Warbird Information Exchange

When I worked there in the early 70's on the overly expensive, underperforming DC-10 copy. The corporate slogan was 'Look to Lockheed for Leadership' it didn't address aircraft in any manner and geez did they have 'leadership', about every third clown there had a green oval badge, a clip on tie, and a cheapo ceegar.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

Personally, having read a lot on the history of the L1011, I think Lockheed's biggest mistake was agreeing to go in-cahoots with the Brits on the engines. Boeing knew better as did MacDac. The British government had even then a penchant for killing programs by their "my way or the highway" attitude to aircraft development. They constantly forced their companies to bend to the will of the "Kingdom's Airlines" and because of it, the aircraft they could have built never came to fruition because of those restrictions. It only got worse when British Airways was founded, but even during the reign of BOAC as the primary carrier, companies like Vickers and Hawker-Siddeley were forced to make their designs fit their British overlord's design specs exactly, not exceeding them, and not making something marketable to the rest of the world. As such, you had what should have been great aircraft handicapped by stupid restrictions like the VC-10, BAC 1-11, and Trident. With that background, why Lockheed thought it was a good idea to become bound to Rolls Royce (who was having issues even before the RB.211 project because of delays and problems with the Avon and Tyne engine programs) is beyond most historians. Had they gone the original route suggested and provided engine options like Boeing and MacDac were, the L.1011 probably wouldn't have had most of its issues because it would've been done on time.

I had to sit around the house while the Gummint decided whether or not to throw Locoweed a bankruptcy bone, then we all sat around while HRH's gummint flipped a farthing on whether or not to send a bucket brigade to Runs Ruff, all the while Locoweed kept claiming the RB-211 was the only engine that could be used, when the CF-6 was as reliable as a SBC and the JT-9D's were under constant improvement. The wind tunnel data for the CF-6 pylon air flows was easily obtainable from Long Beach for a few dollars.

In the end, all that the L-1011 program really accomplished was as a fleet of 251 test beds to work the issues out of a so-so engine and turn it into a pretty good engine (ask anyone who worked for EAL about the center engines penchant for blowing up upon rotation in very cold or icy weather, or TWA guys about the inlet fan hub failure in flight)). Those of us who worked 'in the trenches' on the thing referred to it as a big WPA project in 3% humidity, and I saw some awfully frightening things done after a 'conference' and a couple of nodded heads amongst Managers and QC supervision to 'make bar' on an airplane section so it could move 'with 'zero open items' meaning some of us would chase the section down the line finishing things which messed up the jobs of those down the line, oh and keeping your in station bar up to speed too, maybe that's why I'm such a nag on safety and doing things right because of all the hack work I saw then, and absolutely NO ONE cared.

Then it came out that they had to bribe ANA airlines to take the miserable piles of crap which lead to Congressional hearings, fines, and legislation concerning buying off foreign entities.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

DARPA recognizes the need for a new development paradigm. The current one has been in use since WWII.
The customer sets up a PRS( product requirement spec). development teams work on the project often using new underdeveloped technology to meet the PRS. This leads to delays and thus cost over runs as the new tech has to be hammered out. for example i recall the f-22 having lamination issues with the wings. time to reformulate and track down the issues. another potential issue with the F-22 is the O2 system. if it cant be fixed then its billions wasted.
i think new systems need to be developed from a set of mature technologies, if not then all i see happening is refits of existing platforms. billions of dollars in cost overruns for products that are not developed fast enough to meet the chaining needs of a modern military.

As I said in the intial posting, it's about the price per unit and how it seems to be easier to nail JELLO to the wall than to get even a close ball park price per unit. and that is what's causing Canada to take a much longer look @ the airplane, And what appears to be an assembly process so slow that it makes the Rolls Royce car assembly plant look like someone making pizzas.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-