Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
usaf2222

PMDG L-1011

Recommended Posts

To begin with PMDG is full of classic plane addicts. Accordingly and for their private pleasure these people would like to have a truly functional and faithfully modelled 707/732/722/742 to name a a few and naturally the brainchild of the one of the greatest design groups in the history of aviation the 'skunk works'. Do you have any idea of the amount of time and resources this would take to create this to our and your standards? Now compare with expected market demand... Sad...but real!E M V


====================================

E M V

Precision Manuals Development Group

====================================

Share this post


Link to post

On a more positive note there ls always the secret project to look forward to, although I have a feeling it's the 787. Or A330. A L-1011 is almost certainly a no, there's only like 30 in service so a plane to use and base there creation on would be hard to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest 413X3
Agreed, IMO it's too bad that posky hasn't embraced VC modeling more fully. Certainly it's their right since all the effort is theirs; I'm just always hopeful we'll see more VC friendly aircraft out of that group in the future. Their 777 certainly shows that the capabilities are there. Of course, adding a VC is a whole additional modeling challenge in itself, and it's easy to see posky's frustration with their forum posters who seem to think adding a VC is a quick-fix kind of process.
They spit in the face of VC fliers with a permanent sun screen that could not be removed in the 777.

Share this post


Link to post
The thing is, where can they get acess to a l-1011
I agree. Not only that but getting beta testers that are actual ten-eleven pilots or even have experience is a dieing breed. I am not sure how Digital Aviation is doing but I think the CRJ would be a great plane. LOTS in use. Just about every airlines uses them somewhere in their system. I am sure RSR with his contacts has access to them. But for now I think PMDG has a quite a bit on their plate with the Dash8 and 777. Lets look forward to those. I am looking more forward to the Dash 8 more than the 777. I think the 737 will keep our interest for a long time. So long that the others will be released before we know it. Jack C

Share this post


Link to post

An L1011 would be awesome. I love that bird and the VC10. I think they still fly the L1011s over near me at RAF Brize Norton, they also have quite a few VC10's. Although highly unlikely, a vintage PMDG aircraft would be the dogs'


Gavin Price

Share this post


Link to post
Guest dlrk

Please don't make an L-1011. Make something useful instead, like a A320 or 767.

Share this post


Link to post

Why would they make those? LDS already have the 767 and FSLabs are doing the A320. I like what PMDG have in the pipeline, B777 and the Dash are a good choice. I personally love the J41 so am eagerly awaiting the turboprops


Gavin Price

Share this post


Link to post

yeah, but theres always the dream of a pmdg 767. and maybe in the pipeline there could be a 787 (secret project) Who knows, but PMDG are always full of suprises :)

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to see someone make a good L-1011, but I reckon that's likely to be Captain Sim after they've had a crack at the 737-200. PMDG are more likely to do something like perhaps the 717 (i.e. the DC-9 derivative, not the 707 derivative). The 717 has very similar avionics to the MD-11, which of course PMDG have already done much of the research for, and given that the 717 is also marketed by Boeing, which PMDG are evidently working closely with, then that could be something they'd consider. The only thing which really weighs against that is the fact that it's the same class of aircraft as the 737, so the presence of a decent NG might affect people choosing to buy a 717 too.With LD tarting up their 767 and CS already having made one too, I suspect one of those from PMDG is unlikely, and very soon the A320 is going to be all over the place, with four developers already having a stab at making a high end version of it.Al


Alan Bradbury

Check out my youtube flight sim videos: Here

Share this post


Link to post

Wait for the Woodpigeon, now there's a real classic for you. PMDG should just about be done by now, the damn NGX keeps butting in. :( Cheers, Chris D

Share this post


Link to post
The thing is, where can they get acess to a l-1011
Type in 'L-1011 for sale' into Google.
I think its unlikely PMDG would make an aircraft of this type.PMDG from my prespective are making modern airliners that Robert use to fly, hence fourth he knows "what is right, and what is wrong." Guys, on another note, stop requesting stuff.. the 737 isn't even out yet! :(
737NG is OK. But the TriStar is a piece of history. What happen when beautiful engineering meets bad timing and poor finances.
Besides, PMDG are more of a Newer Generation developer rather than the steam gauges. Captain Sim would be a good one possibly do it, after the 737-100/-200.
I wouldn't mind modernizing the L-1011.
Most beautiful airliner ever made imo. Can't see it being high on the PMDG priority list however...seems like it'd be more up Captain sim's street. I use the Aerosim model with some ISG gauges installed and it gives me a pretty nice usable L1011 for now.
I'm still new to FSX, how do I find and replace gauges?
beutiful bird.
Yessiree
I think MD10 is the bether option old ladie extior of a DC10 an modern cockpit and system from the MD11 . Fed%20Ex%20MD10-%20Flight%20Deck-1.jpgIs the better advanced option for thr PMDG MD11 Frighter ! 3707960901_680f63022c.jpgmd10-30cf-n319fe-fedex-fdx-fx-phoenix-sky-harbor-phx-kphx.jpgbest regards
Eh... oh... TRISTAR FREIGHTER! Perfect! Now its modern!
To begin with PMDG is full of classic plane addicts. Accordingly and for their private pleasure these people would like to have a truly functional and faithfully modelled 707/732/722/742 to name a a few and naturally the brainchild of the one of the greatest design groups in the history of aviation the 'skunk works'. Do you have any idea of the amount of time and resources this would take to create this to our and your standards? Now compare with expected market demand... Sad...but real!E M V
Do you know how many potential customers there are if the forums are 'Full of addicts'? Just saying, but that is why they call it an idea. I'm just trying to bring it to your attention, and keep interests in the plane that made TWA and Delta.
I'll jump into this, having flown all three widebody tri-jets (and I'll throw in the MD-11 at no extra charge).I'll say this for the DC-10: it does fly nicely. I was actually pleasantly surprised at how well it handled. And the GE engines are very good powerplants.The MD-11 is not quite as agreeable (I don't think it's bad, just different) - the smaller stabilizer makes it a bit touchier, particularly in pitch. The initial ground spoiler deployment on the -11 is virtually worthless (they only partially deploy until the nosegear is on the ground to prevent a tailstrike) - I don't recall the DC-10 being so light on the gear after touchdown. The aircraft feels like it's ready to hop back into the air at the slightest provocation. I like that the -11 has tremendous amount of power, I'm flexing at altitudes/temperatures I never would have dreamed of.Then there is the L-1011. It's really hard to find fault with it. It handled well, had tons of redundancy, and was WAY ahead of it's time. The pitch trim system is the best of any aircraft I've ever flown, you had control over virtually everything (you could actually control the pitch in the event of a jammed stabilizer by deselecting spoiler panels and deploying the remaining ones), the spoilers were infinitely selectable (unlike the 3 notches on the Douglas), the ground spoilers worked very well initially and fully deployed. It has the biggest cockpit of any airliner I know of (much roomier than the Douglas products).Systems-wise, the L-1011 design is still far superior to the DC/MD. First, the DC-10/MD-11 are virtually identical systems wise. Douglas did very little re-engineering of the systems when they created the MD-11, they simply automated the cockpit controls and added EFIS and an FMC.Hydraulics are one of the DC/MD's weaknesses - three systems with eight power sources vs. four with eleven power sources (IIRC) on the 1011. The L-1011's system architecture also provides more redundancy than that of the DC/MD. Even after Douglas refitted the aircraft with the "Sioux City valve" the system is still a weak link. Lose one system and you will lose some capability on the aircraft. On the L-1011, with one system loss you still have everything operating.Electrically, both types are pretty good. I like the architecture of the L-1011 better in that the APU can (and is) paralleled with the engine generators on the tie bus, but so far I haven't had any problems with the DC/MD system where the APU NEVER is on the tie bus. I do like the no-break power transfer system on the MD.The L-1011 APU is also weak in the air delivery department (noticed mainly on engine starts with low pressure). I don't recall the DC having that problem, and the MD definitely doesn't (excepting high altitude airports, but that's to be expected).Air systems on all three work well enough, the IIRC the L-1011's was a bit more versatile, but not a huge difference. The DC/MD's don't have the "steam train" chugging the the L-1011's packs occasionally did, and the MD's temperature control system does a better job than the L-1011/DC-10.Fuel systems are a toss up. The L-1011 wins in the simplicity department (at least from the engineer's panel), but the DC/MD gives you more control and versatility (and more ability to mess things up). If it were just that, there would be no clear winner on this one. Unfortunately, the DC/MD has one other minor vice - if you lose all AC electrical, the #2 engine WILL fail due to fuel starvation. Just in case you don't have enough to do with the widebody equivalent of a "9 light trip," we'll throw in an engine failure to make it sporting. Really, they couldn't come up with a better system?!?Aside from that minor consideration, I think the fuselage mounted #2 engine is better than the tail mounted one for the DC/MD - it doesn't create the pitch issues when doing one and two engine inoperative approaches that the high mount of the DC/MD does. Also the loss of #2 on the DC/MD near V1 causes an auto-rotating tendency with can lead to an early liftoff or tailstrike.While the RB-211 is a good powerplant, the original -22B's weren't too powerful, and it does not like cold weather (Note - the later RB211's such as on the 757 are a different animal). It wasn't uncommon to have 3+ minute starts, and more than once I've come close to the 5 minute starter duty cycle. Also, the pneumatic reversers were somewhat prone to sticking. Again, it wasn't unheard of to have one MEL'd and pinned out (deactivated). I haven't observed any such problems on the DC/MD.Flight control-wise, the DC/MD's are very dependent of slats (having only slotted flaps, not Fowlers) - hung up slats result in very high approach speeds (more so than the L-1011 with Fowler flaps). This combined with the fact that the original slat actuators on the DC-10 did not lock when extended (but were held extended only by hydraulic pressure) directly contributed to the crash of AA191 at KORD. To me, that is a serious design flaw. The L-1011 also had DLC (Direct Lift Control) - on approach with landing flaps, the spoilers biased up 7 degrees and then modulated between 0 and 14 degrees in response to pitch inputs from the control wheel, greatly reducing the amount of pitch change while tracking the glideslope. Worked great, particularly on a coupled approach! Also the L-1011 had a speed "doughnut" on the ADI, which sensed AOA, configuration, acceleration, phase of the moon, and sever other inputs. It took some getting used to, but once you understood what it was telling you if you couldn't hold your approach speed within one or two knots, you just weren't trying. The -500's also had MDLC (maneuvering direct lift control) and ACS (active control system) as part of the wing extension. Essentially ACS would deflect the ailerons to unload the outboard section of the wing in turbulence, MDLC would deploy the spoilers in maneuvering flight (though I'd be lying if I tried to tell you the purpose at this moment).Also in the design flaw department, there is the whole cargo door/floor venting debacle on the DC-10. How Douglas got away with that travesty I will never know. History indicates the issue has been successfully resolved, but it never should have occurred in the first place (or should have been resolved after the first incident).As far as reliability, it seems to me that all of them do reasonably well IF you keep up on maintenance (don't let little things slide) and have mechanics who really know the airframe and are provided with the resources to maintain them. Attempt to cut corners, and you will pay the price in reliability. Also, keep them flying - airplanes hate to sit (when we flew the heck out of the L-1011's during the CRAF activation reliability was quite good).My ultimate analysis is pretty much this:I picture a bunch of engineers sitting around tables at both Lockheed and Douglas. The Lockheed engineers are focused on producing the best aircraft possible. The Douglas engineers are focused on producing an airplane before Lockheed. On the whole, the design of the DC-10 seems like it was cobbled together without a great deal of thought, and it shows. Even items as small as the space for a chart case (too small on the DC/MD, and the cute fold out table is mounted too low to be useful with a chart case there), to cockpit lighting (poor on the DC/MD), or the passenger door system (stone simple of the L-1011, unnecessarily complicated on the DC (and with at least three different variations on the ones I flew).Two old sayings come to mind:1) Lockheed has always built the most technologically advanced aircraft available. Unfortunately, they've never figured out how to make money doing so.and 2) Lockheed should design them, Boeing should build them, and Douglas should market them.Sorry to go on so long - but you did ask! biggrin.gifbcrosier
Enough of an experience? He flew all three.Found at: http://www.airlinepi...s-l-1011-a.html
Please don't make an L-1011. Make something useful instead, like a A320 or 767.
Useful, yes. Classic, no.

Share this post


Link to post

There is more of a market for modern airliners, e.g the 747 and 737, which is why pmdg create modern sims. And there not going to BUY a L1011 to make a sim. That would officially bankrupt them. Sorry to say but a pmdg tristar is a definate no. Maybe CS will have a crack.

Share this post


Link to post

Also to add to my previous post, only 5 L-1011 remain in service so I wouldn't expect a pmdg tristar.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...