The Worst Selling Commercial Airliners
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 чер 2024
- Hello again! :D
While many great commercial airliners have come and gone, each of which delivering a unique perspective on the concept of what design and technological features might be used to improve flight performance and passenger experience, most weren't guaranteed sales success, and failing to meet their financial break-even or proposed full production run.
As the success of models like the Boeing 737, Boeing 747, Airbus A320 and A330 has been well-documented, in this video we'll be looking at the losers, those models which, despite all their innovation, failed to make a return on investment and break-even, falling into obscurity while their competitors continue to thrive.
0:00 - Preamble
1:01 - Boeing 747SP
3:29 - Vickers VC10
6:20 - McDonnell Douglas MD-11
9:01 - Handley Page Dart Herald
10:41 - Boeing 737-600/Airbus A318
12:53 - Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
16:58 - Bristol Britannia
18:39 - Miles Marathon
20:09 - Boeing 737-900
21:40 - Boeing 747-300
23:29 - BAC/Aérospatiale Concorde
25:47 - Boeing 737-100
26:58 - Airbus A340-500
28:31 - Airbus A340-200
29:27 - Saunders ST-27
30:26 - Convair 880
31:54 - Dassault Mercure
33:20 - Convair 990 Coronado
34:49 - VFW/Fokker 614
36:00 - SNCASE S.E.2010 Armagnac
All video content and images in this production have been provided with permission wherever possible. While I endeavour to ensure that all accreditations properly name the original creator, some of my sources do not list them as they are usually provided by other, unrelated UA-camrs. Therefore, if I have mistakenly put the accreditation of 'Unknown', and you are aware of the original creator, please send me a personal message at my Gmail (this is more effective than comments as I am often unable to read all of them): rorymacveigh@gmail.com
The views and opinions expressed in this video are my personal appraisal and are not the views and opinions of any of these individuals or bodies who have kindly supplied me with footage and images.
If you enjoyed this video, why not leave a like, and consider subscribing for more great content coming soon.
Paypal: paypal.me/rorymacve?country.x...
Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/rorymacve
Thanks again, everyone, and enjoy! :D
References:
- Wikipedia (and its respective references) - Авто та транспорт
The L-1011 was the single smoothest plane I’ve ever experienced. Even to this day it still sets the bar for every trip I’ve made over the years. That plane felt like it was on velvet rails. And of course those RR engines were smooth too and they had a very unique sound.
@@srubberalittle
Far better than the DC-10
Totally agree. My first flight out of the US (JFK > Heathrow) was on an L-1011. Great plane & haven’t found one to surpass it.
I built some of the first L1011 aircraft. It was one of the best built airframes I’ve ever seen. The engines were part of its problems in the beginning.
To think the marvel of engineering that was the L1011 Tristar was outsold by the likes of the DC-10!? A plane so dangerous you didn't even need to be flying on it to be killed by it.
@@gerardcollins80
I'm sure the TriStar had a higher Price Tag than the POS DC-10
Seeing the L1011 on this list is such a shame.
An outstandingly well engineered and built aircraft that was hamstrung by issues beyond the designers control.
In those days they used to say "The ideal aircraft would be designed by Lockheed, built by Boeing - and marketed by McDonnell". Lockheed always had great designs.
Amen to that! It was built like a brick shit house but flew like a black hawk and also was the catalyst for a crazy story between a Japanese Porn Star and a Yakuza Don xD
@@KIXWASHERE two things:
1. The L-1011 was renowned for its comfort and ease of flying (pilots and passengers loved it)
2. Just because an insult is rare, doesn't mean it's good
@@severindupuche2232 It had horrible overhead storage space, even for those days!
It’s on this list because the DC10 was a thing and the market wasn’t big enough for two trijets
I once talked to an older Lockheed engineer who worked on the Tristar program. He said they were really proud of that airplane but the program was so screwed up it took Lockheed out of the airliner business completely. As a kid I flew on Delta Tristars a lot and my dad said the flight crews liked it a lot.
I flew on Delta's L-1011 to Boston. Plane was almost empty. That doesn't have now.
When Dad had to do a lot of travel with his Navy job in 1970s he said he found the Tristar the most comfortable airliner type to fly on.
The book, "Frequent Flyer" about Delta's ship 714 is quite good.
I had the fortune to be put onto a British Airtours Tristar in 1986 & it was the best aircraft I’ve flown on. Also the crew said it was there favourite plane to fly including the pilots said it handled so smooth and responsive that they all where gutted when it got taken out of service. The reason why I managed to get onto one as it was so much fog at Gatwick & only planes taking off was those lucky enough to be on DC10s Tristar’s as they could climb quickly. Awesome plane ✈️
I was cabin crew on the VC10 in the 1980's. A stunning piece of sculpture we were all very proud of. Aviation was interesting then. It's boring now as everything is predominantly Boeing or Airbus.
Such is the case with almost everything unfortunately...
What’s wrong with Boeing?
@@carlosarredondo3 Nothing necessarily. It's just that both Boeing and Airbus have a monopoly on the industry now.
@@madamebkrt Survival of the fittest?
@@seadog686 more Wall Steet and politics...
I used to always choose Delta for my long distance domestic travel needs back in the day _BECAUSE_ of the use of the Lockheed L1011! Much smoother flight than in the rickety-feeling DC-10s that the likes of American, Northwest, or United offered!
The L-1011 was one of the best airliners ever made. The DC-10 was a POS.
TWA used to fly L1011. I too loved that aircraft.
@@shrimpflea An infantile lack of objectivity is incompatible with rational evaluation, and it fundamentally invalidates any assessment (even that made at the simpleton level).
The book, "Frequent Flyer" about Delta's ship 714 is quite good.
As a total airline "Crash" documentary junkie I found this to be a fascinating watch. It brings a completely different set of facts into focus that are just not often covered. I liked everything about this. Well Done Ruairidh MacVeigh!! Just acquired a new subscriber.
you too paul? i hve watched every air crash episode . some more than once lol i have never even flown on a plane but i bet i know more about flying than 80% of people that fly lol do you have any favorite episodes? lol mine are british airways 5390 .... the tenerife disaster ... twa flight 800 ... british airways flight 9- st elmos fire
Soon as I saw the notification for this, I instantly thought (aside from: nearly 40 minutes, he's just spoiling us now): Dassault Mercure. In spite of it's woeful sales record, poor range and outdated powerplants, it's safety (not a single fatal incident/accident to it's name) and in-service reliabilty records (98%) are remarkable. One of my favourite 'underdog' commercial airliners.
As for the Soviet/Russian airliners, I think they're worthy of a video all their own; ones that spring to mind most readily for me are the Ilyushin Il-86 & Il-96.
@cailean Shields He's totally spoiling us. Thanks Ruairdh, I needed chearing up, this video was the perfect one :D
Me too. Thanks to Mustard.
There are so few produced that safety records are not particularly useful. Concorde was considered the safest aircraft in service, until one of them crashed.
There are more modern communist airliners like the MA60/MA600 and ARJ-21, but their main purpose is more about industrial learning than actual sales. However the Sukhoi Superjet IMO demands an episode.
And talking about Soviet airliners, the Tupolev Tu-204 also needs an episode.
@@Avantime Indeed. If a Mercure had crashed, it would have turned a flawless safety record into a terrible one.
Missing a few important ones here:
-de Havilland Comet;
-Hawker Siddeley Trident;
-757-300;
-767-400ER;
-MD-90;
-717
-Fokker 70;
-Dornier 328JET
And of course, the most recent examples: 747-8 and A380.
That's about enough for another video.
also A319neo
and saab-2000
And don't forget the VC9 Vanguard, only 42 built
I would disagree with the comet due to it being the first jetliner ever
And possibly quite soon the 777-8
What a difference it makes to have the narration delivered to a professional standard. Great work.
At time 33:50 you make a very wrong statement. The "fuel tanks" above the wings of the Convair 990 were NOT adding drag. They were added primarily to reduce transonic drag at the 990's Mach 0.9 cruising speed by preventing shock waves at the rear upper surface of the inner wing. They served also as fuel tanks for the first phase of flight (climb and initial cruise) They were called "anti shock bodies". Swissair, as one of the first customers, had their 990s in mainline use for 12 years.
Yes, Whitcomb fairings or Kuchemann Carrots. Used on some other planes too, once the "area rule" had been understood.
As worded, I understood the narration to say that they were added to.increase fuel capacity BUT they added drag (not stated but with your additional information I assume that referred to subsonic flight) so were only partially successful in solving the woeful range issue. That was what I took away from the script, so is it WRONG, or merely incomplete?
@@markdoldon8852 To state that those added "tanks" added drag is wrong. They were added to reduce transsonic drag (drag that is specific to the speed range of 0.87 to 0.95 Mach (87% to 95% of the speed of sound at the cruising level of the Convair 990) Those added structures at the rear top of the wings were really reducing that drag - once this was confirmed they were definitely introduced for the serial production and therefore also used (as a secondary funcion) as fuel tanks. It was NOT that first they were added as fuel tanks because the range of the CV990 was insufficient. And then it was realized that they added unwanted drag. That story is not true. They were first engineered and designed to REDUCE DRAG and were successful in that function and then were also used as additional fuel tanks. By the way the range of the CV990 was still insufficient with those additional fuel tanks. The plane was fuel-hungry because it was "overpowered" (the engine trust of the four engines in relation to the size and mass of the aircraft was much higher than on other early jet airliners, such as Boeing 707, DC-8, Caravelle)
@@sorgfaeltig I think you’re missing the question. I’m not doubting your knowledge and frankly don’t care one way or the other. However there is a big difference between the reason something was done and the reality of what it does. You worded it strange both times…
I flew on a Delta Con air 880 ,Tampa - Chicago in 68.what was the difference between 880-990?.I was 11 but I remember it was less than a 2 HR flight takeoff to landing.
As a lifelong airliner nut with a half-century of absorbing information about them under his belt, I highly approve of this list. Great work, Ruairidh!!
The 747SP was very popular on long haul routes. It was a great seller for what it was able to do. Qantas had a number of them and they are sadly missed.
They were also unique in using Rolls-Royce RB.211-524 engines. too.
In the movie Austin Power, he had a pink 747 SP.
Qantas had two 747SP. The 747-200 where to big to go to Wellington NZ, but the 747SP not. When Qantas got their SP's they could retire their 707's and became a 747 only airline.
They forgot to mention the 747-400ER that where only bought by Qantas, they bought 6.
No, it wasn't a 'great seller' at all. In a very niche market, it struggled. It was one of the last major projects that were airline driven, and only Boeing's relative market power and willingness to produce niche models at the specific request of their larger customers, plus the relative low development cost allowed it to come close to breaking even. At 3% of the total 747 builds, it was a mere curiosity rather than a real alternative to most airlines.
@@markdoldon8852 But yet, Boeing did build the 747SP because it used almost all the tooling used to build the 747-200, except for the new taller vertical tail. Its range at the time--6,600 nautical miles--was extraordinary in the late 1970's.
Really miss Eastern's love the L1011. Flew on it on a regular basis.
Flew on them several times with TWA. Really comfortable and quiet jets with plenty of room.
Delta used quite a few of the L1011s too back in the day! That's why I chose them for long distance, domestic air travel over UAL, AA, or NW, which all favored the DC-10s...
I flew on a few on Tristars a few times with Delta and TWA back when they were still operating the type. It was always a pleasant ride. I always thought the Tristar was the best looking of the American made tri-jets, as well as technologically superior. The 727 had those awkward looking rear mounted jets. And the DC-10/MD-11 had their third engines stacked under the vertical stabilizer, a design that I think looked strange (though I do understand their reasoning for it).
Their successor was Continental Airlines (now United Airlines)
Consider myself lucky to have flown on Air Canada’s L1011 in their business class. Very comfortable flight Toronto to LA.
Thumbnail's L-1011 in Eastern's hockey stick blues is attractive.
To me, the most attractive planes are the one's that don't crash.
I remember flying l-1011 on delta and Braniff (with loud paint schemes)
I like the final twa livery
extremly well made. no anoying back ground music. Love it!
Flew in the VC10 while a cadet in the ATC (Air Training Corps) on an air experience flight with the RAF, to Malta and Cyprus. It was an unusual flight as you sat facing backwards.
It was a lovely aircraft…
The RAF used them as passenger transport (troops and RAF personnel) and tankers…
Flew VC10 by BOAC, Nigeria Airways (forgotten in the video) and British Caledonian to & from Nigeria a lot in the 1960s and 1970s. Favourite aircraft - quiet, comfortable, stylish. Good times.
The Nigeria Airways VC10 ended it's days spread over a hillside near Lagos, the BCal one broken up at LGW after they bent the fuselage with a bad landing. Very sad.
Really beautiful proportions, saw one pop up from odiham while I was driving down the M3 just as they were getting ready for retirement, hadn't really appreciated until then what a fine looking machine it was.
@@blatherskite9601 Agreed, lovely airliner to fly on.
Yup, as a soldier I had loads of trips. Loved the plane, beautiful & in the 1970s you walked on the concourse to it, then climbing steps & seeing it's great design & smelling the fumes, unlike in now. My first trip was to Washington DC & flying over the Atlantic at nearly 1000mph & landing 5hrs 30mins later & eating a Whopper.
@@blatherskite9601 we probably paid for it. I mean Nigeria who are a corrupt country who we bankroll amongst others.
Quite a lot of these I’d never considered.
I thought I was going see a lot about the A380. Instead I had a nostalgic reminder how many plane manufacturers there used to be, and how many different jets I flew on. What leaps out is how many designs foundered by failing to maximize passengers to fuel and operating costs. Its a business 101 no-brainer, so it's surprising. The profit sweet spot in the business seems to be a moving target.
It's a reminder that the A380 is not exceptional in being a well-intentioned market failure.
@@jacksons1010 Here-here. I'm pretty sure the Emiratis asked Airbus for a long-haul, high capacity model to service it's Persian Gulf hub business model. Covid was a huge blow. The A380 was by no means a technical failure...it was just too expensive to run at less than full capacity.
Like the L1011 the A380 will go down as a sells flop
I Rode in a LTU L1011. Did not like it. I rode in DC10s, DC 8s, DC 9s, MD 80s, and 747s. Liked all of those.
@@jeffcampbell1555 You mean Emirates? And people often forget that Boeing was deeply concerned about 380 competition, and dumped a TON of cash into the 747-8i, which was a complete sales flop as well, selling only 47 units versus 251 A380s. It’s only saving grace was a cargo version, but both companies misjudged the hub-spoke model at the time.
As far as engineering and safety go, it is an exceptional aircraft and will likely remain unsurpassed in passenger comfort. Much like the L-1011, it was a nearly-perfect aircraft at the wrong time.
Some argue that Airbus didn’t really lose money on the program, but it certainly didn’t make any either, and they were fortunate to have other highly successful options.
The L-1011 program on the other hand is simply tragic, as Lockheed was poised to become a third condender in a market with hardly any competition. Timing, management, and rolls Royce essentially burned Lockheed so bad that I don’t think they’ll ever even comprehend entering the market again, even though they created a technological masterpiece which every pilot and crewmember loved dearly.
I will always love the look of the A340-500. Such a weird and beautiful aircraft, especially in that Etihad livery.
And to think there was very nearly a paper work-up of a 40-550, with even larger fuel tanks under the main fuselage, giving it a range of 10,700 nmi. This would have been the first aircraft capable of travelling non-stop from Heathrow to Perth. The rather ambitious (and quite frankly, stupid) 340-595, with GPS way-point auto-nav, proposed in 1992 (which ironically would have been heavier than the HGW - High Gross Weight version proposed years later), would have allowed for non-stop 10,950nmi, satellite TV, and a host of other innovations. It was one step too far, and one step beyond.
I remember been a little kid with my father back in the 70s getting into the L-1011 , I was amazed of the aircraft inside size, the confort , the space between seats,etc. Today I think about it , what amazed me the most to this day is the ingenuity of the men that created these machines back then.
Fascinating video. It just goes to show how business plans can be derailed by multiple factors. I am in awe of the research that goes into these videos!
In the case of the Bristol Britannia, the too-protracted development period of the Proteus turboprop engine. They should have adopted the Rolls-Royce Tyne engine instead.
While I was familiar with the ending of several of these models, i was not aware of the excellent details provided around the rationale. Well done!
Am watching this vid right now -and switching between reading the comments on my phone & watching 👀 the show on the TV.
Anyway, I just got to the Bristol Britannia...and I have to say - that it really is a good looking plane !
It's the design of the cockpit windows that does it, somehow.
-And that classic looking BOAC livery is just great 😁 👍
I missed the L 10-11 when it was retired. Flew on it many times. Vastly preferred over the DC10.
Agreed. Air Canada flew them in the 70's/80's both domestic and international. They were spacious and comfortable.
Really liked flying l 1011 to Vegas from the east, really comfortable plane
I flew on both several times but I can't distinguish which I liked better ,its been almost 45 yrs.But from what I've heard the L1011 was superior.
Lockheed was also badly "mousetrapped" early on by Douglas's feigned disinterest in building tri jets which made the market for their own 1011 project seem far more promising than it actually was. Once Lockheed was fully committed, Douglas rushed to the "drawing board" (among other places) and their DC-10 build announcement alone paved the way to an unprofitable outcome.
What a superb design is the 747-Special Performance. That wing area to fuselage ratio is amazing and the SP still flies higher and faster than any other 747 iteration :-) The L1011 Tristar with its Rolls RB211 power plants and technical prowess is also a beautiful design!
My parents flew on a united sp and said it was extremely disappointing, they didn’t know it was an sp at first so they were excited to fly it and thought it’d be big but it was cramped and just a bad experience they said man
My 2 favourite planes of all time. Magnificent.
I agree. Many of these "failures" were simply victims of external factors, despite possessing fantastic engineering.
@@milkman6786 The SP simply denoted the reduced capacity for increased range - it remained an aluminum tube with an optimal, subsonic cruising speed, that's seated/crewed/serviced per the airline's specifications. If they were expecting it to be an airborne sports car, I could understand how they'd be disappointed!
@@milkman6786
Airlines decide how much room you have.
The 747SP is not any more cramped than anything else.
I always loved the VC-10 and saw them several time in Trinidad and Tobago where I grew up!
"BOAC is like Britain in the sky..."
...so the ad went. It still rings in my ears today!
The L1011 was an excellent aircraft.
I have loved and been fascinated by planes my whole life, seeing odd and very unique designs like the L-1011 and Concorde. Planespotting is somehow less fun now that everything is twin engined and very similar control layouts in the pursuit of the ideal form factor for keeping construction cheap and operating costs low.
I’ve only recently discovered that aviation is hugely interesting to me. I’m learning a bit more about it each day. It even led me to get a job in aviation as ground crew and for the first time in my life I enjoy the job I’m doing.
Now that I work in the aerospace industry I've got plane models on my desk, and those were two of the ones I was adamant about getting.
How true!!
Absolutely. The 70s and 8-s were the most fun for plane-spotting, so many diverse airliner designs flying then, 747, 727, L1011, DC-8 and DC-9, some older and some newer. Who'd thunk the boring little 737 would be the type to make it this far into the future.
I had several long-distance journeys on the VC10 to West Africa and the Caribbean in the 1960's. Lovely flights. As you said, quiet and smooth.
And noted for its Hot And High capability as standard. Even nowadays that usually takes some extra engineering work!
I will tolerate no slander about the legendary Lockheed TriStar...
The L1011 was too far ahead of its time. A beautiful airplane. 😍
@@johnwalsh7256 it will make more money on the toy market than actual commercial airline sales.
Sad, the L-1011 is the nicest plane on which I've flown. I really miss them.
For being labeled under the "Worst Selling Commercial Airliners" The L-1011 TriStar was a Wonderful Aircraft, so Technology Advanced than anything else from that era, Plus the Good Looks of the Aircraft, it is Truly my Favorite. It's Too bad there not around anymore. Will Always be my Favorite, Especially Sporting the Eastern Airlines colors. I've read many Comments from lot's of earlier pilots, and Everyone Always Loved it, i don't remember ever hearing anything Negative about it. Only a complaint or two about the Galley Elevators, that's the Only Bad i remember hearing about it. It was Such a Wonderful Design. I would Love to See the TriJets make a comeback, I've always Loved the 3 Engine design, seemed to Balance out the Aircraft for me. Especially the "S Duct" Set-up, Such a Majestic way to mount Engine #2.
VC10 was a solution for a problem (runways too short for 707s) which was ACTUALLY solved by lengthening the runways in question at a total cost of less than ONE VC10, let alone the development costs
The VC-10 was a plane that no wanted because it cost more to operate than airlines could charge in fares... of the few that were built, all were government subsidized in service.
Possibly my most favorite installment of your video series thus far... many thanks mate, from.NZCH
Agreed!!
Very interesting as always - I was fascinated by the ROI values - these are not always easy to identify even in a business you work in so a top job to get these numbers! I really value so highly these productions and can’t wait for the next 😊
Mrs Richards: "I paid for a room with a view !"
Basil: (pointing to the lovely view) "That is Torquay, Madam."
Mrs Richards: "It's not good enough!"
Basil: "May I ask what you were expecting to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically past?..."
Mrs Richards: "Don't be silly! I expect to be able to see the sea!"
Basil: "You can see the sea, it's over there between the land and the sky."
Mrs Richards: "I'm not satisfied. But I shall stay. But I expect a reduction."
Basil: "Why?! Because Krakatoa's not erupting at the moment ?"
What?
Watt?
What! Turn - it - on!
No, I am saving the batteries.
@@huwzebediahthomas9193 BREAKFAST KAPUT !
Just by coincidence, I was at the Swiss Transport Museum in Lucerne yesterday and saw the Swissair Convair 990 that is preserved there.
Yes, the Coronado, remember seeing them with American and Varig in early 60's, just loved the quad wing pods trailing the flaps!
I visited the same museum 30years ago, only an elder staff was there when boarding the cabin. Nice to know that this mega item is still existing.
Great as always! What an interesting list, I would have thought only manufacturers gone from this would would be on the list but I was wrong. Alaska really have all kinds of odd units since it has so many regional and specialty routes.
Proud to realize I have had the chance to be a passenger (or cabin crew) in a number of these:
A-318, A-340-200, 747-300 and Concorde with Air France;
Mercure with Air Inter;
Vfw-214 with Air Alsace
747SP with Corsair;
Tristar with Eastern;
The Electra with TAME.
😀
stop lying
EXTREMELY interesting information this time. I watch nearly every video, keep up the quality work!
The L1011 and the C-141's were my favorite planes to fly on. Had the smoothest ride until the 767 came along.
My first ride on the L1011 made me think "can this big fat thing even get off the ground?". One flight and I was hooked.
Floyd R. Turbo, an Air Canada captain and past owner of two general aviation supply/hobby stores flew both the carrier's classic 747's and L-1011's. He preferred the later over the Boeing product. Said it was more advanced and superior operationally.
@@lrg3834 àaC
The VC10 was one of the most advanced and interesting airliners of its era.
And damn good looking
I worked on the VC10 in the 80s and loved every second. She was a beauty. Didn't sell well as she was too tailored to BOAC.
Thank you for your outstanding video of the aircraft that didn't succeed. I've flown on several and as an early plane spotter, spotted them in small numbers. Growing up in Melbourne VIC Australia, I was at the end (or nearly) for many of 'the Empire Routes'. At the 1956 Melbourne Olympics (Summer), I spotted them in numbers, a few of which were not included. One you highlighted was the Sud Armagnac and as Melbourne's main airport was Essendon [YMEN] with the main (ILS) runway 26 at 6350 feet, this was a challenging but 'pretty normal' in that era..
What an excellent documentary! Well researched well presented and great historical footage that matches the narration! Kept my interest throughout the entire video. Thank you very much.
The Convair 880 was 20 years ahead of its time. The industry was use not ready to use all the technical innovations included in this aircraft.
that huge french one at the end when they turned it into 6 across seating you see the overhead storage racks looking very much like what you'd see on a bus. It was the true original air bus.
I vaguely recall open bins in UAL DC-8 flight I took in 1968. Pretty much gone in the 1970's? The widebodies coming into service starting in the late 60's all had closed bins, so when narrow bodies were refurbished (or at some point for new builds) they got the modern "widebody look".
@@marcmcreynolds2827 Part of the trend to making the cabins more crashworthy. Back in those days seats routinely ripped out of cabin floors - pancaking into each other and crushing folks and flying debris from the "hat and coat racks" above knocked folks out so they failed to escape wrecks.
I haven't flown many long haul flights, but the most enjoyable one was on a Tri-Star L-1011 from Atlanta to Honolulu in 1990. So roomy, smooth and comfortable. I miss that plane. The flights I've taken to Italy, England and Greece more recently weren't very memorable for the aircraft.
My first ever long haul flight (1985) was an L-1011, and I was in awe. Sadly, it was also my LAST flight on the model. Despite taking numerous flights on the same route and airline, I never again flew the TriStar.
An excellent documentary. Very interesting and well done for covering this topic in such detail. Ten out of ten and thanks for creating and sharing it.
Absolutely GREAT historical video. I have been flying since 1962; I had no idea how much airplane manufacturers have had to struggle! My suggestion: Pass an international agreement to DOUBLE ALL TICKET PRICES, so that we can all enjoy the very best that science has to offer, in airline technology, without all the risk involved in PENNY PINCHING by investors, builders, and carriers!
This is a great video, and you well deserve the blessing of the UA-cam algorithm. Thank you!
Such great content. You deserve a raise !
I was cabin crew on Tristars in the ‘80’s. It was designed with crew in mind - the trollies rolled, the latches closed properly, the lifts were smooth and the underfloor galley was a dream! LGW-GVA, 1hr 10 mins, 393 pax - drinks, food, duty free - no problem! A pleas
*a pleasure to fly on and the passengers liked it, too.
Lockheed knows how to build aircraft. The DC-10 was just a shitbox in direct comparison
I just recently rescued some memorabilia from the first flight of the 747SP. A coworker's dad was an engineer on the program. The SP was more often said to stand for Short Plane
I loved taking those Eastern L1011s out of Miami. They were like riding a comfortable beast!
Flew them a few times ,Atlanta - Tampa in 74 & to Marine Corp boot camp ,Miami - Charleston 75.I liked all 3 engine aircraft but its been so many yrs its hard to recall the actual flights.
Very nice video, not surprising that a decent majority of these machines failed trying to fill relatively small niches of regional commercial travel. One thing about the Tupolev though, it was definitely _not_ a copy of the Concorde, especially underneath the skin. It was faster than the Concorde, and the Soviets had quite a lot of their design... quirks unique to the aircraft. Things like a drag parachute and using turbines for cabin air, for one.
Likewise, Buran and the Space Shuttle were functionally very different despite superficial similarities. The basic aerodynamic requirements lead to a very narrow range of viable designs. People complain about generic-looking cars nowadays but given the same crash safety, fleet economy and emmissions requirements, it's inevitable that competing designs will converge.
But there is evidence that the Soviets did spy on the French with the attempt of getting the TU-144 project speeding ahead, they were well behind the Anglo-French project and wanted to get ahead of them. Ultimately that was the No. 1 priority of the Soviets and the Tu-144 program - to beat the British and French, building it well or making it safe was a secondary concern for the Soviets. The Tu-144 may have been faster but it was a much more unstable and more dangerous aircraft than Concorde was.
Thanks for this great video. Very informative and interesting. Keep up the good content!
Great video, I’m glad I found your channel! 👊🏻✈️ Thanks for the great work!!
See's the upload. See's the chapter list start with "preamble", straps in for the ride. A near 40 min video. Good Sir you spoil us
Oh also childish and pointless declaration of being 1st
I was a TWA cockpit crew member on the 1011. By far, the most advanced aircraft of its time, much superior to the DC10 which had major problems. 1011 had a revolutionary approach and landing system still in use by the military on its Lockheed cargo planes. No other company has this system. Clearly, your presentation concludes that the only deficiencies of the 1011 were caused by Rolls Royce and Jimmy Carter. If not for them, this would have been a huge success.
Absolutely!
Thanks for inserting chapters, more ppl should do it like you
If I remember correctly and properly, the L1011 was actually more advanced technologically and more reliable than the DC-10, it’s just that the DC-10 beat it to the market. Now I know that Lockheed is a massive defense contractor today, but this would be a great time for them to attempt to break the duopoly with a Middle market aircraft.
I miss the L-1011's. They are the most comfortable airliner I've ever flown on Short hops or Trans Atlanic.
Wow, I've seen videos about this but never heard from someone who actually went on one. The videos always say how advanced it was, especially things like the autoland. Obviously most aviation/engineering channels don't have the first hand experience to mention what it was like to fly on. Thanks.
@@jamesjross I flews on a number of L-1011s in the 70s through 90s as I was frequently on Delta and Eastern. Best time was a free first class upgrade going on Delta to LGW.
Unfortunately RR went broke Until the govt bailed them out SO the RB 211, turned out to be a fantastic engine, first used bin the delayed L 10 11 TRISTAR, then many other aircraft used them , and so it goes , only flew on 2 for EASTERN, both from MIA TO EWR , only been on 2 DC 10 Lufthansa, & AMERICAN virtually most of the others never except forB737 cheers 🏴🇬🇧🇨🇦🇫🇷🇩🇪🇺🇸
I like the use of flags - a great way of showing the countries you want to use in the narrative to people who don’t have English as a first language 😀.
Superb work again, thank you!
LOL The ANA/Lockheed L1011 inducement scandal was not Lockheed's first dance in this regard. They grafted up European airforces to accept the F104 starfighter as well, despite the fact it had a laundry list of deficiencies.
Another great video. Thanks.
As always an excellent video. 👏🙂
The L-1011 was a far superior aircraft than a DC-10 and in some ways a 747 as well. The fundemental reason it was not a commercial success was due to the fact McDonnel Douglas and Boeing did not want any formidable competion. As such, the L-1011 was not able to be sold at a competitive price due to the 'Big Boys' selling their aircraft at very low prices in order to eliminate Lockheed. The same old story, "If you can't beat the competion with quality, beat them with pricing". This fact has always existed within the Automotive, Aerospace and Heavy Equipment industries. In addition to the above, the US gangsters did not want the Soviet Union to improve its Commercial Aviation industry for it would represent a threat to potential sales of Commercial Aircraft to all countries undermining Boeing and Douglas's ambitions.
The L-1011 was a safe, beautiful airliner that never killed anyone - unlike the DC-10 which killed many people with several crashes due to poor design which caused cargo doors to open in flight, collapsing the floor which severed hydraulic lines and mechanical backups. I’ve had two DC’s try to kill me - unsuccessfully - and never flew another one again.
12:53 I often used to fly the L-1011 on TWA in the late 1980s/early 1990s, going to and from JFK in NYC to Phoenix. I used to like it; it was a nice ride.
Bravo, well done as usual Sir. However I feel the Fokker F-70 with only 48 being produced is a dud seller as well !
Great piece. Well done. But I am loving the laser precision of the comments section! I've subscribed. Thanks for doing what you do.
It's a shame about the VC10 and Tristar. I flew on both as a child, and they were both great aircraft that were ahead of their time in many ways.
The VC10, while quiet on the inside, was one of the noisiest aircraft I've ever heard from the outside! I used to live fairly close to a couple of RAF airbases, and they used to fly past every now and again :)
I was lucky enough to fly in a VC10 back in the 70s. Lovely looking plane.
Ah Lockheed: "Our business isn't producing expected results, let's try crimes instead."
Amazing how often it keeps working.
The Lockheed L1011 Tristar Is and was without doubt the greatest airliner ever built after the Comet. If it hadn't been for the belligerent and stubborn IK unions at Rolls Royce Aero Engines this absolutely awesome airliner would have beaten the DC10 into the skies and into airline service and still be flying today! It's a great marvel of aviation design philosophy; a place cabin crew and pilots WANT to work in and passengers the world over crave to be.
That VFW-Fokker 614 - very interesting design. The long pitot tube on nose, twin engines position above wings, wide oval aircraft fuslage. Unique. Looks like a work of art.
Pity the VC10 didn't do better ..it was a sweetheart of a jetliner. Quiet and comfortable. They were a joy at touchdown. Very smooth compared to the 707 and wolds apart from the DC-8 (that thing was a kidney buster, even when the landing was well set-up)
Great video 👍👍
My first ever flight was aboard an L-1011 in 1997, aged 21. It had obviously seen better days by that point, but I remember being amazed at how cavernous and civilised the interior was. And the noise from the engines was superb.
Great video! Thank you. I didn’t realize how difficult it is to identify a successful plane design and get it in the service fast enough to hit the market on time.
Superb video. As usual factual, detailed and original. A story of what would have
genuinely seemed to the company to be the next big thing
Great stuff! It'd be interesting seeing a "Best Selling" video too
I REALLY enjoyed this.
Very interesting and informative.
Covering a wide range of aircraft.
Though you neglected to cover the McRocket 5000 - the 12-engined, 2,000 passenger behemoth that operated between....oh, that was only a dream.
Never mind.
Thank you for creating this video.
☮
Very interesting and informative with fast-paced dialogue!
The L1011 was roomy and quiet. Earning the Whisperliner name. Wonderful aircraft to fly in
Fascinating! Thanks
This video is thoroughly researched. I got the arse when my favourite, the L10-11 featured but all of these machines are amazing and well done to all of the people that made them so special.
Really enjoyable! learned a lot about these aircraft. One thing i always wanted to know, what does the 1011 stand for for the Lockheed L-1011?
It was usually for marketing purposes or how the planes were internally known by Lockheed. Lockheed usually had x numbers and a name, examples include the L-188 Electra, the many variants of the Constellation and the Jetstar, which was internally known as the L-1329 and the already mentioned L-1011.
Great video, thank you
The Britannia has to be the most painful. Ordered 1947, delivered 1952, sabotaged by BOAC long after early problems with the turbines so it only entered service five years later with its reputation utterly trashed.
The Vickers Vanguard and HS Trident are the other two big 'what-ifs' of UK airliners that actually went into production but which failed to find a big market. Though one I would love to know more about is the Vickers V-1000 which was a transAtlantic jet, bigger, faster and with a longer range than the later Boeing 707.
Once again, BOAC sabotaged the project and the prototype was broken up when 90% complete. As the head of Vickers put it: 'We have handed to the Americans, without a struggle, the entire world market for big jet airliners.' How right he was.
Those are just some of the unfortunate reasons why people said that *BOAC* stood for "Boeing Only Aircraft Corporation".
With or without troublesome turbines, the Britannia was still going to be one slow airplane once the jet age dawned. A nice thick airfoil cross-section made for 80 kt landing speeds (IIRC), but even with a studied jet engine upgrade that airfoil would have held down the cruise speed (and/or eaten fuel trying to fly at something more competitive).
Excellent video.Very interesting and informative!
While in Okinawa. 1971 - 1972 I woeked with Lockheed Rep. He told me it could fly great on 2 engines.
Did not matter which.
Never knew about Lockheed's crookedness, but I still think the TriStar is a fascinating and beautiful machine!
The L-1011 was one of the best airliners ever built. It happens in many companies...all it takes is one idiot.
There used to be an L10-11 parked at MCI airport in Kansas City as late as 2019. I am not sure if it’s still there.
Yes, still there. I was there 2 weeks ago
@@skooter2767k Is that the Tristar Experience L-1011?
@@AMF96 yes I believe so. That’s the only tristar there at least
Great video. Informative & well researched.
Very well researched and presented... thanks for sharing....!!!
Interesting - but claiming aircraft such as the 747-SP and MD-11 are "new" aircraft - when they are really derivatives, is a bit disingenuous.
They were karketed as "new models" and had their own type certifications and service requirements and differed a lot from their progenitors. How different do you want them to be, given the same argument could be made for the 727, 737 and 757, all with shate core 707 engineering, even today.
Hey, remember how we had a short 737 and a long 737 and the short one didn't sell? Let's build another short one.
They offered a family. I don't think the cost of the short version had a huge impact on the family costs.
Great and informative! Thank you!
I love this video.. I always come back to it.. thanks for your great work