Where did the Lockheed L-1011 Aircraft Production Program Fall Short?
The Lockheed L-1011 became one of my favorite jetliners of all time. Reading about the advanced systems it had for its time fascinates me. However, it is my opinion that there are a couple of areas, if took into consideration, could have benefited the program to the effect of more sales.
In the early 70s there was the technological race to get more people around the world by means of wide-body jet. Boeing had the 747 program, McDonnel Douglas had their DC-10 program, and Lockheed was late to get their L-1011 to market by a year or two. Also Airbus had the first flight of the A300B1 twin widebody aircraft in 1972. This put them ahead of the conversation, because it was the first wide body twin jet which has set the standard for economy and configuration in the present day. By 1974, Airbus was ready to produce the longer-range A300B4.
With the landscape of the market laid down, it seems that as time went on, the four aircraft manufactures in this segment of the market were plentiful, ripe with potential passenger capacity, possibilities, and competition.
In an aircraft design and manufacture program, there are tremendous costs, and that more than likely is a limiting factor. Meeting the constraints and timelines of the project are critical metrics to be considered as well.
As market conditions are fluid, customers have to be provided various options. Aircraft production for customer satisfaction is not a cookie cutter business. I say this because one customer may have a set of requirements that are slightly different from another customer.
First thing that comes to mind is the variation in engine choices for the aircraft types such as Boeing and McDonnell Douglas over the entire life of the program as well as at launch. As seen over the years, multiple engine choices benefit aircraft sales. By Lockheed being only committed to using the Rolls Royce RB211, despite the issues they were having with the development of the engine and the financial part, impacted sales and choices.
For instance on the Boeing it started with Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines. Those engines had their issues and had to worked out for the 747 to fly reliably. By 1975, they had the CF-6-50 engine option for KLM. Subsequently, years later, that RB211 became available on the 747 as well.
The McDonnel Douglas DC-10-10s started out with the General Electric CF6-6, based off the experience of the TF39 for the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy program. Once the DC-10-30s came to be built with the CF6-50s in 1972, additional fuel tankage for longer haul operations, and a larger wingspan, the Lockheed L-1011 was behind.
Boeing had their 747SP to compete in the long-range wide body class of aircraft. It took Lockheed till 1978 to have the -500 version of the Tristar ready for the market. It featured a shorter fuselage, aerodynamic enhancements, fuel tankage, -524B engines as opposed to the -22B and 524s used on earlier Tristar offerings.
Looking at the situation, the long range variants from Boeing and McDonnel Douglas were flying before the Tristar L-1011-500. They increased the capacity of the aircraft in combination with the long range refinements where as Lockheed removed capacity to compete in this class.
Although Lockheed performed studies with different configurations with increased capacity and even twin jet versions, none of the those options materialized. Lockheed needed a version that would be able to compete with the DC-10-30/40 in capacity and range.
For Lockheed the commercial market was not their main business activity focus. They had expertise in regimes of flight and technology beyond the commercial market. Also to, it could be said that the aircraft was too advanced for its time. If the technology is too advanced it could deter sales because of lack of understanding of its benefits.
