Dc-10 Vs L-1011

Ok with all the negative BS going on in the other topics I would like to start a 'healthy" debate on two (2) great aircraft that served AA/TWA for decades. Now as a flight attendant and my life long love for this industry I asked many a question to fellow f/a's,pilots,and mechanics about the AA DC-10(which to date is still my favorite a/c to have worked) and ex-Eastern crewmembers about the L-1011. I have read in several sources that AA had every intention of going with the L-1011 in fact I was told by a now retired DC-10 capt. that AA had been one of if not to be the launch customer of the L-10 and AA had alot to do with the cockpit design and layout. The delayes and cost overruns with the L-1011 and United's DC-10 advantage helped AA at the last minute go over to MD and the DC-10(along with the $$$ that Douglas offered in incentives). Growing up in ATL I had the op.to fly on DL L-1011 and EA L-1011 but in June of 1986 my first time on TWA I flew from ATL-STL-SFO.It was June 9th to be exact 1986. The ATL-STL was on a 727-100 and I sat at the window right parrallel w/the galley door (so I can;t remeber the row-hehe) but the STL-SFO was on a L-1011. It was a very nice flight. I remember a "service call" over the PA by the FSM to another crewmember for help w/boxes. How odd what we remember . Now fast forward 17yrs and here we are.
If you are a retired AA/TW pilot and flew the DC-10 or L-1011 or a mechanic or technician w/AA-TW even Lockheed or McD. and even f/a's what would be your a/c of choice? Please no bashing of airlines or aircraft makers (CEO's are fair game however.)
The more the better.
Thanks
SB.
 
:p A little trivia for you! Did you know? That both the DC-10, and the L-1011 were originally designed as 'TWO ENGINE aircraft'? But changed their minds because FAA wanted at least three engines to fly over water! {Pre-ETOPS!} To accomodated the thrid engine, Lockeed paid Boing to used a modified verson of the 727 "S" duct, which Boeing had rights to, putting it's thrid Engine on the same level as the pass. comp. Dougles, refused to do so , opting to put it's third engine high above on the vertical stab!
 
Also, they needed three engines to have enough power to take off from LGA if I remember correctly.


Let's see, just off the top of my head:

AA DC-10 engine fell off during takeoff
UA DC-10 engine #2 fan blade decided to fly off the handle
CO DC-10 dropped a part on the runway, dooming the Concorde

L-1011 ... can't think of any (DL L-1011 crash at DFW was weather)

I would have to vote for L-1011.
 
As a retired L-1011 Captain I cannot compare because I only rode as a passenger on one DC-10 flight ORD - DTW on AA. It was OK but for the Captain who was on the PA nearly every minute. He loved to be on stage and made the most of telling us about his home life and how his wife made him wash dishes at home. That is why he loved to fly. Most of us just wanted to go up front and tell him to SHUT UP!
I was living in ORD when the engine came off one of AA's DC-10s. I remember even before the crash how we had been comparing hydraulic systems between the DC-10 and L-1011. The 1011 provided 4 systems and better back up. The L-1011 certainly had a better auto pilot too. One could have great confidence landing it in zero-zero.
Later I flew the Gulf Air L-1011s that had the bigger engines and improved electronics. Must say I loved the 1011 even better than the whale - 747.
 
If I recall correctly, the L-1011 was ahead of its time. It had direct lift control, which kept the pitch constant on approach regardless of conditions. It had a more sophisticated auto pilot, higher cruise speed, and more redundancies in systems, especially hydraulics. I also believe it was one of the first modern airliners to certify for Cat III and complete autoland.

One of the main causes of the 1979 crash in Chicago was that when the engine came off, the hydraulic lines to the slats came open, and the loss of pressure allowed the slats to retract, causing that wing to stall. I have read in many places that had a similar scenario happened with the L-1011 there would have been no crash.

In contrast, it appears that corners were cut in the DC-10.

As a passenger, however, I much preferred the L-1011.

Just my 2c.
 
Growing up in CMH I remember the days when the TW L1011's used to come in. When headed to Florida for spring break we always connected in ATL and would usually ride on a DL or EA L-1011 from ATL to FLL. It wasn't until I worked for AA that I had even been on a DC-10 or MD-11. I would have to vote for the L1011.
 
It is not a fair point to make about the DC-10 engines coming off and blaming MDC. The AA DC-10 incident was due to Maintenance short cuts, not the design of the aircraft.

The UA Sioux City incident was an oversight in the manufacturing process of the GE engine fan disc that really nobody would have ever suspected to cause a catastrophic failure.

The CO part that fell off was a part of the Thrust reverser cowling from the engine.

True, the DC-10 was originally designed as a two engine aircraft, but in the early days of large turbo-fan engines there was not enough thrust to safely execute a go around right after take off at max takeoff weight. This probably held true for the
L-1011 as well.

One can argue all day about one or the other being better. I never worked the
L-1011, but worked with many guys that did. To me it sounded like a great aircraft.
Four hydraulic systems, better auto pilot system and I was told that the APU change was much easier to do than the DC-10.

I have flown on the L-1011 3 times. Once on Delta and twice on TWA. I have one memorable experience. I had a window seat on a flight from LAX to JFK on a morning departure. Looking out the window just after pushback, the number three engine started and then all of a sudden the right wing and engine dissappeared from sight. It was so full of smoke out there from the engine start. Later on I found out that the RB-211's were notorious for blowing oil on cold engine starts.
Aviation, you got to love it :D
 
Can't offer a comparisson as I never was on a DC-10. However, I loved the L1011, even with all of it's quirks; and quirks it had. Multiplexers, anyone?

One thing the L1011 did have was huge cockpit windows. The night sky views were incredible on clear nights. One night, we're going PBI-LGA and NASA is going to do a night time shuttle launch. I parked myself up in the pit and watched the whole thing; from the air. We could see the engines light up, fire, launch and fly. And because we were so high, and the windows were so big, I watched that shuttle go into space. It was the coolest thing.

TransWorldFirst
 
There were several L1011 hull losses, including TW at JFK, DL at DFW, and EA just west of MIA in the Everglades. Don't recall what caused TW at JFK, DFW was wind shear, and the EA loss was due to a burned out gear indicator lightbulb (Crew got distracted and didn't realise the aircraft was descending too fast).

But I'll disagree that the engines were the big problem. The cargo door was. That's what caused the THY accident at ORY and the incident with AA over Windsor, ON.

If anything, the DC10's ability to remain airborne in both the UA Sioux City and AA DTW/Windsor, ON incidents is just as much a credit of its design. Both aircraft sustained heavy damage and managed to land. Likewise, a NA DC10 had an uncontained failure on #3, and managed to land safely in either ABQ or ROW.

Inside, the two were identical to me....

As for the third engine, AA was happy with two engines even in 1971. IIRC it was UA, TW and/or EA who insisted on three, not the FAA.
 
My honeymoon was delayed because of a TWA L-1011. The doors were frozen shut in an ice storm in January at IAD (never get married in the winter). The next day the plane made up for it, however, being the only plane able to land in the fog in Europe.

I don't think there's much doubt that enthusiasts and engineers like the L1011; beancounters and stockholders like the DC10.
 
JS said:
Also, they needed three engines to have enough power to take off from LGA if I remember correctly.


Let's see, just off the top of my head:

AA DC-10 engine fell off during takeoff
UA DC-10 engine #2 fan blade decided to fly off the handle
CO DC-10 dropped a part on the runway, dooming the Concorde

L-1011 ... can't think of any (DL L-1011 crash at DFW was weather)

I would have to vote for L-1011.
"AA DC-10 engine fell off during takeoff'

Wasn't his name "Forklift Joe"?
At the time head of M&E @ American and now head of thriving robust LCC HDQ'd in MCO and hubed out of ATL?
 
Point of interest. Current CEO of AIRTRAN, Joe Leonard, was the VP of M&E at American who approved the procedure of removing the pylon with the engine to save a little time. His ass was never on the hot seat as were the mechanics who changed that engine and were subsequently called murderers by the victim's families! Big Joe did such a good job at AA, he later on moved up to Eastern Airlines as a henchman for Frank Lorenzo!
 
I'll never forget being 23 and waiting for the Q-10 across from Hanger 12 at JFK and seeing a twa L10 take off at night for some European destination with the big logo lit up on the tail, my true idea of glamour. My first observation flight was on an L10 from JFK to LAX. There were 5 of us working first class (2 trainees) I had my first taste of caviar, pretty exciting stuff for a kid from a small town. I've never been on a DC-10 but I always thought the L10 look so much sleeker.
 
1AA said:
It is not a fair point to make about the DC-10 engines coming off and blaming MDC. The AA DC-10 incident was due to Maintenance short cuts, not the design of the aircraft.

The UA Sioux City incident was an oversight in the manufacturing process of the GE engine fan disc that really nobody would have ever suspected to cause a catastrophic failure.
While the maintenance procedure of removing the engine and pylon together ultimately cause bolts to fail, it was the loss of hydraulic pressure which caused the slats to retract and stall the wing. I've been told that that couldn't happen on the 1011 because of locks which would have prevented the slats from retracting. Someone knowledgeable please correct me if I'm wrong here.

Both the AA Windsor incident and the Turkish Orly incident were caused by a cargo door blowing off and the pressure collapsing the floor, which contained the hydraulic lines, causing a loss of control. I've been told hydraulic lines on the 1011 run through the ceiling, and a floor collapse couldn't cause that.

It was not so much the engine failure at Sioux City as it was the fact that the hydraulic lines ran right next to each other and could be severed as the fan separated that caused the control problems that led to the crash. Again, I've been told (I'm neither a mechanic nor a transport category aircraft pilot) that hydraulic lines in the 1011 are deliberately widely separated with just such a scenario in mind.

So I think much of the cause of those accidents CAN be attributed to the design of the DC10.

MK
 
Former ModerAAtor said:
There were several L1011 hull losses, including TW at JFK, DL at DFW, and EA just west of MIA in the Everglades. Don't recall what caused TW at JFK
TWA at JFK was an aborted takeoff immediately after liftoff. The aircraft veered left to avoid a blast fence at the end of the runway. There was a fire which ultimately destroyed the aircraft, but to the flight attendants' credit there were no fatalities or serious injuries. I'll leave it to someone else to explain exactly why the takeoff was aborted.

TWA also suffered a hull loss of a brand new 1011 in BOS in 1972. The aircraft burned at the gate early in the morning with no one on board. Some called the fire "mysterious," but again I won't speculate there.

A Saudi 1011 burned on the ground as it taxied in, killing 300 people. I heard none of the doors would open due to cabin pressure or the crush of people against them (sounds unlikely to me).

I think that about wraps it up for the 1011. None of the accidents were due to glaring design flaws.

My vote goes to the L1011.

MK