The L1011 TriStar was my favorite ride. It was smoother, quieter and more comfortable than anything else available at the time.
@wizardmix3 жыл бұрын
That's the one I missed most. I flew on one only two times and climbed around on one at the Mojave boneyard but what a stunning aircraft that was.
@OSTARAEB43 жыл бұрын
Dean, yes, I liked them better than the DC-10's. I think the last time I flew one was about 1996 for a one hour flight from Atlanta to Tampa.
@johnwilson83093 жыл бұрын
Me too
@christopherhennessey89913 жыл бұрын
Same here.I flew the L1011’s of Eastern ,TWA,and Delta.
@davidperry40133 жыл бұрын
They should bring back the L1011 as a twin jet with Rolls Royce Ultrafan.
@leokimvideo2 жыл бұрын
Trijets suffered from the difficult maintenance of the engine up in the air that was difficult to inspect and remove at overhaul. With some airlines that middle engine became the neglected engine and the rest is history.
@davenelson81872 жыл бұрын
Also greatly reduced the working area within the aft equipment bays for servicing other systems.
@prophetsnake2 жыл бұрын
That isn't true.
@jeremyduncan36542 жыл бұрын
Douglas built a work platform under #2 engine that made it easy to work under and service. Worked on plenty of MD11 and DC10.
@goclunker2 жыл бұрын
The ll1011 came to the market too late and was too $$ . The DC-10’s crashes from the “pinto” door sealed their fate
@kentfrederick89292 жыл бұрын
A friend of mine started with the 727 as an F/E. For the -200, a first departure of the day meant opening the rear galley doors and looking into the No. 1 and No. 3 engines with a flashlight. The No. 2 engine never got as good of a look, being buried in the fuselage. Inspecting the engines on the 757, 767, and 737 is a lot easier
@glennchartrand54113 жыл бұрын
Another reason was longer runways. The 727, DC-10 and L101 can use short runways (its why cargo services like them) As runways were lengthened it made twin engine safer to land and take off.
@selfdo2 жыл бұрын
There's another factor...all these tri-jet configurations are prone to stalling. Insurers got a bit nervous about underwriting those airframes, so along with guzzling more jet fuel, higher insurance premiums.
@andrewsmart29492 жыл бұрын
@@selfdo rear mounted engine twin jets were just as bad at stalling
@BrapBrapDorito2 жыл бұрын
@@andrewsmart2949 Which is why they’re very uncommon in any new airliner now.
@Perich292 жыл бұрын
The Ford Tri motor was the first plane with Tri Engine with 3 Props.
@andrewsmart29492 жыл бұрын
@@Perich29 which made it more reliable as it could still fly reasonably well if one engine failed,and aircrafdt engines were not the most reliable back then LOL
@georgiathai49613 жыл бұрын
I thoroughly enjoyed this video. I have 26 years in the L-1011 and flew all 3 seats in the 727. If I may add a couple of things to your already excellent video... The relaxing of the 60 minute rule isn’t the only thing that killed the trijet. Trijets originally came about because American wanted a two-engine airplane to fly transcontinental trips with, but the engine technology at the time hadn’t evolved to the point where a two-engine airplane could fly over mountainous terrain and meet the enroute performance requirements should one engine fail at an inopportune time. Three engine airplanes were the solution. In fact, the L-1011 was originally designed to meet an American Airlines spec, but as you correctly pointed out, the problems with the RR engine delayed Tristar production and American purchased the DC-10. The Douglas/Lockheed rivalry could be a story all by itself...but before I digress.. As engine technology advanced, the advent of the A300, and then later the 767, two-engine airplanes could meet the performance required with one engine out over mountainous terrain. The rest is history. The engine performance was there, the 60 minute rule relaxed, ETOPS was born...the trijet was done. Lockheed also explored a two-engine version of the TriStar, nicknamed the “BiStar”, but as with the Douglas airplane it never got past the drawing board. I had an American Airlines 767 Captain ask me once why I was flying 3-engine airplanes across the Atlantic and Pacific? My response to him was, “because the company doesn’t own any 4-engine airplanes” haha. No kidding, thanks for a great video. Really enjoyed it!
@markmudgett75792 жыл бұрын
Hey Georgia, You nailed it! The 60-minute rule died because newer engines performed better and for longer periods of time. Nothing more, and nothing less.
@minerran2 жыл бұрын
Interesting... I always assumed the three engines were for reliability in crossing the ocean. I never though about mountain ranges. Thanks Captain for that explanation.
@jameshayward85332 жыл бұрын
@@minerran I agree, I too always assumed it was all about over water.
@jaroslavsevcik34212 жыл бұрын
@@jameshayward8533 It was for any operations that required higher reliability. Over water is just one example.
@michaelbenardo56952 жыл бұрын
Twin engine planes HAD demonstrated that they could fly over high mountains on 1 engine, but, like you said, the possibility that the remaining engine could fail made the FAA say "NO", although there were some exemptions. Still, it was illegal, until the FAA relaxed that rule.
@TxGambler772 жыл бұрын
I remember as a kid flying in my first 727 and visiting to cockpit to see all the lights and switches that make such a machine stay in the air. I tried to ask a few questions but the co-pilot was complaining about dragging Bill Walton up and down the court and the capt was asking me some odd questions if I liked gladiator movies or ever seen a grown man naked.
@gerrycoogan65442 жыл бұрын
LOL!
@hjuyhgty2 жыл бұрын
S tier reference!
@tzackaria72 жыл бұрын
so have ya ever seed a growed man necked? asking for Buba
@skyblazer91372 жыл бұрын
Oh My!
@b-dogtheman4578 Жыл бұрын
my Dad says you don't hustle on defense
@johnharris66553 жыл бұрын
The ability to fly over water on two engines killed the tri-jet.
@adamgraf66163 жыл бұрын
Wow you don’t say
@summersky773 жыл бұрын
Thanks, Dr. Obvious.
@TomasAWalker533 жыл бұрын
That’s what he said ⁉️🤪
@denniss96203 жыл бұрын
Lindbergh did it with one engine
@StringerNews13 жыл бұрын
Hold on, jets can fly _over water?_ Witchcraft!
@mrrolandlawrence3 жыл бұрын
the fact that the yak 40 was also known affectionatly in the USSR as the "kerosene burner" might have had something to do with it ;)
@acalabash3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, exactly. Design bureaus of the Soviet union had a peculiar kind of freedom, being completely independent of commercial viability limitations, and could make weird stuff like a regional trijet with maximum seating around 30 (!!!)
@halweilbrenner99263 жыл бұрын
Jet fuel almost identical to kerosene
@juliusnepos60133 жыл бұрын
@@acalabash yeah
@jmi59693 жыл бұрын
@@acalabash There was nothing weird - considering the very limited choice of engines. It was either three small AI-25 engines ("kerosene burners") or two large one (far, far worse). The end result was economically mediocre, but not outrageously expensive. Today, right now, the price of the few remaining domestic Yak-40 flights hovers between the prices of second-class and first-class sleeper trains (all these routes are competing with trains directly). That said, the four-abreast Yak-40 seating is a torture (even when the flight is less than an hour).
@Bartonovich523 жыл бұрын
@ acalabash
@alexbrown73443 жыл бұрын
ETOPS Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim
@greateraviationgl913 жыл бұрын
@Alex Brown *Bad-dum-tass*
@jackhiltonsyou84663 жыл бұрын
@@greateraviationgl91 W
@user-yc2oz8kc5kАй бұрын
"putum tish!" (rimshot)
@crosisofborg55242 жыл бұрын
My favorite plane was the L10-11. It was such a beautiful plane. I miss working on those. The 727 was also a wonderful plane I am glad I got to work on.
@kinosewa2 жыл бұрын
omg 727 wysi funneh lmaooo being serious tho, I’ve seen that plane and, and also got to see the L1011, beautiful pieces of engineering
@phugemawl2 жыл бұрын
In my working life I lost count of the number of flights I took around Australia (as a passenger) on the B727, wonderful and fast aeroplane !
@bob21612 жыл бұрын
I agree, 100%! From birth, until age 22, I was a frequent air traveler. It was common to take 6-10 flights during summer vacations. My father worked for an airline based in Miami, Florida. We had family scattered around the country. My earliest memories are of the Lockheed Electra, and I still have a special place in my heart for the plane. In the 60's the 727 joined the lineup and the Electra flights only flew to one of our regular destinations. The Electras were completely retired by the mid 70's. From then on it was all 727's, with the occasional DC-9. For the odd international trips, it was the 10-11. In my eyes, it was an especially beautiful airplane. The first time I rode on one, I had the opportunity to follow along behind the first officer as he did the "walk around" inspection. I was in awe at the size of everything. The engines were huge, the wheels were huge, the wings were huge. I had a hard time believing that something that big could actually get off the ground. Then once we boarded, I was again impressed by the size. It was a very comfortable plane to ride on, and the sound was different from anything else I'd flown on. I only got to fly on the 10-11 maybe a dozen times. Maybe that's why it remains such a special memory. Thanks for the walk down memory lane.
@AdurianJ3 жыл бұрын
I feel sad for kids today back in the day there where so many different looking jets on airports now they almost all look the same.
@DrRock20093 жыл бұрын
Bit like cars, eh?
@DardanellesBy1083 жыл бұрын
Ah yes, brings back memories of going in our backyard when growing up and watching all the different types of planes on final to OAK. Now when I go to my parents and see planes, all the commercial airplanes are 737’s with the occasional Embrear. Also not much variety with the cargo haulers.
@sc13383 жыл бұрын
Yea, but the 787 is beautiful
@a.a.p32543 жыл бұрын
It’s the same for the once great American auto industry all down the toilet. What a shame.
@matte84413 жыл бұрын
Agreed, its the reason why I'm an avgeek today. I took my first international holiday some time in the 90s, i think i was 6 years old at time and i remember the terminals at Tokyo Narita airport were filled 747s, DC-10s, and the occasional A340. Even the color schemes were more attractive. I could distinguish the 747 variants at that age as we flew with JAL and they had the -200, -300, and -400 at the time and got a chance to fly on all of them. Missed out on a Trijet unfortunately. I think the last era of interesting jets was around 2008. I flew to HKG and the 747s were still used by the European airlines at the time
@SC-yx6wr3 жыл бұрын
Interesting video. I recall the engine falling off the wing of DC 10 flight 191 over Chicago in 1979 freaked us out a lot. My family (and many other people) refused to fly on them after that famous incident. And, if you had a seat toward the rear of a 727, it was really loud, but that were they put the smoking section! What also killed the tri-jets was the advent of the high-bypass turbo fan engine, which is quieter and more efficient than the straight-thru turbo-jets, but is too bulky to be mounted in the tail or fuse, it can only be hung under a wing.
@bricefleckenstein96662 жыл бұрын
The engines on the L-1011 and DC-10 WERE high bypass turbo fans - just not *AS* high a bypass ratio as current engines. You seem to be thinking of the engines on the 727 and the EARLY models of the 737.
@MarvelousSeven2 жыл бұрын
I flew to Qatar once from MD in a DC-10. In talking with the crew I learned they flew the whole way on just the two wing mounted engines. 😐
@erwinschmidt72652 жыл бұрын
S C - Yuh!! It was AMR 191 on 5-25-79 that had engine #1 develop a miss at O'Hare. Tickets were in-hand, but got PO'd when found new Mom-in-Law skimming us over Wedding Reception Hall, forcing us from SAT to a FRI, all for huge kickback. Arranged & self-pd for all including little sht like chapel, preacher, license, hall, invitations, flowers, catered food, liquor, bartender, photographer, 7pc band, limo, etc all myself to get orig date of SAT 5-12. On 5-25 At LAX, on way back to G.R. MI from Hawaii, picked up LA Times Xtra Editn w/news DC-10 for original tickets, had augured it in on flight from O'Hare to Trailer Park. Wife's Mom hated me for rest of Mom's life ending 1997, as if not for me & my detective, she would have had her really huge payout that had always dreamed of from AMR on loss of her daughter, "she loved so very much"! She also didn't get that huge kickback she was counting on either!! Too Bad...So Sad!!! As the ole farmer said, some days ya steps in it, some days ya don't!!! Sincere RIP for "lucky couple" (United on strike) that had scooped up our original tickets, taking our places...
@kenmorrison7932 жыл бұрын
Besides American Flight 121 at O'Hare, there was also United Flight 232 at Sioux City, IA, when the #2 engine on a DC-10 blew up and destroyed all 3 nearby "redundant" hydraulic systems.
@vk2ig2 жыл бұрын
@@erwinschmidt7265 Sorry, I'm bit confused about the dates and where you were going to/from. Your original wedding date was Sat 5-12-79 but your M-I-L-to-be tried moving it to Fri 5-11-79; and if you'd got married on the Friday, then you would've been on AA191 (Chicago to LAX) Fri 5-25-79 ... but instead were flying LAX to Grand Rapids that day because you got married on Sat 5-12-79? As you say, RIP to the unfortunate people who thought they were lucky getting your original seats on AA191 on Fri 5-25-79. :(
@zanelindsay1267 Жыл бұрын
Great video, I watched it twice. An interesting feature of the numerous Boeing 727 models which wasn't mentioned in the video was the integral central stairway from the rear of the fuselage, which allowed loading and unloading of passengers without reliance on airport facilities. This "airstair" feature was infamously used in flight by the 1971 hijacker "D. B. Cooper" (and copycat hijackers who parachuted with ransom payments while airborne) until the airstair feature was modified to not be deployable during flight.
@edheather4056 Жыл бұрын
The first time I disembarked a 727 via the airstair was a strange but wonderful feeling
@afmo5003 жыл бұрын
Still think the 727 was the sleekest, best proportioned, mass-sold Passenger jet ever introduced.
@mikekokomomike3 жыл бұрын
Flew on a nearly empty 727 from Chicago back to Indianapolis one time. Pilot came on intercom, obviously aggravated by many delays, said he was going to get us home as fast as he could. Out of all the jet takeoffs I had been through, maybe a couple dozen, I got pinned back in the seat so much I remember it today. The trip from Chicago to Indy is just blast off to cruising altitude and then level off and almost immediately coast back down, hardly time for beverage service.
@MrDgwphotos3 жыл бұрын
She's my favorite airliner for this exact reason. Such a good looking plane!
@lbowsk3 жыл бұрын
@@mikekokomomike Most of the Crap7s fly at .75-.80M. We used to fly the 727 at .88 all the time. We had two versions, one had a higher Vmo. There was a mode A/B switch on the Airspeed indicator and if your Zero Fuel Weight was 'X' or below you could run in 'fast' mode (A). Not sure if I have that exactly right, but you get the idea. 250 knots to 10K. Then hold level flight till the IAS needle married right up tight to the VMO needle. Get one or two overspeed "Clicks" for style points and then pitch up to hold that speed to cruise. At this point, you're not going uphill too fast but downrange like an SOB! At cruise alt, just level off and let it rip. When it stopped accelerating (or you felt it buffet), match up the fans and call back and ask for coffee. During short flights, cruising at low ALTs it was nothing to see 385-400 indicated.
@bobvicki3 жыл бұрын
@@lbowsk Yeah, that was back when kero was $.12 a gallon & lowest block speed was all that mattered. Different world today.
@apgardude3 жыл бұрын
...and I LOVED the roar it made.
@daviddunsmore1033 жыл бұрын
Thanks very much for mentioning the ofter forgotten Avro Canada C-102 Jetliner! 😀 It was a fantastically pioneering aircraft, and had lots of interest from potential customers, but the Korean War caused the government to order Avro Canada to reallocate it's production capacity to building the CF-100 interceptor instead. What a crushing blow to what could have been a great success, both for that individual aircraft type, and a growing civilian jetliner industry in Canada as a whole.
@jimtaylor2943 жыл бұрын
Aye. The lack of a civil airliner to "pay the rent" also ensured the demise of AVRO Canada's other and most well known project; the AVRO Arrow.
@daviddunsmore1033 жыл бұрын
@@jimtaylor294 Of course, Avro would have thrived if the Arrow hadn't been cancelled in 1959. The Jetliner program, which had been revolutionary when it first flew in 1949, was well and truly dead by the time that the Arrow program was in full flight, so to speak. The one flying prototype of the Jetliner had been stored intact until about 1955, when the nose section was cut off for eventual museum display, and the rest of it sadly scrapped.
@sc13383 жыл бұрын
@@daviddunsmore103 the arrow was beautiful, but I don’t think it would’ve made a difference in saving the industry
@lawrencedavidson61959 ай бұрын
My absolute favorite passenger jet is the Boeing 727. The three Pratt & Whitney JT8D engines were designed for the F16 fighting Falcon and is a very powerful high revving turbojet. I have flown jump seat many times where the pilot or first officer were my friends and wanted to impress me (we were in ground school together but i dropped out and pursued another career) Requesting high speed below FL10 they would redline the airplane on descent, you felt like you were flying a rocket or spacecraft! Great memories.
@camerone3972 жыл бұрын
I'm young enough and fly infrequently enough to have never ridden on a trijet but I've always thought the L1011 was gorgeous, easily my favorite trijet design and one of my favorite airliner designs of all time. Wish I could see one in person
@rachelblack38162 жыл бұрын
I flew a Lockheed L1011 once, I it was from Atlanta to California, and the L1011 was the most comfortable and quiet aircraft I'ver ever been in.
@Primus542 жыл бұрын
There are a few static displays in museums. Delta has one in Atlanta.
@michaelstadtkowitz52142 жыл бұрын
I have always felt the same way about the L1011. Something about it just gives of a sense of "elegance"... the were even called the "limousine of the sky"....
@MarJay19803 жыл бұрын
Fantastic video. Informative, interesting with an easy to understand voice over. I guess it could be a bit dry for a non aviation enthusiast, but it's definitely in the top tier of youtube documentary content. Nice work!
@thedeeman27943 жыл бұрын
Another great documentary. The trijet was a major staple in American aviation and a big feature in disaster documentaries.
@MootingInsanity3 жыл бұрын
One of them even killed a Concorde, if I remember. An impressive feat.
@halweilbrenner99263 жыл бұрын
DC10s Too bad about the L1011 was awesome but practically bankrupt Lockheed.
@crinolynneendymion87553 жыл бұрын
@Arthur Humphreys Bogus! MD 10 fallen apart caused the tire to explode. You're assertion of cheap tyres is bizarre as you'd find out next to time you opt not to swerve around some pallet wrap on the highway.
@Dave-dh7rt3 жыл бұрын
@Arthur Humphreys not cheap tires lol. It ran over a sharp piece of aluminum that was 2 feet long and a couple inches wide. The concorde weighs nearly half a million pounds.
@maskedavenger25783 жыл бұрын
@Arthur Humphreys The Concorde never had cheap anything ,even the passengers were worth a few Bob they had to be .
@Parkwaymania3 жыл бұрын
How I miss riding on an L1011.
@wizardmix3 жыл бұрын
Agreed. That was a very unique, special aircraft loved by passengers, crew and pilots equally. I think only the A380 matches it in terms of having a very unique interior space but the A380 looks like a flying cow compared to the beauty of the L1011
@stonerabbit3443 жыл бұрын
Ditto! Loved flying in this tri-jet from Florida to Toronto back in the day. Spacious, well-appointed, and comfortable, the L1011 took flying to a new level.
@Parkwaymania3 жыл бұрын
@@stonerabbit344 Yep did the Toronto-Tampa a couple of times and Toronto-Vancouver. Thing is, I hate to fly but something about the L1011 made flying an enjoyable experience.
@RCAvhstape3 жыл бұрын
My dad worked for Delta back in the day, and as a boy I sometimes got to ride first class in a Tristar. Great airplane. And I agree about the A380's hideousness. Funny thing about that is how Boeing basically played Airbus to get them to blow money on that project, and the resulting airplane is not only commercially dubious, it also has a face like a blowpig compared to the beauty of the 747.
@apgardude3 жыл бұрын
@@RCAvhstape The A380 is fugly! From the front at the gate, it looks like a constipated Beluga Whale with hydrocephalus.... the biggest government-subsidized commercial failure in aviation history. ...but it IS a comfortable plane: very smoothe and quiet.
@paulrom446 Жыл бұрын
I remember on Saturday February 14th, I was scheduled to fly on a DL 767 from LAX back to ATL. It was going to be an overnight run. When I got to the Gate the Gate Agent informed me that DL had an L-1011 which departed a bit earlier. I jumped at the chance and he Rolled me over to the earlier Departure I had an A Window seat. What a fantastic ride! I rode on a 727-200 for the final time in February 2001 between ATL and TYS It was the Headstart up to Knoxville Tennessee. Those Tri Jets were great work horses in their day! Gate to Gate was blocked for a little over an hour for Flow Control but the actual time Wheels Up to Wheels Down was approximately 29 minutes en route. Also always enjoyed the DC 8-60's and 70,s with the re engined Camma. Corp CFM 56,s
@JWB6713 жыл бұрын
I flew on a 727 in South America in 2008... shocking how short the takeoff was.
@Kilo-ct8dh3 жыл бұрын
Absolute rocketships...
@phishbill3 жыл бұрын
@@Kilo-ct8dh Must not have been Aerosucre :P
@dntulsa50393 жыл бұрын
@@phishbill I always considered the MD-80 a rocketship compared to the 727 - 100 and -200.
@largol33t12 жыл бұрын
The tiny A319 is like an angry MINI Cooper taking off at the stoplight. It may be small but this only makes it easier for the pilots to get off the ground! Try flying on one out of a tiny municipal airport like Orange County-John Wayne Airport. The pilots lined up with the runway and kept backing up. I was wondering what the freak they were doing. They held the brakes and hit the throttle. The engines were LOUD for a tiny plane. Then they let go and it bolted down the runway like a top fuel dragster. They took off literally 6 or 7 seconds later and pulled a HARD left towards Denver. I was terrified because I didn't know the A319 was THAT agile. It rolled around like a damn F16! That was the only time I flew the A319. Would love to try it again some day.
@bertg.60563 жыл бұрын
The development of incredibly powerful, extremely reliable and efficient turbofans is what killed the tri-jets. You just don't need three powerplants anymore.
@robertmcnearny92222 жыл бұрын
Yup, killed the 4 engine jet as well
@bertg.60562 жыл бұрын
@@robertmcnearny9222 Quick note, Lufthansa is reactivating some A380's, according to Aviation Week.
@robertmcnearny92222 жыл бұрын
@@bertg.6056 Gotta pay for them somehow.
@farhadchaudhry2 жыл бұрын
@@robertmcnearny9222 The pilots shortage and fuel prices is also giving airlines pause over extending smaller capacity high frequency point to point routes.
@viking907062 жыл бұрын
Until two die
@desertfoxleo3 жыл бұрын
Well done short documentary!!! I can still remember flights on 727's and DC-10's.
@caileanshields45453 жыл бұрын
Tri-jet airliners have always been among my favourites, from the Trident all the way through to the MD11. There were also tri-piston passenger aircraft, the Britten-Norman Trislander (a development of the long-lived Islander) being the most famous of them. Another class vid as ever. :)
@BigBadJohn53583 жыл бұрын
My favourite tri-jet airliner is the Boeing 727, the original!, it's actually my second favourite plane after the Harrier.
@mortimersnerd80443 жыл бұрын
Surely the Junkers JU 52 and Ford Tri Motor are better known examples of 3 engine piston aircraft
@Kalvinjj3 жыл бұрын
@@mortimersnerd8044 Indeed, which in fact makes OPs mention even better. I did remember the Ford Tri Motor but this one with a tail 3rd piston engine is far more interesting in it's weirdness.
@TheAllMightyGodofCod3 жыл бұрын
Britten what? Never heard of it. I thought you were going to say the ju 52/3m or the Fokker something something or even the Ford triplane. Need to check that one up
@mikearmstrong84833 жыл бұрын
@@TheAllMightyGodofCod The Britten-Norman Islander has been a popular twin engine prop plane for decades, serving as a short haul airliner, business carrier, utility plane, and even as a 3rd world armed military plane as the Defender. The Trislander is a stretched fuselage version with a 3rd engine and prop stuck in the middle of the tail fin, DC-10 style. I believe it is still in use on a few out-of-the-way domestic routes due to its short-field capability.
@flashgordon37153 жыл бұрын
I flew on an almost empty L-1011. I remember boarding and thinking "this is really nice in here". It was nothing like the city bus interiors of planes today
@timmotel58043 жыл бұрын
Dallas to Ft. Lauderdale. Almost empty plane. Great Plane
@jimmartin78813 жыл бұрын
"City bus" Lol, that's exactly right though.
@flashgordon37153 жыл бұрын
@@jimmartin7881 My brother is an airline pilot, for a long time bus drivers had higher wages than pilot with 40 passengers
@jimmartin78813 жыл бұрын
@@flashgordon3715 That's a disgusting reality, I remember in the late 90s I heard the salary of 2 pilots that flew for a cargo service that had died in a crash and I couldn't believe a pilot would work for it.
@incumbentvinyl92912 жыл бұрын
@@jimmartin7881 It's about experience. When starting out, the pay isn't mind blowing for the night hours, time away form home etc., however once you have a decade or two of experience, you may well be able to land a position with a major company and your salary will easily quadruple from the early days. Not sure why it's disgusting. If you don't like flying, you are free to work doing something else. Personally, I don't feel like being a pilot is a lot of work at all, as the vast majority of the time they simply sit around monitoring devices. The reason they are paid a good salary is that they have a lot of responsibility, in terms of the plane, cargo and passengers, as well as a lengthy and rather costly schooling phase.
@eating1003 жыл бұрын
Nice video I flew Boeing 727, DC 10. MD 11 and Tupolev 154.Remember and miss them all.
@bobchurch61752 жыл бұрын
I've flown in a 727 twice but have yet to land in one. I earned my DB Cooper wings in 1993 in Quincy Il. What amazed me was the power. Usually when I'm on a jump plane approaching jump altitude and jump run the pilot is working to keep the plane at altitude. In this case, even at 14k with 180 jumpers aboard I imagined the pilot sitting on the plane, trying to keep it down and knew that one nudge on the yoke would have us turning blue from hypoxia and cold. It's not a particularly good jump ship but it was a trip and I'm really glad I got my chance.
@WPM_in_ATL2 жыл бұрын
Thank you for posting this film. I learned so much about famous airliners that I never flew (i.e. L-1011), and others I only flew once or twice (DC-10 & MD-11).
@riesjart38743 жыл бұрын
Actually, while the Comet was a quadjet, the Tupolev Tu-104 only had two jet engines, and while the comet was grounded it was the only operating commercial jet aircraft for a couple of years
@owenshebbeare29992 жыл бұрын
Indeed true!
@mjc633 жыл бұрын
I flew on a National Airlines 727 many times NYC-Ft Myers nonstop and loved it! No changes, perfect. Also flew a TWA DC10 and an Eastern Airlines L10-11 both spacious, comfortable jets. I have always avoided 737’s where possible prior to the Max issue, and love the 757 and 767. 777 is awesome and the 747’s I flew on in Asia were dated but comfy. Sorry United is no longer an “all boeing fleet” - a major reason I was Continental frequent flyer! The Airbus crashes due to pilots fighting the computer still scare me. Also found them excessively loud. Regret I never flew Concorde!
@brianwoodruff48912 жыл бұрын
In the late eighties I worked on a Tristar in the UK that was stripped out of all unnecessary weight and it was going to fly high and launch space craft . The project was called Peggasus it was chosen we were told because it held an altitude record.
@luislealsantos3 жыл бұрын
Another excellent video. Thanks 😊 for hard work.
@dennistay99803 жыл бұрын
Love your documentaries! Thank you so much for your work. Keep it up :)
@78Dipar3 жыл бұрын
Completly right, it's the new ETOPS certifications which killed trijets, and now also killing quadjets !
@johniii81473 жыл бұрын
More importantly ETOPS only came into play due to engine technology and reliability
@AaronSmith-kr5yf3 жыл бұрын
I think airlines moving from point to point service(instead of the old hub/spoke) on international flights has killed the giant 747 and Airbus A380 more than anything. They aren't as efficient as twin jets and airlines had a hard time filling them except on the really busy routes. Figured out their customers love that point to point convenience with no transfer/layover, they can charge more for that privilege, all the while operating smaller/more efficient planes.
@78Dipar3 жыл бұрын
@@AaronSmith-kr5yf Right, and that's why the Airbus A321XLR is selling well, and Boeing has nothing to oppose to it...
@johniii81473 жыл бұрын
@@AaronSmith-kr5yf Actually to hub to spoke model for international long haul travel hasn’t changed much other than markets that can be profitably served from the hub. The vast majority of the traffic still flows from the carriers hub or hubs. Any of the major international carriers flow the traffic over their hubs. All big 3 US, SQ, LH, BA, KE, JL, EK, QR, AF/KL, etc still rely on their hubs. What has changed is more markets are viable from the hubs with smaller aircraft that have the range and efficiency. Previously it was only the jumbos that had the range to fly many routes
@58HUSTLER3 жыл бұрын
No, it's about the advances in technology and efficiency. In today's world the twins can do the job of the quads using far less fuel and without having to maintain an additional two engines. I was convinced this was a dangerous policy until I had a veteran Delta pilot explain it to me. As much as I hate it being a fan of large four engine aircraft, it really does make sense. I mean, sure, in a perfect world it would be technically better to have more engines, but it just doesn't make financial sense to do so. The fact that practically all passenger air travel today is accomplished with twins, and has been for years, and done so safely is the proof it works.
@brianmuhlingBUM2 жыл бұрын
The commentary was spoken a little too fast so I slowed it to 75% and it was much easier to listen to. I often wondered why the Tri-Jets disappeared, now I know. Well done! Thank you.
@Harrrvey3 жыл бұрын
Always exciting to see a new Ruairidh aviation video!
@MrFezco3 жыл бұрын
Flew on Delta 727 and AA DC-10 in the 80’s and early 90’s. L1011 to Hawaii once on Transat. 727 was nice and quiet.... inside.
@matthewperegrine45523 жыл бұрын
Thank you. A truly fantastic format. Id love to love more about the history of SABENA
@mariosfamilytable2 жыл бұрын
Very well presented! Although packed with important historical and technical data, your personal approach, (pun intended), gave a full understanding of the phasing out of the Tri-Jet platform in a concise presentation. V1 achieved, rotate, airborne! Thank you… Subscribed with a 👍!
@davem41433 жыл бұрын
A new Rory! Happy weekend all. Best content on YT and man can this guy deliver superb narration 👍
@DanknDerpyGamer3 жыл бұрын
I was lucky growing up in the 90s, got to travel on such classics like the 727 and DC-10.
@mikearmstrong84833 жыл бұрын
I've flown commercially on 707s, DC-10s, 737s, and Twin Otters. Flown military on P-3s, C-130s, C-141s, and DC-9s. Flown recreationally on parasails 😆, and a replica Ford Trimotor. My first flight was on a 707. I was 7 years old and flying alone LA to Montana. When I was 11 I flew alone to Boston. Things were a little different back then; they would let kids fly alone (expecting an adult would be there to pick them up, of course).
@bricefleckenstein96662 жыл бұрын
@@mikearmstrong8483 I go back far enough to have flown commercial on the 707 (once, Indianapolis to San Diego for Boot Camp), DC-3 (short round trip once, Atlanta to Ft. Meyers as a teen), 727 a few times, and a L-1011 once (Dallas/Ft. Worth to Indianapolis). Militarily on the C-3 and C-130 (MAC), and something small I don't remember for sure (perhaps C-141, also a MAC flight).
@rww14693 жыл бұрын
Great documentary - it helps give a new perspective on the present-day demise of the A380. Really sad that commercial realities are ending the A380, when it is such a beautiful plane to fly in. The twinjet alternatives are not nearly as nice a flying experience.
@michaelbenardo56952 жыл бұрын
One European airline is taking some of their's out of the mothballs.
@bertg.60562 жыл бұрын
@@michaelbenardo5695 Yes, that would be Lufthansa.
@railfandepotproductions11 ай бұрын
Not a fan of the design of the a380
@ttystikkrocks10422 жыл бұрын
This was well researched and detailed while still being concise and easy to follow. Well done!
@dohctorsmith13 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this video, being the child of an AA jet mechanic in the early 70’s and 80’s, I’ve always loved the 72 and the DC-10. DC 10 and 74 are icons
@roscoe4043 жыл бұрын
There are still two 727s based at Doncaster, it’s a treat to see and hear them fly over my house in Wakefield, you can hear them coming, going overhead and then far away in the distance. Great sounds.
@andrewwenzel36003 жыл бұрын
They put on a great show at Farnborough in 2016 too, seeing 727s and A380s being thrown around the sky like military jets is one of the most awesome sights to see. Shame that Farnborough has lost its airshow element, was a summer highlight for many including myself.
@paulshepherd82953 жыл бұрын
@@andrewwenzel3600 I went on board the 727 at Farnborough, which almost made up for never having flown in one (though I have flown in Tridents and a Tristar). I've always thought the 727 was one of the best looking airliners ever made.
@wyganter2 жыл бұрын
@@paulshepherd8295 I have zero nostalgia for the 727, which I rode on many times during the 80’s and 90’s. The cabin noise level was crazy high due to the proximity of the engines to the fuselage. Add to that the low interior air quality (even after smoking was banned), a five hour flight was really draining.
@paulshepherd82952 жыл бұрын
@@wyganter Yes, I flew on BAC 1-11s a number of times. Not too bad unless you're sat near the back, next to those noisy Spey engines.
@petert33432 жыл бұрын
@@paulshepherd8295 There was hushkitted version as well
@spottydog8773 жыл бұрын
Another great video. I particularly liked the Hawker Siddeley Trident (especially in its BEA liveries).
@bugjuicer2 жыл бұрын
My first flight ever as a kid, was on a DC10, flying to Tenerife (forget departure). Got to hang out in the cockpit for a good half hr and see how it all worked, gave me my enthusiasm for aviation
@stanktail2 жыл бұрын
Did they let you steer a little?
@tkskagen2 жыл бұрын
Great Video. I rode in a BOEING 727 (PSA) back in 1986 from Sea-Tac International to LAX and back. As I was only 12 (and my first flight ever) I never realized the difference in the styles other than Small, Medium and 747!
@bjoernaltmann3 жыл бұрын
Still flown on McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed TriStar in the 80s. Remember the RollsRoyce engines on the latter.
@checkyoursix56233 жыл бұрын
I flew on a DC-10 LAX-DEN back in the late '70's, it even had a small stand-up bar amidships. Cool.
@paulshepherd13482 жыл бұрын
Yes.... I always felt reassured looking out the window of a Tristar in mid flight and seeing the RR on the engine. 😊
@xmanhoe3 жыл бұрын
Excellent , my 1st Trijet experience was in 1976 on L-1011 British airways , Belfast to Toronto via Shannon . It was my 1st jet aircraft flight 😎 thanks for the memories got a new subscriber 👍🏻😎
@swisstroll32 жыл бұрын
I can appreciate the old 60 minute rule. In November of 1956 I flew from Paris to NJ on a C-118 (USAF version of DC-6). After a refueling stop in Tenerife, we were in the middle of the Atlantic when we flew into a storm front. We were struck by lightning three times in a couple of minutes and two of our engines had to be shut down. We landed in DC, where our engines were worked on, and took off for NJ. On that trip, a third engine had to be shut down.
@socaljarhead7670 Жыл бұрын
The efficiency, power, and ease of maintenance of a pair of high bypass ratio turbofan engines is what killed them
@garrylawless35502 жыл бұрын
Great video. I remember travelling on a British Airways Tri Star in the 80's, I thought the design was excellent, it looked amazing compared to the other jets, with twin engines. Little did I know that the twins were the future!
@user-cn3zq2zu2o2 жыл бұрын
I flew in a Tristar as a kid - absolutely loved it
@josh6563 жыл бұрын
Those are some nice looking Constellations
@mrrolandlawrence3 жыл бұрын
the best 4....3 engined aeroplane ever created. reliability of the large radials was not the same as the turboprop.
@PatrickNorrie2 жыл бұрын
Just discovered your channel. I love your videos! I feel like I'm watching a modern iteration of "Great Planes". Please keep this up. Thank you for making these videos.
@Rixdog012 жыл бұрын
I was generally aware of most of this but the video put it all together. A very good presentation. Thank you
@sdg221143 жыл бұрын
When I heard the DC-10 number two engine being easier to maintain, I just kinda laughed to myself. Might be easier in comparison, but it can still be difficult. I do maintenance work on MD-11s right now and sometimes getting the thing ready for maintenance can be a bit of fun, between getting the cowl and thrust reversers open by electronics or hand held pumps, and then having to reach out from the from the rather shaky patio doors on the tail below it to put the locks in place. Some stands are easy enough to get in then, but I find that engine tends to be a bigger problem than the number 1 and 3 ones. Very nice video though!
@downsouth59712 жыл бұрын
Plan to Buy a 7X, 25M after Major. Which is Better this or any 2 Engine for maintenance?
@340ACP3 жыл бұрын
I had the great privilege of flying the B727 for several years and it’s was such a great aircraft, a real workhorse
@nathanwahl92243 жыл бұрын
And a pretty fast hot rod back in the day, too! Tell me that wasn't fun!
@selfdo2 жыл бұрын
I understand that the 727 was as close to a "flying tank" as an airliner could be.
@brianmuhlingBUM2 жыл бұрын
My first jet engine flight was in 1970 in a 727, and when the pilot gunned it...I couldn't believe the acceleration. What a hoot.
@cjswa64732 жыл бұрын
I flew the 727 ten years.. Looking back on it.. It was crap.. Had Dutch roll problems,, same as 707 but tried to fix with dual rddders and yaw dampers.. It was noisy,, and 4 crashes in the first couple of months when it came out. As a pilot.. You learned how to operate within the strange flight characteristics it had instead of you flying the jet.. It flew you. Landing gear in the - 200. Bad location. You could mess up a takeoff without a pitch to 10% then later to 15. Like I said.. It needed special flight techniques
@Lufex_2 жыл бұрын
@@cjswa6473Would the Dutch roll issue be due to the engines being so close together being near the tail and also close to the center line of the aircraft? Or was is more of an aerodynamic flaw?
@kennethpack19633 жыл бұрын
You want an adventure, in 1959, I flew in a Douglas DC6 from New York to Frankfort, Germany with stops in Gander Newfoundland , ad Shannon Ireland. By the time we finely landed in Frankfort, I didn't care if I ever got on another airplane as long as I lived...Came back to New York on the USS Gordon, in the worst storm in the North Atlantic in 80 years, that changed my mind about flying..
@rkmugen2 жыл бұрын
The trijet design reminds me of the time they stuck a 3rd warp nacelle on the Enterprise-D. Some people liked it. While I just kept saying to myself, 'the hell were they smoking?'
@johnharris66553 жыл бұрын
The 727 DB Cooper's favorite airplane
@bricefleckenstein96662 жыл бұрын
His exit mode was quickly fixed.
@frankszucs61652 жыл бұрын
I think DB Ccooper was some grisly bear's lunch!
@mikeblatzheim27973 жыл бұрын
I wonder how long they'll remain in service with cargo carriers, at Cologne Airport to this day you're guaranteed to see rows upon rows of FedEx and UPS DC-10s and MD-11s, as well as A300s and older 747s (whilst there are no more long-haul passenger routes). So clearly there's still plenty left in active service.
@magnumjets52473 жыл бұрын
Not that much longer... They will start to get replaced by converted A330s and A320s in the coming years, possibly even some 777 conversions...
@TheMrPeteChannel3 жыл бұрын
Some FedEx DC-10s are nearly 50 years old! ( To be retired in 2023 ). I'm sure the MD-11s will fly just as long.
@oibal602 жыл бұрын
Hawker Siddley Trident pilots used to joke that the only reason the Trident would go airborne was due to the curvature of the earth.
@Hey_MikeZeroEcho22P2 жыл бұрын
What a GREAT Video....Your collection of film footage, historical findings, and Your narration was ALL Very Wonderful to watch!! I have flown on the DC-10 from 'Western Airlines' as well as their 707s ( I think ), both were fine A/C and enjoyed the flights in my Very young youth! I have never flown the L1011s but have flown the 727s a few times with 'PSA'. After seeing the demise of the DC-10, though several accidents, Might have changed my mother's mind in flying DC-10s from that point forward......I STILL see DC-10/MD-11 flying over L.A. with 'FedEx' tail markings. Again, Thanks for the posting........if I May, could I credit your video on a video that "I" would like to do .... on a model build showing a DC-10??
@spiccybaby3 жыл бұрын
The Trident was pretty special in its day; first "blind" automatic landing system and engines that could use reverse thrust in mid-air (handy for 0-g experiments, along with its true purpose for emergency descent).
@VictorGate2 жыл бұрын
Sadly, it was so influenced by BEA in requirement to suit that Nationalised Airline that other purchasers were put off. Hence conversation overheard on boarding one at Tel Aviv (BA substitute for Tri Star on the day), American voice "What the f... is a Trident and who flies them?" Reply "BA and the Chinese." Response unrepeatable. It was rumoured that a United States delegation invited by De Haviland to inspect DH's design offices and factory at Hatfield around 1960 to promote sales of the plane, were proudly shown the designs by a Government Minister, the 727 design project started a few months later.
@2flyabove3 жыл бұрын
A most informative and well done video., Thank you.,
@195808222 жыл бұрын
My dad was a mechanic for Northeast Airlines in the '60s out of Logan. Although a small airline, they were the launch customer for the 727-200. These "Yellowbirds" were loved by crews passengers alike. After the 1972 merger with Delta, the 727 became a workhorse for that airline for the next 15-20 years.
@robrussell53292 жыл бұрын
True story: I once flew on an Eastern 727, sitting next to a off-duty Braniff pilot. It was probably Miami to Dallas. Upon takeoff, he says, "We lifted off too soon. Should have taken longer. This plane is light." His first thought was that we were under-fueled. Sure enough, we had to land (Tampa, I think) for an unexplained reason (more fuel?) Also, some airlines (Pan Am?) flew that route leaving land around New Orleans and flying straight over the open Gulf to South FL. Others (Eastern?) hugged the coast all the way down. All 727s. Wish my memory was better, but it's been 40 years.
@aloysiusjones39853 жыл бұрын
I only flew on DC10s in the US and it was spacious and fantastic.🇦🇺👍
@stuartlee66223 жыл бұрын
Especially when it crashed
@robertoskeetrech32063 жыл бұрын
I flew on a few DC 10's and absolutely hated them.
@stuartlee66223 жыл бұрын
The DC-10 was the poor man's Tristar.
@Bartonovich523 жыл бұрын
@ Stuart Lee Lol... no, it was the smart man’s Tristar. You could buy a 747 for not much more than a Tristar or buy a DC-10 for a lot less. Lockheed was too used to cost-plus-fee military contracts where they basically have a blank check from the customer. That’s why they’d lose billions on the project. And the Tristar was a benefactor of luck. No DC-10 ever lost control of its horizontal stabilizer because it used a conventional jackscrew like every plane from a 747 to a Piper Cub. Just grease it with the right grease and make sure there isn’t a system that automatically drives it down and it’s fine. Only pure luck prevented that plane from being a smoking hole in the ground. Same with when an L-1011 had its centre engine explode. Shrapnel hit the fourth hydraulic system too but only luck prevented it from leaking. If it wasn’t a risk, they wouldn’t have installed hydraulic fuses in it like they did in the DC-10 and a lot of other planes as well after Sioux City. And Lockheed would get its lesson in cargo door explosions when a C-5 rear door blew out in 1975. It had learned its lessons about engines falling off on the Electra (design flaw, not incorrect maintenance) though all Lockheed wings are chronically weak.. like those of the Electra, the T-33, the Hercules, and others. The L-1011 entered service after the DC-10, exited service before the DC-10 (the only L-1011 still flying is the flying observatory.. while dozens of DC-10s still fly cargo every day), had a fraction of the number made, and flew a smaller number of hours due to chronically poor dispatch reliability. Hey... the TU-114 Rossiya has a better safety record than the L-1011. Must be a better plane, right? That’s the trouble with disparate sample sizes when comparing relative merits.
@BillSmith-rx9rm3 жыл бұрын
Yeah and the dc-10s were really quiet, especially when the engines would fall off their mounts. Quiet and smooth. It's just that sudden stop at the end that kind of jars you a bit.
@hoagy_ytfc3 жыл бұрын
Later Tridents had four engines! There was an extra smaller one above the centre engine for a boost in take off power. You can see it at 2:57 My main memory of tridents at LHR was how crazily loud they were.
@davidschwartz51273 жыл бұрын
I believe that the small engine you referring to was called the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) and was there specifically to supply Auxiliary electric and hydraulic power for light and air conditioning and steering while the plane was on the ground and not at the ramp, the big engines could be shut down for fuel-efficiency and the passengers could still be kept comfortable and hydraulic controls would still function as they were meant to.
@hoagy_ytfc3 жыл бұрын
@@davidschwartz5127 No, it's definitely not just an APU. It's there to provide thrust at take-off. As per wikipedia: " Instead of attempting to replace the three engines with a completely different type, which would have been difficult with one engine buried in the tail, Hawker Siddeley's engineers decided to add a fourth engine in the tail, the tiny Rolls-Royce RB162 turbojet, fed from its own intake behind a pair of movable doors. The engine added 15% more thrust for takeoff, while adding only 5% more weight, and it would only be used when needed. BEA accepted this design as the
@hoagy_ytfc3 жыл бұрын
... as the Trident 3B
@davidschwartz51273 жыл бұрын
@@hoagy_ytfc I'll have to go that a look at the video again, I hadn't noticed it the first time thur.
@petebeard3243 жыл бұрын
The Trident 3B was a high-capacity short-medium range version of the 2E with a 16 ft 5 in (5.00 m) stretch and one additional RB.162 booster engine in the tail; 26 were built. The Trident Super 3B had an extended range of 692 km (430 miles). Two were built for CAAC China Airlines and were the last to be delivered in 1975 from Hawker Siddeley Aviation, Hatfield where I worked as an aircraft engineer and inspector.
@Asesna2 жыл бұрын
Before watching the video I’m gonna say I think it was the introduction of higher ETOPS ratings for twin engines that meant they now replace long haul tri jet routes and fly more economically
@gerrycoogan65442 жыл бұрын
What an excellent channel! I've only just discovered it and I've subscribed. I look forward to catching up with the archive material!
@christopherharmon24333 жыл бұрын
Wasn't the 727 rather loud for the people on the ground it flew over? Esp during takeoff and landing? My grandparents lived about 15 miles from Logan Airport (Boston MA) and during the 1960s and 70s, it was the one jet that when it flew overhead, you didn't have to look up to see what kind of airplane it was.
@owenshebbeare29992 жыл бұрын
Yes, noise was the factor that killed many early passenger jets, in addition to fuel consumption.
@stevie-ray20202 жыл бұрын
Nowhere near as noisy (or as polluting) as the 707s!
@cris_2613 жыл бұрын
I got to fly on a Delta 727 in 1987. I still remember how fast the plane took off, and how the flight was quiet and smooth. It was nothing like flying on a 737, or even a 747.
@checkyoursix56233 жыл бұрын
I had a flight SFO-ORD when I returned from a tour of duty that took me to 'Nam. The bird was practically empty.
@katazack3 жыл бұрын
It wasn't so quiet if you were in the back near the engines!
@cris_2613 жыл бұрын
@@katazack Point taken! Guess I should have walked to the back of the plane during the flight to see what it was like.
@ELcinegatto873 жыл бұрын
Nice video! Great job as always! To be fair the original A300B2 and B4 was really more of a short to medium range hauler used on higher capacity routes and had the advantage of also being able to operate off fairly short fields. Kind of like a scaled up role of the 727. And was popular up and down the east coast of the US with Pan Am and Eastern. The true catalyst for ETOPS though was the near simultaneous release to market of the long range A310 and 767-200 twins in the early 80s, especially the later A310-300ET and 767-200ER models. Those 2 types dominated transatlantic crossings on long and thin routes for nearly 2 decades. That bespoke role is why they so few of both types were made, but it paved the way for larger long range twins that followed, they were the pioneers. Only American Airlines really utilized the A300 in true transatlantic ETOPS fashion. Granted they had newer -600R variant unlike Eastern / Pan Am, which was longer range, A310 systems, updated wings and a new tail section. They used it a stop gap during the late 90s and early 2000s, AA used the A300-600R on NYC/BOS to the UK and France. It was mainly used for high capacity, high load factor eastern seaboard, caribbean and south america ops with lots of cargo. Infact the A300-600 and A310 introduced the Airbus philosophy of type rating commonality, that followed with the A320 and everyone airplane they've built ever since.
@MarcG74242 жыл бұрын
I'm just shocked he mentioned Eastern Airlines gone and mostly forgotten
@mikerichards60653 жыл бұрын
The endless compromises of the Trident design to meet the ever-changing requirements of BEA would be worth a video of their own. The original DH-121 design would have got to market ahead of the 727 with an arguably superior plane; but BEA decided it was too big and so the Trident 1 was built - which was promptly dismissed as being too-small for the airline. Another missed opportunity for the UK's aviation industry at about the same time the VC-10 was being undermined by BOAC.
@tangerinedream72112 жыл бұрын
Yup the trident was designed for exactly what BEA wanted, this limiting it for others sales. BOAC pulled the same stunt with VC 10 and reduced their order saying it was costly to operate, which it was due to its specialist design and performance for exactly what BOAC needed for high altitude hot weather short take off airports. At the time it was Boeing only aircraft company joke.
@neiloflongbeck57053 жыл бұрын
IIRC Boeing was originally going to make the 757 and 767 as tri-jets.
@jamesdunn38642 жыл бұрын
I once asked a Boeing executive why the the company was no longer building tri-jets. He replied this was because of the difficulty in lengthening the aircraft or otherwise changing its dimensions so as to create a family of aircraft around the basic design. The reason for this "difficulty" was that cluster of engines (and their weight) in the rear of the aircraft, way aft of the centre of gravity and centre of lift. No such difficulty arises when the engines are slung below the wings at or about the centre of gravity and centre of lift.
@johnbeaulieu24042 жыл бұрын
Not mentioned is that all three US trijets had Flight Engineers for a three man crew. The DC-9 only had two. Stretched versions of the DC-9 and 737 killed off the 727s in the US and elsewhere,
@thomasohare85523 жыл бұрын
Good morning
@hassan0504283 жыл бұрын
Good morning ⛅️
@thesickrobot69243 жыл бұрын
Good afternoon
@acalabash3 жыл бұрын
Top o' mornin' to ya too
@nkt13 жыл бұрын
Fit like?
@acalabash3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, for sure, m8
@theirishvideos3 жыл бұрын
Loved the DC-10 and l1011 tristar.
@JOSESANTOS26123 жыл бұрын
their...... y el b. 727 ...???? fantastico !!
@HapyLLIuTeJIb2 жыл бұрын
The soviet Yak 40 had to have 3 engines because of the fact 2 engines of the type that was available couldn't lift an overweight body. The original plan was to install 2 engines, but the designers eventually had no choice. There was no regard to "safety" or "efficiency".
@mattd60852 жыл бұрын
I did wonder about that part of the video, it would've been the first time I heard of the Soviets giving any regard to safety
@gwnlars_83062 жыл бұрын
The MD-11 has a special place in my heart, especially since KLM flew both the DC-10's and MD-11's. A unique plane in the sky, sad to see its been replaced by the 787.
@kevanhubbard96733 жыл бұрын
I think that my last trijet was an Olympic 727 guessing around 1996ish from Athens to Corfu when I went there to get the ferry from Corfu Town to Saranda, Albania.a change of plan having surveyed the Athens Tirania overnight bus the day before and it looked rather unpleasant.
@4FYTfa8EjYHNXjChe8xs7xmC5pNEtz2 жыл бұрын
Really? I would think that a bus ride through Albania on a rickety, overcrowded bus would be quite the entertaining and educational experience. OK not really
@wanderingfido3 жыл бұрын
It's a single point of failure for when the engines explode from excessive wear and tear.
@Martin_Adams1843 жыл бұрын
Very good, concentrated presentation. Thank you!
@alitarzamni26773 жыл бұрын
Thanks a lot for your somewhat comprehensive review over the trijets, era, you could add yak 42 to the list of civilian trijets discussed in the video.
@wasted-blaster.3 жыл бұрын
You could make new tri-jets with more fuel efficiency given today's advancements in technology but I think there is no stomach for this great aircraft outside of the cargo sector.
@speedemon813 жыл бұрын
And even then, there are a whole load of A330 and 777's kicking about that could be turned into cargo airframes, like Cathay Pacific is now doing
@StringerNews13 жыл бұрын
Actually you couldn't. The thing that gives modern jet engines efficiency in the largest part is a bypass ratio of 10:1 or greater. The trijets were designed back when "high bypass" meant a ratio of only 2:1. In short, the higher bypass ratios that are needed for efficiency can't be mounted on the aft fuselage. Drag makes it a losing battle.
@58HUSTLER3 жыл бұрын
@@StringerNews1 It isn't just that, it's also the fact you're talking about maintaining three engines instead of two. So yes, you probably could build a efficient tri-jet but why bother, when two engines can do the job just as well? Every time I asked a commercial pilot this question, I always got the same two fold answer: Today's twins have become technologically advanced to the point additional engines are unnecessary (at least for passenger travel), and more engines = more maintenance.
@StringerNews13 жыл бұрын
@@58HUSTLER you're correct, but the OP didn't say anything about operating costs, only fuel efficiency. Yes, three engines would cost more to maintain, but when it comes to fuel efficiency, it's all about fan size. You won't see an airliner like the B727 (or DC) again because those big fans are too big to be mounted anywhere but under-wing. Can't have three engines like that.
@johniii81473 жыл бұрын
There would be on need to make a tri jet anymore. 2 can handle it and much more efficient in engines and also aerodynamics
@dynasty00193 жыл бұрын
Fuel efficiency and ETOPS did.
@gestebu2 жыл бұрын
In 1989, fresh out of college and not having flown but two or three times before, I was flying to a job interview on a USAir twin-engine (not sure the model) but heading into Raleigh-Durham one of the engines went out. It was an overcast late Fall day with a low ceiling. The captain said there would be fire equipment standing by on the runway. It was a bumpy approach and we didn't descend from the clouds until a few minutes before touchdown. Luckily, we landed without incident. However, I was so frightened by the experience that I insisted on changing my flight back home to one on an airline with a tri-jet which turned out to be American.
@PDohm1232 жыл бұрын
Awesome video. I always enjoyed the tri-jets when I was growing up. Shame that they've been phased out, but, if there's no need for trijets, there's no need to waste money and resources on them. Thanks for the awesome video!
@richardk62913 жыл бұрын
The perceived safety of 3 engines versus 2 on long overwater flights is still a comfort.
@algrayson89652 жыл бұрын
No one cared about that when a #2 engine inside the tail or in the vertical stabilizer exploded, cutting control cables and pipes.
@markiangooley3 жыл бұрын
Rode 727s a fair amount in my youth. But that third engine must have been a pain to service, and I can see that between that and fuel costs the 727 was phased out. Eastern was a good airline on the whole, at least to a boy.
@SonorGeek052 жыл бұрын
There is 1 L-1011 still operating here in the United States, it's operated by Northrop Grumman. It's called the L-1011 Stargazer.
@smwca1232 жыл бұрын
Another factor in the trijets' demise not mentioned in this video: almost all of them were 3-crew vs. 2-crew for most twinjets. The latter included several types not mentioned in this video: the DC-9/MD-80, the BAC 1-11, and especially the Boeing 737. The last, 50+ years on, remains Boeing's all-time best-seller, almost a dozen versions later. Indeed the 737-200 especially was sometimes considered the jet-age successor to the DC-3. Interestingly, the 737's launch customer was Lufthansa - the first foreign airline to be the launch customer for any U.S.-built jetliner.
@alejandroduranonayvedia30683 жыл бұрын
I flew on 727 many times years ago. Awesome plane.
@kungfuwitcher76213 жыл бұрын
"For the purposes of reliability and safety" Sure most Russians would give that a chuckle.
@Itsjustme-Justme3 жыл бұрын
Being reliable and safe reduces the amount maintenance needed and increases lifespan: Attitudes that are considered typical for russian technology.
@10gamer643 жыл бұрын
Then again, the Soviet airliners usually needed to reliably take of dirt runways
@danielkennedy15243 жыл бұрын
Excellent video and spot on!!! Nicely done
@atilllathehun12123 жыл бұрын
Nice video. I grew up in the era of the 747, A340s and the tri-jets. Everything is very boring nowadays in comparison.
@rv7w6023 жыл бұрын
The A340 is a boring plane imo. It's just an A330 with 2 more engines. The tri jets and 747 tho are interesting planes
@LandersWorkshop2 жыл бұрын
@@rv7w602 The trouble is you only have two major airliner manufacturers now. Once Trident went under the pressure was off the remaining two big names of Boeing and Airbus.