Lockheed L-1011:
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
European Union laws require you to give European Union visitors information about cookies used on your blog. In many cases, these laws also require you to obtain consent.You're here, you've consented. If you don't like it, go read some other goddamn blog. It's not as if you're paying me.
4 comments:
And it was a weird flying beast too... VERY touchy controls and a bad habit of porpoising on landing...
It was always interesting when they lit off the engines at the gate. I only remember it on #2 now, but it could have (and should have) been all three. Once it was spooled up and they hit the fuel, a big puff of white smoke came out. It was unlike any other airplane (I can't attest to other RB-211 equipped airplanes), and if you'd never seen it before, you were inclined to call someone on the ramp with fire extinguishers.
Another oddity: when I was taking FAM trips in the '70s, all the big jets (Tri Jet on up—and that means B727—neither the L1011 or DC-10 was a "tri jet" in our lexicon) would cruise at about Mach .83 and the 1011s would cruise at Mach .85. Yes, it was about the same disparity as between the big jets (same as above, not just widebodies) and 737s or DC-9s. When the Arab oil embargo kicked in, all the big jets slowed back to Mach .80…except the 1011s. They kept on at Mach .85. I asked one once why, and the pilot replied that slowing the 1011 below Mach .85 yielded a higher deck angle, therefore angle of attack, different from the other jets, and that they actually burned more fuel at Mach .80 than they did at Mach .85. Consequently, there was no value in slowing down.
LRod
ZJX, ORD, ZAU retired
P.S. Hmmm. Back to the Turing test, I see.
Yea, but what a great aircraft to jump seat on. It was like sitting next to a giant picture window. It was also a fast mutha...the Delta L-1011 that started toward the back of the line over INK was always number one by the time they got to AQN landing DFW.
It was always interesting when they lit off the engines at the gate. I only remember it on #2 now, but it could have (and should have) been all three. Once it was spooled up and they hit the fuel, a big puff of white smoke came out. It was unlike any other airplane (I can't attest to other RB-211 equipped airplanes), and if you'd never seen it before, you were inclined to call someone on the ramp with fire extinguishers.
Another oddity: when I was taking FAM trips in the '70s, all the big jets (Tri Jet on up—and that means B727—neither the L1011 or DC-10 was a "tri jet" in our lexicon) would cruise at about Mach .83 and the 1011s would cruise at Mach .85. Yes, it was about the same disparity as between the big jets (same as above, not just widebodies) and 737s or DC-9s. When the Arab oil embargo kicked in, all the big jets slowed back to Mach .80…except the 1011s. They kept on at Mach .85. I asked one once why, and the pilot replied that slowing the 1011 below Mach .85 yielded a higher deck angle, therefore angle of attack, different from the other jets, and that they actually burned more fuel at Mach .80 than they did at Mach .85. Consequently, there was no value in slowing down.
LRod
ZJX, ORD, ZAU retired
P.S. Hmmm. Back to the Turing test, I see.
Post a Comment