. Today, the L-1022-500XR uses the Trent 772AE (for Advanced Engine) with a range of 7,600 nautical miles, and the L-1022-600 uses the Trent 776AE with a range of 6,750 nautical miles. Delta Airlines has some 95 L-1022-500/600 models in service, flying all over the world.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

That would be a shame, it was known a flag ship aircraft of the Commonwealth, the RAF, RCAF and RAAF all flew it as a transport, and tanker.

In the case of the RAF I half remember reading somewhere that the RAF order for 72 Tristars (that is 42 transport versions to replace the Britannia, Comet 4 and VC10 and 30 tankers to replace the Victor K.1) in 1971 as an indirect subsidy to Rolls Royce played a vital part in the aircraft's victory in the sales battle with the DC-10.

Is that correct?

 

[Tales Weaver]

That was what got DOuglas being bought by boeing.