• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

A big longhaul Lockheed

chornedsnorkack

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
From

http://books.google.com/books?id=-AAAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA50&dq=l1011#PPA51,M1

page 51

there are accounts of Douglas and Lockheed plans:
Douglas also has plans for three "stretch" versions of DC-10, which use bigger engines to be built by Pratt and Whitney as well as by GE. These are longer-range and convertible freight versions. Lockheed also has designs for an intercontinental version, which would be an entirely new, bigger plane for up to 400 passengers, rather than just a "stretch."

The Douglas "stretch" was DC-10-30 and DC-10-40. But what was the entirely new Lockheed plane?
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
126
Only "really" stretched L-1011 I am aware of is the L-1011-300, that reached 207.4 feet (63.2 meters) with two barrel extension, but I doubt that it would be able to carry 400 passengers AND have a very long range. And by the way it was a late '70s proposal. Long range L-1011s had shortened cabins (L-1011-500), since they were aimed at long thin routes (long fat ones were B-747 domain). There was a poorly known presumably long-range Tristar derivative, the so-called CL-1616-8 (strange TDN, by the way, CL-1616 was a completely dfferent aircraft), actually a Quadstar, with four CF6-6D engines, two under the wing and two sideways the tail-cone (DC-9 style). This too was shortened, by 15 feet. That's for the L-1011 (which was a Lockheed-California project). I may add that in late '70s CALAC did the so-called ATX studies (Advanced Transports Exprerimental), that were designated ATX-XXX, where the last three X stand for the passengers carried. The ATX-350, covered by TDN CL-1633, were more loosely based on the L-1011-1, with both cabind and wing estensions. One was long-range (5000 nmi), but it is too late for being the one cited in PS article. Little is known on the Lockheed-Georgia front. The 1970 timeframe could fit with the transonics design GALAC was doing, the largest of which could have carried 400 passengers at 0.98 Mach. And transonics would have been aimed precisely at very long range routes. CALAC did a transonics design, the CL-1244 in 1970, only to be used by Daniel Houghton, then corporate chairman, in a speech (I suspect on occasion of him being induced in the Aviation Hall of Fame). Or, it could be simply guesswork on Popular Science's part....
 

LowObservable

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,202
Reaction score
130
400 pax in that context would have either meant a really big stretch or someone mistaking a high-density configuration ("up to 400 passengers") as a baseline. In that era the only one I can remember is the L-1011-8, a DC-10-30 equivalent that was a casualty of the Rolls-Royce problems.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
501
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Three-view drawing of Lockheed CL-1616-8 "QuadStar".

A curious design study was a four-engine derivative of the Lockheed L-1011 that used two engines on the wing and two-podded engines on the aft fuselage.The CL-1616-8 used a six wheel main gear and GE CF6-6D engines.

Source: Upton, Jim Airliner Tech Volume 8 Lockheed L-1011 TriStar Specialty Press 2001 p. 14.
 

Attachments

  • LockheedCL1616-8.JPG
    LockheedCL1616-8.JPG
    28.9 KB · Views: 335

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,778
Reaction score
156
Has there ever been an aircraft with that configuration? I know that the Russian Ekranoplan had a configuration with a bunch of engines forward of the wing and two on the tail.

But how would this Lockheed design have handled in an engine-out situation? Would having two engines behind the other engines have been much of a problem?
 

Attachments

  • chrono_russe.jpg
    chrono_russe.jpg
    139.1 KB · Views: 292

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
126
mmm, probably not worse than an engine out situation in a three-engines configuration, when the engine out is under the wing.
 

blackstar

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,778
Reaction score
156
Skybolt said:
mmm, probably not worse than an engine out situation in a three-engines configuration, when the engine out is under the wing.

Duh. You're right. I had not considered that.
 
Top