Beyond The Sprues

Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: The Big Gimper on December 31, 2016, 08:16:51 PM

Title: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
Post by: The Big Gimper on December 31, 2016, 08:16:51 PM

New Topic.

Found this on Facebook. CC-143(K) 14305 of 437 Husky squadron at CFB Bagotville, February 1996.

(https://scontent.fxds1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/15723654_10157873686150005_1810383766322367981_o.jpg?oh=338de9c6a7af2588fe39c58ca40fbdf4&oe=58D5FCF3)

Title: Re: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
Post by: Kerick on January 01, 2017, 10:18:21 AM

Needs refueling pods/boom

Title: Re: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 02, 2017, 02:17:29 AM

Quote from: kerick on January 01, 2017, 10:18:21 AM

Needs refueling pods/boom

No problem with the pods though the boom might take a bit of work:

(http://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/imagelibrary/Archive/Main/UK%20TriStar.jpg)

Title: Re: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
Post by: kitnut617 on January 02, 2017, 03:26:30 AM

Oddly, none of the RAF Tristar tankers had wing pods ---  ???

I'm hoping one day AiM will do a 1/72 scale kit of it.

Title: Re: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
Post by: GTX_Admin on January 02, 2017, 03:30:09 AM

Actually, good point - the hoses are fuselage mounted.

(http://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-raf-tristar-tanker-aircraft-with-hose-deployed-october-19572892.jpg)

Maybe the basis for a very subtle whiff to catch the 'experts' - do a RAF Tristar with wing pods.

Title: Re: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
Post by: elmayerle on January 02, 2017, 03:54:01 AM

So, with wing pods you'd have four hoses?

Just a thought, be interesting to see a Tristar variant purchased instead of the KC-10.  As 'tis, I understand that if RR had not resolve the RB.211 problems, Lockheed was seriously considering re-engining with CF6 engines.

Title: Re: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
Post by: apophenia on January 02, 2017, 05:19:39 AM

Quote from: GTX_Admin on January 02, 2017, 02:17:29 AM

No problem with the pods though the boom might take a bit of work:

No probs if you stick with the  CC-143(K) markings ... or should that be  CC-143(T)? ... Canada used hose-and-drogue only  ;)

Title: Re: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
Post by: ysi_maniac on June 02, 2021, 10:20:24 AM

Along with RW Lockheed L-1011-500, here we have a twin derivative, with same engines but only two; Dash-600
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-l-1011-tristar-twin-derivatives.18025/ (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-l-1011-tristar-twin-derivatives.18025/)

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/Lockheed-Dash-600.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/40752318-ecc7-425c-9852-46a05e7cf19c)

And here, another Lockheed project: QuadStar derived from L-101-500 too, with four engines (like those of DC-10-10) in an original disposition that I will call "Evan config"  ;D
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/a-big-longhaul-lockheed.6918/post-125679 (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/a-big-longhaul-lockheed.6918/post-125679)

(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/Lokheed-CL-1616-8.jpg?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (https://app.photobucket.com/u/ysi_maniac/a/caec78e4-057f-4fe9-82f4-083a43455765/p/b2f6a71a-fbfe-4795-8ce2-913c019db071)