Jump to content

Talk:Lockheed L-1011 TriStar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

McDonnell / Douglas Merger

This page asserts that the DC-10 / L-1011 rivalry led to the McDonnell and Douglas merger; the DC-10 page says that design was a product of the merger. Who's right? Everything I try to find about the McDonnell Douglas merger turns up stuff about their merger with Boeing in the 90's. Johndodd 04:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Douglas merged with McDonnell in April 1967. As soon as I have my sources lined up, I will work on changing references in the article. --BillCJ 21:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The design work on the DC-10 began the same year as their merger. There could not have been a DC-10/L-1011 rivalry at that time. The extra resources from the merger surely helped. -Fnlayson 16:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

Who wrote this? Reedy Boy 15:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The Lockheed L-1011 TriStar was hands-down the finest civilian airliner of the 1970's and 1980's, and really wasn't surpassed until Boeing unveiled the 777 almost 20 years after the TriStar took to the air. Most of the world's TriStar fleet has been retired because these aircraft are now uneconomic to operate, not because they are unsafe or too old.
Although the accompanying Wikipedia article gives a good overview of the L-1011, it omits the fact that the L-1011's flight control systems were among the most advanced in any civilian aircraft for almost a decade. For example, the L-1011 had the first Autoland capability, allowing for safe landings in "zero-zero" conditions that kept DC-10's and 747's circling for clearer weather. It is no coincidence that Delta Airlines, during its heyday of TriStar operations, was also one of the most "on-time" airlines in the world. Also, the L-1011's Direct Lift Control (DLC) active aileron system allowed the TriStar to literally float down to the runway in a level attitude, rather than require constant nose-up or nose-down maneuvers. Further, the larger rudder of the L-1011 gave it better manueverability and control as compared to the DC-10.
The few TriStar disasters on record demonstrate the safety of the aircraft. The first crash, Eastern 401 in 1972, was due to the crew being distracted. Although the aircraft literally flew itself into the Florida Everglades, there were still numerous survivors due to the TriStar's substantial structure. Similarly, the Delta 191 crash in Dallas in 1985 was the result of windshear, and although the crash was rated "unsurvivable," the TriStar's stout structure again allowed for numerous survivors. Very few incidents occurred which could be attributable to the aircraft design or manufacture itself.
It is unfortunate to see so many TriStar's now being stored in desert resting places or dismantled for parts. I have enjoyed many smooth rides on Delta and Eastern TriStars, and regret to see such a venerable aircraft "put out to pasture" not because they have exceeded their operational life, but because they are too expensive to operate in the increasingly cut-throat airline industry.

Title change

The title of this thread should say "Lockheed L-1011 Tristar" instead. Supercool Dude 01:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The RAF now only operate 3 tri-stars. Red7 22:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The RAF operate 9 tri-stars 4 KC1's, 2 K1's, 2 C2's and 1 C2A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.228.228 (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Metrication

This article needs metrication.--Arado 15:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done that. I suppose that was the reason for the cleanup tag, but I'm leaving the tag there for now because the article lacks continuity. It is also unclear at times. I'll see what I can do to fix that. Willy Logan 23:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Erroneous

The link to the image "An L-1011 formerly flying for Pan Am awaits her fate" is incorrect. The airplane in the image is a Boeing 727 as evidenced by the lack of engine mounts on the wings and the engine mounts on the aft end of the aircraft. I couldn't figure out how to remove the link, so maybe somebody else can fix it.

"Aircraft" vs "Airplane"

Someone changed the remaining occurrences of "airplane" to "aircraft". While I don't mind the one in the Accidents section (and I removed the second because it was redundant), the replacement of "airplane" by "aircraft" in the context of Lockheed promoting the relative safety of the Tristar is a bit odd. "Aircraft" is a generic term for any air-going vehicle, be it a blimp, a balloon, a helicopter, an airplane, a rocket, etc. When Lockheed promoted the Tristar as being one of the "safest airplanes in the world", that's exactly what they meant. (Furthermore, they were comparing it largely to other Transport-category airplanes, and specifically to the DC-10, also an airplane.) For that reason, I've put this mention back to "airplane", as there is a subtle but important distinction.--chris.lawson 23:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree. Someone was really being weak-minded and imprecise. An airplane is an airplane, but aircraft is a much less-specific term that does include Zeppelins, airships, helicopters, etc. I really frown on the use of less-precise words when precise ones are available. For the life of me, I cannot understand those who used "person" when either "man" or "woman" is available.
"Man" is also a shorter word, and in lots of uses, "man" means "human being", and not necessarily one of the male sex. For example, an "airman" is either a man or a woman, and also, "airman" is a perfectly-valid rank for an enlisted man or woman in the USAF. Women's basketball teams also play a man-to-man defense whenever they want to.

Citing "never been a crash... due to mechanical failure"

I put a fact tag back on "There has never been a crash of an L-1011 due to mechanical failure" because it really needs one. The guidlines indicate that "Attribution is especially needed for... information that is contentious or likely to be challenged, and superlatives and absolutes...". Perhaps a link to a database would suffice, but some kind of support is definitely needed for such a claim. ENeville 19:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem, as I identified when I removed the tag, is that you're unlikely ever to find a single source that supports this claim. What are we going to use as a ref, the entire NTSB database? I mean, I can list all 40-some accidents on record there, but that makes for a rather unwieldy reference :-p (I totally agree that something like this would be cited in an ideal world, but I'm a realist, too.)--chris.lawson 00:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I hear ya. I guess just a link to the database would suffice for me. Now I suppose the whole trivia section will get 86'd. :-P ENeville 16:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Operator Table

Hey, After it being added and just double spaces between it, i thought wiki tabling it would be best

I can perfectly see what you mean about there not being the correct place

How about a section after deliveries?

Reedy Boy 19:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Where it was certainly wasn't the right place for it, though. (And apologies for not catching that sooner.)--chris.lawson 00:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Enhanced TriStars

Royal Air Force Lockheed TriStar some of which for years covered the air bridge to the Falkland Islands will be undergoing flight management and communications systems improvements following the award of a £22 million contract to Marshall of Cambridge Aerospace.

See: http://www.mercopress.com/Detalle.asp?NUM=9148 81.86.144.210 21:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding verification

Back in lare 1968 or early 1969 (I can't recall which), I sat in on a meeting of the Equipment Selection Board of American Airlines in the Boardroom in Manhattan during a presentation to CR Smith by my father on the merits of the L1011 and DC-10. The consensus in a show of hands was that the 1011 was preferred over the DC-10 in all areas other than the lack of an engine choice. CR even said that "I don't mind having no choice of engine if it's a Pratt but I'll be damned if we get stuck with another Rolls after the 400". There was a lot of heated discussion, much of it focusing on the fact the DC-7 had been a dog and how CR (and my dad) were not predisposed to go back to Douglas. CR in admitted to the fact had a bias towards Lockheed, since they handled the LEAP program supporting the Electra as well as they did, despite long odds and mentioned that's how a manufacturer looks after a client, so perhaps it was American's turn to support the manufacturer. The fact Lockheed was contractually bound to the RB211 was stated by a guy from corporate legal when the question was raised about getting a L1011 with GE or Pratt & Whitney power.

I entered the meat of this in the L1011 section (after conferring with my Brother who was also there) to make sure I recalled things correctly, but now it's been exorcised. I assume that's because of a lack of verification. In this case, what suffices as sufficient verification? The only thing I have as a physical manifestation of the meeting is a Topping model of an early configuration L1011 in the American lightning stripe with meatball 'Astrojet' colour scheme, and I have to admit as a 16-year-old I wasn't taking notes or minutes of the meeting.

The comment from the bloke who wrote the Lockheed book stating that American had decided on the DC-10 and was only talking with Lockheed to get MDD to drop the price sure comes off as biased and cynical to a high degree. But hey, since it's in print it must be true, right? American took aircraft selection very seriously, and was - under CR, at any rather - far more interested in getting the right plane (and paying a frag more for it) than the right price on the wrong plane. What I saw that day would have placed L1011s and not DC-10s in American's fleet.

So is this just useless information I've been storing all these years? Bwob 02:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can publish an article somewhere else, then this information will be worthy for Wikipedia. There's a strict "no original research" rule here--if the information cannot be found in a printed or electronic source somewhere, it isn't included. - Sekicho 02:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is in no way "research", and I don't see why at all anyone would believe that it was. This is a man's personal memories of a real event - in other words, it comes "straight from the horse's mouth". So, don't pull that "original research" baloney out. For example, when someone writes an autobiography, that isn't research, but when someone writes someone else's biography, that takes a lot of research. Let me say again: one's own recollections is not research. They are Well-Worth writing down, and I encourage people to do it. DAW

PSA lower deck seating

PSA (defunct US carrier acquired by US Airways) took deliveryu of 2 L-1011-1 with lower deck seating. The lower deck is potentially less safe if the landing gear fails. For this reason, strakes were added to the front lower fuselage for structural reasons (act as skates). See photo at http://www.psa-history.org/hangar/l10.php I'm looking for a reference about the strakes. Archtrain 16:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Replacement of photo in infobox?

The photos in the article are interesting (RAF and OSC). However, both photos are of unusual variants. Anyone have a photo of a L-1011 Tristar in a passenger configuration, preferably of an airline that operated several L-1011s for many years (Pan Am, Royal Jordanian, ANA, TWA, Delta, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Gulf Air, etc.) Archtrain 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Commons page? There are 5 airliner pics there, so take your pic. THey may not be the best ones, but it's a start. - BillCJ 18:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Infobox image has been switched. There was only 1 flight airliner image on the Commons page. I used a different Stargazer image with it releasing the rocket too. Good idea Bill. -Fnlayson 21:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Commonly referred to as just L-1011"

Is it? Was it? My recollection is that is was commonly referred to as "TriStar." Perhaps it depends whether you're talking about passengers or airlines referring to it. Any thoughts? ... richi 14:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Just an impression I have - but isn't it also a geographic issue? L-1011 being the common usage in the U.S. and Tristar being common in the UK. Not sure which camp the ROW falls into. Mark83 14:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've always heard it called L-1011. Probably a US think there, like Mark83 says. But I think it is common enough to make that statement true. It doesn't say "most commonly called.." -Fnlayson 16:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I reckon in my native Derby (where the engines were made) they called it Tristar... (or, when RR went down, 'probably the heaviest glider ever made'...  :-()) Bob aka Linuxlad 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Lockheed failure up front?

I think it would be appropriate to briefly mention in the opening paragraph that the failure of the L-1011 to sell enough caused Lockheed to abandon the commercial market. This is mentioned later, but I think it is a significant fact that warrants higher attention in the article. Any objections? Mlouns 16:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It's generally better to present things in chronologically. I think the Design and development section is laid out fine. Do you mean add something in the lead? -Fnlayson 16:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I mean -- mentioning it in the lead paragraph. Mlouns 17:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:LEAD says "Next to establishing context, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" -- The lead does not do that at present and the fact that Lockheed quit civil aircraft as a result of this aircraft is entirely worthy of mention. Good catch. Mark83 21:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added a sentence on this and used reference from later mention. Reword/rework if needed. I don't think sales of 250 planes is poor by itself, only poor relative to what their target (500+). -Fnlayson 21:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For a European manufactuer (at this time), 250 would have been excellent! I suppose the real significance is the comparison with Lockheed's U.S. competitors. Mark83 22:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears to not be the raw number of sales so much (which I agree is decent) as that number compared to what was needed to be profitable. Compared to the dollars of R&D investment, the sales were low enough to scare Lockheed out of commercial sales forever. Mlouns 22:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

ATA

Maybe note that ATA's L-1011s will be superseded by the DC-10s it has picked up after they were retired by Northwest? Dan 13:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Plans, designs, and number of engines

I intended to explain on the talk page the nature of yesterday's edit but I lost power and had to shut down in a hurry, so sorry for the confusion. The original wording went like this: "The aircraft was originally conceived as a design having two engines but such plans were abandoned in favor of a third engine." The problem here is that plans aren't abandoned in favor of engines; they're abandoned in favor of other plans. My edit sought to correct that. The source cited doesn't indicate whether the plans were modified or completely abandoned, with new plans drawn up in their stead, but the latter seemed extraordinarily unlikely. In any case, the source didn't support the previous wording any more than it supported the new wording in the first of my two edits. It did, however, support the wording in my second edit (as I would have made clear if I'd had the chance, and as anyone who bothered to check the source would have seen); it is, as BillCJ asked in his edit summary, what the source said (although intentionally not verbatim). Anyway, Father Goose's most recent edit seems fine, too—just closer to verbatim than I was comfortable with. Rivertorch (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that plans are not replaced with engines! Plans are replaced with other plans, or designs are replaced by other designs. Lots of times, two or more designs are created in parallel with each othher, and so, the whole word "abandoned" can be abandoned!
It is good to see that someone wants to used logical language, rather than just writing down words willy-nilly, as is seen in so, so many Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.44.249 (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

L-1011 Operators

Living in South-East Asia, I don't ever recall Cathay Pacific operating L1011s. They have 747s, 777s, A330s, A340s, and that's about it (Exceptions for the cargo aircraft, i'm not sure about those.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11ngsp1 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific did operate Tristars - an internet search will find info and images [[1]]. They were retired about ten years ago. MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Primary users

Should the former primary users be lised in the airline infobox? Other major aircraft (Boeing 707,Douglas DC-3, Douglas DC-6 and every other retired aircraft that I can find) no longer have current primary users do not have that section in the infobox while the L-1011 does.

WOuld there be a way to note that those users are former primary users and haven't used the L-1011 in years. Spikydan1 (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to list the major historical users of aircraft no longer in primary service. It's the norm on military aircraft articles. We should probably take this up at WT:AIR, as this issue will affect more than just this article. There is probably a way to note that these are historical users, but it would probably need to be done to the template coding. THere are editors in the WPAIR project that maintain the template, and they may have some ideas on how to accomplish this, with or without changing the template. Btw, the tempate is a standard one for aircraft, not just airliners. Also, it's usually best to leave the template fields in place, and just remove the text to the right of the equal sign. - BillCJ (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Not sure where the retired bit came from as the aircraft is still in-service it is normal to list the current users, when the type is withdrawn it would then change to the largest ever operators, is Tristar a special case? MilborneOne (talk) 11:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean "retired"...I meant with just a few in service and no major operator...no one has more than a few of them in their fleets (Just like the aircraft I listed in my first comment). Spikydan1 (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on what MilborneOne wrote, should we remove the primary users section until the L1011 is pulled from service to follow the format of other aircraft that are still in service? Spikydan1 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • For now, I've added historical in small text after the former users listed in the Infobox. There needs to be something so passerbys can understand why fomer operators are listed. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

May 27, 1985 incident

The description "The crash resulted from the aircraft landing just past the old runway threshold, which was a different color from the recently laid extension to the runway." seems very different to the official AAIB report here : http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/2_1987_g_bbai.cfm which attributes the accident to a lack of braking effect on the wet runway. The "serious damage" claim also seems a bit strong, the report mentions some damage around the collapsed nosewheel and engines. Jamesripon (talk) 14:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right and the aircraft was not seriously damaged and nobody was hurt, I would suggest that it could be deleted as being non-notable rather than re-writing it. MilborneOne (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I would agree, deletion seems sensible. Jamesripon (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Going through the images available to use on the Commons, I found a picture of the prototype L-1011 in Lockheed's horribly ugly orange/white paint scheme. Though I wish it were more aesthetically pleasing, the infobox image really should be of the plane in its manufacturer's colors so I moved the ATA photo into the text. Anynobody(?) 04:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not an accepted standard for infobox pics. Generally the only requirement is that it be one of the best photos of the type, preferably in flight. Very few prototype photos exist anyway. - BillCJ (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Colorful image. Shows the center engine area well also. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree it's a good image to have, but I didn't catch that it was not elsewhere in the article before (and it may well have been in the article some time ago, IIRC.) Thanks for adding it in, Jeff. - BillCJ (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Airstair

From the variants section: "(The L1011-1) variant was also the only wide-body ever to have the option for a full-height built-in airstair incorporated into the design, although it remained an option on other variants."

I did add a {{Clarify}} and I still don't understand this. How can the -1 be the only variant with an airstair option if that option was available on other variants as well?

I can think of two different things the author may have had in mind: a) the -1s all had airstairs. It's confusing (at least to me) to call that an option, or b) they were on offer all the time but only -1s were actually ordered with an airstair. I think that should be spelled out as well. --ospalh (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, I missed the contradiction before. I removed the last part "although it remained an option on other variants" for the reasons you state. I don't have books with enough detail on the L-1011 to mention airstairs on -1. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I subsequently modified this posting. I know for a fact that the Tristar is not the only wide-body that had the option for built-in airstairs. The Russian Ilyushin IL-86 has built-in airstairs incorporated into the design. It's one of the most prominent features of the aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-86 Maryland Pride ... a Wikipedia contributor (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The wording now says "one of the few widebodies..". That seems pretty fair and reasonable. -fnlayson (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Through most of the TriStar's history the Soviet Union was not a signatory to the relevant international airworthiness agreements and so in effect Russian civil airliners were not certificated for use in Western countries. This is one of the reasons that few western airlines bought Russian-built aeroplanes in the 1950s-1980s. So, the claim about the airstairs was probably valid when the TriStar entered service and served throughout the 1970s and 1980s. I can't remember the first Russian airliner built to comply with Western airworthiness requirements, but IIRC, it was introduced into service as late as the mid-1980s.
Soviet-built airliners were able to be operated to Western airports from the Eastern Bloc countries, but to base and operate a commercial aeroplane in a Western country required it to be certificated to the required Western civil aviation standards. Being based solely in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Bloc airlines were exempt and allowed to operate to western airports without the relevant certification, whereas if they had been based in Western Europe they would have needed to be certified by Western civil aviation authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Overhaul complete

My overhaul of this page is now complete. As ever, those interested in aviation history and ensuring technical accuracy should appreciate this; references have been more than doubled, as well as reformatted for greater detail. Hope it proves interesting. Kyteto (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

'Below target sales'

I have just read the source given to suggest this. The article makes very interesting reading and is certainly very insightful. It is fairly critical of the TriStar programme but I doesn't say explicitly that sales were 'below average'. It does however suggest the following.

  • Lockheeds trouble with the bankruptcy of Rolls Royce and then the nationalised Rolls Royce being doubtful over Lockheeds viability.
  • Lockheed being troubled by high production costs.
  • Lockheed and MacDonell Douglas not being able to compete effectively with Boeing and losing ground to Airbus.

Personally I think the article misses the largest nail in the coffin for the TriStar, that being the switch to more efficient twin-engine wide-body aircraft like the A300 and the 767, although in 1981 it may not have yet seen this coming.

Break-even sales are very difficult for manufacturers to predict as the aircraft is developed years before production starts and production is intended for a very long time. Furthermore they are subject to changes in fortune with exchange-rates and commodity prices.

There is no suggestion of a target set by Lockheed and any number would be below their ideal. I'm fairly sure Boeing would have liked to have made more 737s and Airbus more A320s despite production being higher than anyone would have probably anticipated. The problems seems a little more complex than has been suggested (250, while not earth shattering is respectable).

Can anyone find anything more on this? I think it is a little unfair to write the project off as a failure with such an over simplistic explanation.

I would say that proportional to sales there are more of these in service than DC10s, early 747s or early A300s (but that is perhaps more my own observations). I remember flying on an early TriStar from Turkey in 1998 (at the time this seemed unusual, but there still seems to be a supprising number still in service with fringe airlines) - Incidently I saw a Hawker Siddley Trident which looked to be still operating at Faro Airport in August. Is my perception accurate or just chance? I don't know.

Digression aside, I think we need to elaborate on the commercial success (or lack-of) of the L1011 Trident. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Delays in developing longer range L-1011 versions hurt its sales. So its sales in the 1980s were slow. I don't believe the L-1011 got enough sales to meet its break even point. So its sales were below the company's target, not some 'average'. -fnlayson (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

We're all only guessing at a break-even point however. We don't actually know of one, certainly there is no such thing mentioned in the citation. We also don't know of any apparant target set by the company. Yes they would have estimated a break-even point and estimated potential sales but I'm not sure they would have set a definite target, certainly we do not know of one. If we are to make the claim that sales fell below the stated target we need to know exactly what this is. The source provided does not make this claim, however it does go on to build a far more complex argument than we do on this page. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Lockheed was already in financial trouble over the development of the C-5 that had been agreed as a fixed-price contract which the US government then went back on, reducing the number of C-5s required, which - along with inflation - created financial problems for Lockheed. The original contract had been agreed on the USAF ordering 58 C-5As and then an additional 57 C-5Bs. This 115 aircraft order was later reduced to just 81 aircraft causing serious financial problems for the company, as the aircraft were being produced at a loss. This resulted in court action between Lockheed and the USG, which was still on-going when RR went into receivership. "Perspective on TriStar"
Fixed-price contracts were later discredited, for reasons that will now appear obvious to anyone reading the article.
Incidentaly, the contract under which RR developed the RB211 was also a fixed-price one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Some more on the Lockheed response to RR's going into receivership in a 1971 Flight article here: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Test-flight incident

An aircraft engineer who worked at Lockheed Burbank in the 1970's told me that during development, an L-1011 lost the entire passenger cabin during a test flight. Supposedly it fell out of the airplane. Fortunately the crew were unaffected. The engineer is credible, but I am unable to find anything regarding this online. --Bobbozzo (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

How can the cabin/interior fall out without major hole in the fuselage? This is too unclear for me to believe. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Could be a failure similar to Aloha Airlines Flight 243 which was a Boeing 737. Bizzybody (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely, if it had been notable it would be in the public domain lost the entire passenger cabin out of context sounds like a pressurisation fault. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Would it have been reported and/or publicized? It was a test-flight during development, far before commercial sales. Bobbozzo (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Yup, it would have been widely reported. Aviation Week specialized in reporting trivia during development of aircraft. Certainly the incident as you describe it didn't happen - the passenger cabin is an integral part of the structure of the plane. It can't fall out without the plane disintegrating. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Pop culture reference

In the episode "How To Fire a Rifle Without Really Trying" of the series King of the Hill, Hank Hill incorrectly refers to a "McDonnell Douglas L-1011 wide-body". Notable enough for inclusion? I know it's a minor appearance, but it is mentioned by name and and is appears twice. --76.16.85.100 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lockheed_L-1011_TriStar/Archive_1&oldid=923171387"