Talk:Lockheed L-1011 TriStar

Advanced L-1011?

Here's a small scan from a personal Lockheed employee notepad, from a letter I recently received. File:Advanced_L-1011_Tristar_procurement_logo.jpg I don't know if Advanced refers to the aircraft or if this was the logo for the Advanced procurement group or team - working in advance of start of production to source components. Perhaps some retired Lockheed employees know about this, especially if other groups had their own logos or just had their name in place of Procurement in this logo. I think it would be a good addition to the article to illustrate how Lockheed's development process operated for this aircraft. Bizzybody (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC) I worked for Lockheed in the 1970's as a Flight Engineer instructor and I don't recall this story at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphF1011 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Tristar project was similar in its history to the British Bristol Britannia. Both were were government-controlled projects that could have delivered first class aircraft with just a little bit more competent engineering. The Britannia should have delivered jet performance and range in the mid 1950s, while the L1011 should have been the first plane in the 70s with 1990s avionics and engines. The RB211 were very low maintenance engines, and had a big jump in quietness and fuel efficiency. P&W an GE beat RR in fuel efficiency by 1980, but to this day RR still have the most reliable engines.203.220.104.163 (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Operators

It appears to me that the list of operators are those still in passenger operation. The only L-1011s I see are all in freight operation. I see one of two every day at the UPS Terminal at the DFW Airport. UPS likes L-1011s and 747-400s for freight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdcole (talk • contribs) 03:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It appears only one TriStar is operational in 2015, please provide a reliable and up to date source before adding any others. MilborneOne (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

All of my refrences were perfect, I am not sure why they were reverted. airfleets.net provides up to date information on production lists for the aircraft, and with all due respect, I feel like my you did not even read my refrences. Also, you know as well as I do that there is more than one tristar that is still in operation, so I am not sure why you lied on a Wikipedia page. I am sorry if I come across as rude as that is not my intention, but I do not like it when perfectly good refrences are reverted.--AirportExpert (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)AirportExpert

Your primary source seems to be airfleets.net, which probably does not qualify as a reliable source. I'm unable to verify even the existence of some of the supposed operators, let alone that the aircraft in question are actually still in service. Remember, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we only report what someone else has published elsewhere - and blogs are explicitly not considered reliable sources. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources User:AirportExpert is using do not appear to be reliable - for example Rollins Air Honduras appears to have closed in 2012 [1].Nigel Ish (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• When sources conflict (as they often do) we decide which is more reliable. In this case it looks like you were using an unreliable source, AirportExpert. --John (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I concur with the opinion that airfleets.net is not a reliable enough source for the purpose of citing from. Kyteto (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The "Tristar History and Preservation Inc." one seems to be legit (having found out about it from elsewhere before coming here again) - apparently flyable now, but I'm not sure it's classable as "in service"... Reedy (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Operational History/Commercial

The opening sentence says: Prototype first flew on November 17,1970. The infobox on the right says November 16, 1970. On 5/30/2017 at 23:25 I changed that to November 16 but was changed back to November 17. It has to be one or the other, but the book Chronicle of Aviation said it was November 16, 1970. I cant find anything on the web to verify this.2601:581:8501:870E:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft on display

There's an L-1011 on display at the Chang Chui market in Bangkok. The aircraft has been integrated into the surroundings. No idea about its lineage. Follow link for pics.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-0vk06zahiFYkZXNENYaUtKWVU

27.145.131.178 (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Christopher Caillavet

Three flood-damaged TriStars at Don Mueang Airport in 2011 are all on display! (as of 2018)

• HS-AXE, unflyable body on display at the Chang Chui Market in Bangkok.
• HS-AXA, unflyable body on display at Airplane Flea Market, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.
• N388LS, unflyable body on display at Chic Chic Market, Nong Khai, Thailand.

--Love Krittaya (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion for edit ... contradictory terms used in same sentence.

Hello everybody:

The following description of the rear engine intake uses contradictory terms, radius and diameter. Is it radius or diameter? It can't be both. " ... by limiting the curve of the S-duct to less than a quarter of the radius of the engine intake diameter."

Regards, Brad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradross63 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

249 or 250?

Lede and Infobox say that 250 L-1011s were built, Deliveries section says 249.

None of them have a reference. Anybody know which number is correct?

Regards Zin92 (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably both. Many times the first aircraft built is only used for testing and not delivered to a customer. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The prototype N1011 was never delivered to a customer and was used by Lockheed. MilborneOne (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction of passenger capacity

The paragraph on the L1011-500 states "The TriStar 500's maximum passenger capacity is 315, although no aircraft were operated with that number of seats." However in the notable accidents paragraph it states 12 of the 412 persons (14 crew 398 passengers) onboard were injured in a runway excursion.

As the number of persons on board is legal matter of record should the contradictory paragraph be amended or removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.49.71 (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

References

G-BBAI was not the smaller series 500. MilborneOne (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Add more Aircraft that are Comparable with the Lockheed L-1011 Tristar

Hello, is it okay that I add in the Airbus A330 and Airbus A340 as comparable aircraft to the Lockheed L-1011 Tristar? I planned on doing so, but want to get approval before making that change. Why can't I edit Userpedia? (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you read and understand the relevant text with this template? -Fnlayson (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I have read the template, but I can't seem to understand the text. What does the text mean? Why can't I edit Userpedia? (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Bu no means are the A330 or A340 of "comparable era" to the DC-10 - do not add them to the See also field.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Tense

The caption of today's Picture of the Day says that the Stargazer launch vehicle is "is the only L-1011 airframe still airworthy." Should this article be in the past tense? The L-1011, sweet though it was, is no longer "an American medium-to-long-range, wide-body trijet airliner"; it's a former airliner if no airlines use it. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Usually if the aircraft still exists then present tense ("is") applies. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Why did the unregistered user add the McDonnell Douglas DC-10?

This is clear vandalism. That unregistered user added the DC-10 because it looked similar to the TriStar. But there was naming similarities. So why did he/she do it? Please do not link any articles without naming similarities in the template banner. BuddyHeigh (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I would not go so far as to say that it was bad faith vandalism. Believing Template:Distinguish can be used to link to similar topics is an understandable mistake. However, I as well as Sjö have tried to explain that this is not the proper way to use this template, but the IP has continued to make similar edits. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)