It's a shame the L-1011 didn't enjoy the success of other widebody's of the day. Aside from being an absolutely stunning aircraft, it's technology FAR outclassed the competition.
@@magnustan841 maybe, but I think it was more a matter of Lockheed not having the resources that McDonnell Douglas & Boeing had to really push the aircraft forward.
@@commonsense3482 It was. The A300 entered service a couple years after the L-1011 and a few years after that ETOPS allowed twins to go 90 minutes away from a diversion airport. That was extended to 120 minutes and then 180 minutes in the 1980s and that basically spelled the end of tri-jets as a twin-jet would be more efficient and one issue particular to tri-jets is that maintenance on the center engine is harder and thus more expensive due to its location. Multiple 767s were more fuel efficient per passenger-mile and more flexible than fewer tri-jets, much like how more 787s or A350s are more fuel efficient per passenger-mile than fewer 747s and A380s.
I always wondered how different our aviation market would be had Lockheed stayed in the commercial segment? We certainly wouldn't have this ridiculous situation of two companies holding 95% of the market with little competition. The LT-1011 was an amazing airplane. It would be nice to see Lockheed start to put its genius to the commercial market instead of only military and space.
@@josephkearsey8951 Thanks Joseph, I think we're all a little burned out with multi-conglomerate monopolies at this stage. The pendulum will now swing back, until next time ;)
If this was a 3 way rivalry between the Boeing NLA, A380 and this all 3 would have almost lost more money than what Boeing spent on the 787 program and Airbus on the A380 added together
If it could have been produced and the airport infrastructure was there to accommodate it in the 1980s and 1990s it might have been very successful. But with personal online booking to get you as close as possible from a to b these days and the likes of the 787 dreamliner built for point to point travel, I doubt it would be as commercially viable as even the A380 today.
maybe the behaviour of companies and passengers would be different, who knows. With a proper clean e aircraft for range lower to 1500 miles (70-75% of the flights) and proper efficient A380, the aviation could become way cleaner without such a huge effort ... but it changes the philosophy of the networks
LM wasn't exactly honest when citing "declining defense budgets". Defense budgets, especially when historically examining LM's share of annual American defense budgets, has gone nowhere but *UP* But when has truth mattered to the military?
It was also referring to non-domestic customers like those in Europe who at the time (and until recently with Russian actions) had been declining their defense budgets after the end of the Cold War.
But how would the airports cope? by how much would the terminals and air bridges need to be altered to accommodate such an aircraft? I know there were huge obstacles with the A380
It seems that that was considered, seeing as they designed it with folding wings to at least mitigate the difficulties of adapting existing airports to service the beast.
I do wonder if it would be as bad financially as we're thinking now, given it has the folding wings to fit smaller gate categories, and insane cargo capacity, plus some combi looking variants still with the front door to help load it. Could have made a market of it's own actually, the biggest problem I see isn't wingspan or finding a use case, but rather the runway (heck, taxiways as well) having the load capacity for the absurd MTOW. Shame that such absurd megalomaniac concepts aren't pursued for obvious financial reasons, cause they sure would be amazing. EDIT: heck also 17 abreast 3-4-3-4-3, imagine this as a VIP plane!
That would have been a behemoth of a airplane. The AN225 had success so there was a possibility. I honestly think the MD12 had a better chance. It is interesting that the L1011 didn't have the longevity as the DC10/MD11. Only a few companies used them for freighters..
May have been successful if it was developed pre-747; because anything on that scale developed after the 747s (we’ve come to learn) will be a financial failure for any Aircraft Manufacturer.
Well, we went smaller and efficient years later. It's funny that the L-1011 was made to be more efficient than the 747 (because of the 3 engines), but then they were killed by an Airbus and some Boeings with two engines. I can't process how good would've been a Lockheed-designed A350/787 competitor, a very technologically advanced next gen airliner that's that efficient than those two, just like the TriStar was in its era.
That's true, I was thinking the same, but after being in service for over 40 years and the USAF not (publicly at least) pushing for a replacement, maybe the C-17 (really a C-141 replacement), can do almost but not quite, anything that the C-5 can do, and it is more versatile when it comes to airfield accessibility.
I think we kind of need bigger and more economical heavy lifting cargo aircraft. And military would have use for that too. And I think bigger more economical passenger aircraft instead of Boeing 747 could be used too - if it would be really more economical than 747 - like in the territory of 777 economy.
Great idea, but financially unfeasible then, and even now the A380 hasn't been a 747-level success. Someone will eventually develop a VLST to replace the 747 as it reaches the end of its shelf life, but what it will be like and who will produce it is anyone's guess. Here's a thought: There's never been a high-wing large civilian airliner. Do y'all suppose paying passengers are more comfortable when they can see the top of the wing?
The 787 and was designed to replace the 767. It's the 757 that needs a replacement; the 737 MAX-10 supposed to be the replacement but airlines aren't happy.
@@apolloniaaskew9487 Apollonian, Aviation Finance actually declare that non of the orders on the 737 MAX10 (or the other variants) have been scrapped by any airline. What has caused the delay in their delivery of course is what we all know following the infamous crashes; so the FAA have been slow in organising themselves to certify. Having said that, deliveries of the other variants have been made and are continuing to be made
@@apolloniaaskew9487 if Boeing had also produced the 787-300 that was discussed on one of these aviation channels then I think it would have been a better match for the 757/767 markets with the added sales pitch of the dual aisle allows for a quicker boarding and deplaning of passengers whilst providing the capacity for passengers and freight/baggage. I worked for an airline with MD81s and B767-300s with two forward doors using door 2 left we turned the 767 around quicker than the MD81s. The other benefit is that on short haul there is always the evening rush with over-sales so we were able where space permitted to allow passengers to leave on the earlier flight at no added cost whilst we were reducing the risk of compensation payments and even hotel costs if too many people turned up for the last flight of the day.
The 787 was made for replacement of the 767. The 787-8 was made for the 767-200, the 9 for the 300, and the 10 for the 400er. Which a 2-4-2 configuration ( no airlines obey except JAL) and a modern configuration, the 787 was perfectly for the 767. And it would be even more of Boeing lower it's range, it would definitely be good for ANA and JAL and other airlines in Japan and who have older 767 to be replaced for a more modern way
Actually the 747 was on time in a record short time of 28 months from program get go to first which stop remains unbeaten for a widebody. The fact it was developed that quickly and still safer than DC-10 is a testament to how well Joe Sutter’s team did. Although it did initially use that door the DC-10 used until the -400, there was enough safety redundancy to keep the plane safe until it landed and *most* pax alive (United 811 shows this)
The bigger you make them the harder they will fall , too many back up systems needed, not enough experienced pilots and crew, and the FAA and NTSB, will be busier than ever. Look at the useage rate of the ANT. Pursue this then don't complain about cost of flying and demand. Lockheed products are typically over budget take 20 years to deliver.
The best for L.M. is to get another more realistic open minded CEO. They are aiming at the wrong target. Such big planes arent viable cos of the fuel prices, the instable market for such high capacity pass. transport, and airports will need longer runways and extra capacity infra structures which will not financially beneficial for airport owners observing in the light of maybe it can work or maybe it will not.
@@emaheiwa8174 again.... why? Why is ~50% more than a domestic Japanese 747 so dangerous? How many of those have crashed? The answer is 1 in 1985. Planes just don't crash randomly much less all the time, that's why the last crash in China is news meanwhile bus crashes are just local news stuff even if they kill half as much as a narrow body plane crash but an order of magnitude more often. A lot more people just means a lot more emergency exits and escape slides/rafts. In fact, this automatically gives one extra safety measure: higher redundancy on emergency exits. On a smaller plane, a single blocked exit is a LOT worse as it's a far higher percentage of blocked exits.
@@Kalvinjj you cant have that many exits. You should watch Found and Explained video about it too. Its not rocket science. A plane like this wasnt safe
@@emaheiwa8174 Yeah now I've had time to watch that video you said and as I expected there's no real evidence/reasoning behind the evacuation problem, it's not much different than a 10 abreast widebody having to evacuate to one side alone. You would have far more corridors and obviously, connections between those without seats. There's nothing that says there can't be that many exits (specially since it's so long anyway), and that claim on the video about it sinking right away if it ditches is a complete pull out of nowhere. I do like Found and Explained videos, but they aren't documentaries for sure. Impractical is one thing that is visible, impossible and specially unsafe are just not.
Tell me why lockheed-martin cannot compete with Boeing or Airbus they build great military aircraft why shouldn't they be able to build a greater airliner .
Such talk and hypothesis are all nonsensical since there’s no market even for the current fabulous A380 which has been a financial flop. Even the 787 is stalling and global health situation has dwindled international travel……so why do people dream up such fruitless nonsense that won’t happen ever??????
@@jumilifyify And we know that anything on that scale done post-747s has not been financially advisable or viable. Infact at the Boeing plant in Everette there’s a replica of a Double-Decker plane almost identical to the A380 and I was to learn that Boeing had first conceived that idea but on careful thought they saw that 4-engined planes was not going to be viable in the future but rather more environmentally friendly twin-engined ones would be, so they scrapped the idea which much later Airbus was to adopt and develop into the Fabulous A380 (well, we know it’s financial turnover, costs to run and environmental issues of this amazing-looking aircraft)
It's a shame the L-1011 didn't enjoy the success of other widebody's of the day. Aside from being an absolutely stunning aircraft, it's technology FAR outclassed the competition.
Until 747-400 modernised the 747 cockpit yes
So you could say it was too far ahead of its time.
@@magnustan841 maybe, but I think it was more a matter of Lockheed not having the resources that McDonnell Douglas & Boeing had to really push the aircraft forward.
I wonder if the tri-engine aircraft fate was a precursor to what we have seen with B747s and A340s
@@commonsense3482 It was. The A300 entered service a couple years after the L-1011 and a few years after that ETOPS allowed twins to go 90 minutes away from a diversion airport. That was extended to 120 minutes and then 180 minutes in the 1980s and that basically spelled the end of tri-jets as a twin-jet would be more efficient and one issue particular to tri-jets is that maintenance on the center engine is harder and thus more expensive due to its location. Multiple 767s were more fuel efficient per passenger-mile and more flexible than fewer tri-jets, much like how more 787s or A350s are more fuel efficient per passenger-mile than fewer 747s and A380s.
I always wondered how different our aviation market would be had Lockheed stayed in the commercial segment? We certainly wouldn't have this ridiculous situation of two companies holding 95% of the market with little competition. The LT-1011 was an amazing airplane. It would be nice to see Lockheed start to put its genius to the commercial market instead of only military and space.
Very well said.
@@josephkearsey8951 Thanks Joseph, I think we're all a little burned out with multi-conglomerate monopolies at this stage. The pendulum will now swing back, until next time ;)
@@ElectricUAM 🗿nice🗿
1:05 that KLM 747 gave me too much nostalgia for a 4 second long clip, really miss when i flew that a lot.
i could just google it but it would have been interesting to see how close this came in terms of cargo capacity to the AN-225 (RIP).
A quad GE90 jet aircraft could just be any aviator's dream...
Yup although you have quad GEnx jets
Sometimes dreams are just _too big_
If this was a 3 way rivalry between the Boeing NLA, A380 and this all 3 would have almost lost more money than what Boeing spent on the 787 program and Airbus on the A380 added together
They could just as well as expand/improve on the C-5 Galaxy design concept.
I always wondered why Lockeed didn't expand the Galaxy program to include a passenger variant. Seemed like a no brainer.
If it could have been produced and the airport infrastructure was there to accommodate it in the 1980s and 1990s it might have been very successful. But with personal online booking to get you as close as possible from a to b these days and the likes of the 787 dreamliner built for point to point travel, I doubt it would be as commercially viable as even the A380 today.
maybe the behaviour of companies and passengers would be different, who knows.
With a proper clean e aircraft for range lower to 1500 miles (70-75% of the flights) and proper efficient A380, the aviation could become way cleaner without such a huge effort ... but it changes the philosophy of the networks
I'll be honest, I enjoy big planes, so having another big boy in the sky would be dope
I mean the AN 225 existed...
Rest in Peace you ridiculous beautiful monster!
50% LARGER THAN THE C-5A?!?! That's just beyond comprehension, ha. 😳🥺😯
2:48 OK, but why were the seats facing backwards?
LM wasn't exactly honest when citing "declining defense budgets". Defense budgets, especially when historically examining LM's share of annual American defense budgets, has gone nowhere but *UP*
But when has truth mattered to the military?
It was also referring to non-domestic customers like those in Europe who at the time (and until recently with Russian actions) had been declining their defense budgets after the end of the Cold War.
This plane would have been an ideal cargo transport.
Imagining taking photo's of that!! You have to use a 25-75 mm lens. Otherwise it won't fit if you're standing alongside a runway
Used to fly on Delta's L1011's. Great planes.
There is room for it to exist now, just not very many of them. Won't be cost effective if they only build 16 of them total.
It would probably sell easily at a $1B price point each, but I see the R&D costing more than that per plane built.
If it wa in the 80s or mid 90s, it would have been a winner. after that, would have been a flop
But how would the airports cope? by how much would the terminals and air bridges need to be altered to accommodate such an aircraft? I know there were huge obstacles with the A380
It seems that that was considered, seeing as they designed it with folding wings to at least mitigate the difficulties of adapting existing airports to service the beast.
I loved the L10-11. But they were smart to drop out of commercial aircraft production.
I do wonder if it would be as bad financially as we're thinking now, given it has the folding wings to fit smaller gate categories, and insane cargo capacity, plus some combi looking variants still with the front door to help load it. Could have made a market of it's own actually, the biggest problem I see isn't wingspan or finding a use case, but rather the runway (heck, taxiways as well) having the load capacity for the absurd MTOW.
Shame that such absurd megalomaniac concepts aren't pursued for obvious financial reasons, cause they sure would be amazing.
EDIT: heck also 17 abreast 3-4-3-4-3, imagine this as a VIP plane!
On a 17 seat-wide plane, sitting by the window would be as likely as winning the lottery lol
bigger C5 Galaxy with passenger version
That would have been a behemoth of a airplane. The AN225 had success so there was a possibility. I honestly think the MD12 had a better chance. It is interesting that the L1011 didn't have the longevity as the DC10/MD11. Only a few companies used them for freighters..
„The AN225 had success“ bro only one was ever built…
@@emrefifty5281 That's because the Soviet Union collapsed before the second one could be finished.
May have been successful if it was developed pre-747; because anything on that scale developed after the 747s (we’ve come to learn) will be a financial failure for any Aircraft Manufacturer.
Well, we went smaller and efficient years later. It's funny that the L-1011 was made to be more efficient than the 747 (because of the 3 engines), but then they were killed by an Airbus and some Boeings with two engines. I can't process how good would've been a Lockheed-designed A350/787 competitor, a very technologically advanced next gen airliner that's that efficient than those two, just like the TriStar was in its era.
LM: How many VLSTs would you like?
Emirates: yes?
I mean, the C-5 will need a replacement sooner than later…
That's true, I was thinking the same, but after being in service for over 40 years and the USAF not (publicly at least) pushing for a replacement, maybe the C-17 (really a C-141 replacement), can do almost but not quite, anything that the C-5 can do, and it is more versatile when it comes to airfield accessibility.
I figured the plane would be comparable in size but that's just outrageous lol
MD did design a double decker, the MD 12.
I think we kind of need bigger and more economical heavy lifting cargo aircraft. And military would have use for that too. And I think bigger more economical passenger aircraft instead of Boeing 747 could be used too - if it would be really more economical than 747 - like in the territory of 777 economy.
The VLST would have been a great replacement to the C-5 Galaxy.
Only one word, Boeing 747
The current cost of shipping containers might make this viable now
Great idea, but financially unfeasible then, and even now the A380 hasn't been a 747-level success. Someone will eventually develop a VLST to replace the 747 as it reaches the end of its shelf life, but what it will be like and who will produce it is anyone's guess.
Here's a thought: There's never been a high-wing large civilian airliner. Do y'all suppose paying passengers are more comfortable when they can see the top of the wing?
If this could have been a replacement for the B52 and add 100 units, maybe it could have had a life...
I wish it will have three ge90x engines. Triengine airplane❤
The Lockheed P10 SuperShuttle
Shame they are not looking at a 767 replacement as this market is missing a good product
The 787 and was designed to replace the 767. It's the 757 that needs a replacement; the 737 MAX-10 supposed to be the replacement but airlines aren't happy.
@@apolloniaaskew9487 Apollonian, Aviation Finance actually declare that non of the orders on the 737 MAX10 (or the other variants) have been scrapped by any airline. What has caused the delay in their delivery of course is what we all know following the infamous crashes; so the FAA have been slow in organising themselves to certify. Having said that, deliveries of the other variants have been made and are continuing to be made
@@apolloniaaskew9487 if Boeing had also produced the 787-300 that was discussed on one of these aviation channels then I think it would have been a better match for the 757/767 markets with the added sales pitch of the dual aisle allows for a quicker boarding and deplaning of passengers whilst providing the capacity for passengers and freight/baggage.
I worked for an airline with MD81s and B767-300s with two forward doors using door 2 left we turned the 767 around quicker than the MD81s. The other benefit is that on short haul there is always the evening rush with over-sales so we were able where space permitted to allow passengers to leave on the earlier flight at no added cost whilst we were reducing the risk of compensation payments and even hotel costs if too many people turned up for the last flight of the day.
The 787 was made for replacement of the 767. The 787-8 was made for the 767-200, the 9 for the 300, and the 10 for the 400er. Which a 2-4-2 configuration ( no airlines obey except JAL) and a modern configuration, the 787 was perfectly for the 767. And it would be even more of Boeing lower it's range, it would definitely be good for ANA and JAL and other airlines in Japan and who have older 767 to be replaced for a more modern way
In retrospect, they probably wouldn't have made their investment back, even with military and cargo sales.
It could have been a challenger to the AN-124s
What if they develop in-house engine for their own civil aircraft just like the fighter planes?
They don't develop engines in-house. They source engines from engine manufacturers like P&W or GE.
@@theawanonymouscaller yes, that's why I'm asking what if.. is it possible or not?
The most cursed thing I’ve ever seen
unlike the 747, that was delayed and overbudget, and almost bankrupted boeing, this project would have definitely bankrupted LM
Actually the 747 was on time in a record short time of 28 months from program get go to first which stop remains unbeaten for a widebody. The fact it was developed that quickly and still safer than DC-10 is a testament to how well Joe Sutter’s team did. Although it did initially use that door the DC-10 used until the -400, there was enough safety redundancy to keep the plane safe until it landed and *most* pax alive (United 811 shows this)
This would have been the United States answer to the Ukrainian AN-225 in the strategic troop transport role
The bigger you make them the harder they will fall , too many back up systems needed, not enough experienced pilots and crew, and the FAA and NTSB, will be busier than ever. Look at the useage rate of the ANT. Pursue this then don't complain about cost of flying and demand. Lockheed products are typically over budget take 20 years to deliver.
Less fighter planes and more commercial planes please
Hmm...
The best for L.M. is to get another more realistic open minded CEO. They are aiming at the wrong target. Such big planes arent viable cos of the fuel prices, the instable market for such high capacity pass. transport, and airports will need longer runways and extra capacity infra structures which will not financially beneficial for airport owners observing in the light of maybe it can work or maybe it will not.
Not Airliner C5
If They Kept On The Design's Of C-5,C-17'S,Ect 😃. They Can & Could've Had A Passenger Design's For Those PLANES 😃
Cargo yea, passenger no.
The future of massive deaths in plane crashes and massive troubles trying to evacuate lol
Yeah, cause they crash and everyone die all the time flying
@@Kalvinjj 950 on a single plane.. Thats really dangerous
@@emaheiwa8174 again.... why?
Why is ~50% more than a domestic Japanese 747 so dangerous? How many of those have crashed?
The answer is 1 in 1985.
Planes just don't crash randomly much less all the time, that's why the last crash in China is news meanwhile bus crashes are just local news stuff even if they kill half as much as a narrow body plane crash but an order of magnitude more often. A lot more people just means a lot more emergency exits and escape slides/rafts. In fact, this automatically gives one extra safety measure: higher redundancy on emergency exits.
On a smaller plane, a single blocked exit is a LOT worse as it's a far higher percentage of blocked exits.
@@Kalvinjj you cant have that many exits. You should watch Found and Explained video about it too. Its not rocket science. A plane like this wasnt safe
@@emaheiwa8174 Yeah now I've had time to watch that video you said and as I expected there's no real evidence/reasoning behind the evacuation problem, it's not much different than a 10 abreast widebody having to evacuate to one side alone. You would have far more corridors and obviously, connections between those without seats. There's nothing that says there can't be that many exits (specially since it's so long anyway), and that claim on the video about it sinking right away if it ditches is a complete pull out of nowhere.
I do like Found and Explained videos, but they aren't documentaries for sure.
Impractical is one thing that is visible, impossible and specially unsafe are just not.
Boeing4life
wide plane
Tell me why lockheed-martin cannot compete with Boeing or Airbus they build great military aircraft why shouldn't they be able to build a greater airliner .
They can - the point was that it's technically feasible but economically impractical.
That is too impossible
Engineering wise, it is possible, but certainly not cost effective.
@@Hattonbank and it wasn't not nesseary
3rd
okay, cool.
In my opinion I think that Lockheed basically wants to build an American 🇺🇸 version of the Russian Antonov AN-225 but better and faster. 🙂👍
Such talk and hypothesis are all nonsensical since there’s no market even for the current fabulous A380 which has been a financial flop. Even the 787 is stalling and global health situation has dwindled international travel……so why do people dream up such fruitless nonsense that won’t happen ever??????
Hindsight is 20/20, this was done in the 90’s.
Also the 747 was an even crazier dream and it turned out a blockbuster
@@jumilifyify And we know that anything on that scale done post-747s has not been financially advisable or viable. Infact at the Boeing plant in Everette there’s a replica of a Double-Decker plane almost identical to the A380 and I was to learn that Boeing had first conceived that idea but on careful thought they saw that 4-engined planes was not going to be viable in the future but rather more environmentally friendly twin-engined ones would be, so they scrapped the idea which much later Airbus was to adopt and develop into the Fabulous A380 (well, we know it’s financial turnover, costs to run and environmental issues of this amazing-looking aircraft)