Lockheed L-1011:
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!
Sunday, June 9, 2013
4 comments:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
And it was a weird flying beast too... VERY touchy controls and a bad habit of porpoising on landing...
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
ReplyDeleteAnother 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.
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
ReplyDeleteAnother 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.