« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar  (Read 3265 times)

Offline The Big Gimper

  • Any model will look better in RCAF, SEAC or FAA markings
  • Global Moderator
  • Cut. Cut. Cut. Measure. Cut. Cut. Crap. Toss.
    • Photobucket Modeling Album
Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
« 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.


« Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 08:19:30 PM by The Big Gimper »
Logged
Work in progress ::

I am giving up listing them. They all end up on the shelf of procrastination anyways.

User and abuser of Bothans...

Offline Kerick

  • Reportedly finished with a stripper...
Re: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2017, 10:18:21 AM »
Needs refueling pods/boom
Logged

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
« Reply #2 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:

Logged
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline kitnut617

  • Measures the actual aircraft before modelling it...we have the photographic evidence.
  • Holding Pattern
  • *
  • I'd rather be dirtbike riding...
Re: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
« Reply #3 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.
Logged

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2017, 03:30:09 AM »
Actually, good point - the hoses are fuselage mounted.



Maybe the basis for a very subtle whiff to catch the 'experts' - do a RAF Tristar with wing pods.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2017, 03:36:57 AM by GTX_Admin »
Logged
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline elmayerle

  • Its about time there was an Avatar shown here...
  • Über Engineer...at least that is what he tells us.
Re: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
« Reply #5 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.
Logged

Offline apophenia

  • Perversely enjoys removing backgrounds.
  • Patterns? What patterns?
Re: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
« Reply #6 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  ;)
Logged
"It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes." - Agent Rogersz

Offline ysi_maniac

  • I will die understanding not this world
Re: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar
« Reply #7 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/



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

Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »