Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
757-200 Mtow  
User currently offlineSeaBosDca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5459 posts, RR: 6
Posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7971 times:

I've read on this forum that only 752s produced after a certain point can be upgraded to the 255klb MTOW. Does anyone happen to know if that is correct, and, if so, at what line number the switchover happened?

I would hypothesize that as lighter aircraft increasingly take over less demanding 752 missions, the difference in value to operators (FedEx notwithstanding) between 255k-capable birds and others will grow progressively bigger.

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1452 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7876 times:

My understanding here is that any 757-200 is capable of the higher MTOW provided the operator pays Boeing for the higher gross weight Master Change that includes the upgraded Flight Manual allowing the higher weights.

The aircraft is structurally capable, but can only be authorized with a Flight Manual change. This is easiest to got to Boeing as they built the aircraft, but it costs in the high six figures to $ 1 million and is customer specific and cannot be transferred if the aircraft changes owners.

A third party engineering firm could obtain a gross weight increase STC with Flight Manual Supplement, but the load analysis required would be cost prohibitive. I know that there are some third party MTOW increases for the 727, but not aware of any for the 757 especially with the increased burden of proof the FAA requires for STCs within the last 10-15 years.



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
User currently offlineSDF880 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7740 times:

I saw this done at one of the airlines I worked for. I think it was 4 of the 757's went from 250K to 255K MTOW and had to go through the process mentioned on the previous post.

I'm not sure how Fed-Ex will us their 757's. On the domestic side landing weight is the the limiting issue most of the time. I could see if FX is going to use some of them for ETOPS missions the 255K increased weight might be nice to have.

SDF880


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7719 times:

Whats contributes to the increase in MTOW on the B757 in terms of Equipment used?
Or is it only structural.
regds
MEL.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1452 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7706 times:



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 3):
Whats contributes to the increase in MTOW on the B757 in terms of Equipment used?
Or is it only structural.

Nothing. Its a paper change only. The aircraft has built-in capability that Boeing did not use in the initial certification. That is why I stated if one wants it, you have to pay for the paper that says so since Boeing is the only one that truly knows its structural capability as the OEM. However, another company could do the same thing and issue an AFM supplement, but the analysis to prove it would be very expensive as loads data would have to be developed and probably not any cheaper than what Boeing charges.



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7601 times:



Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 1):
and cannot be transferred if the aircraft changes owners.

Now that sounds really odd... Not saying you're wrong, but I can't quite believe it.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7569 times:



Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 4):
That is why I stated if one wants it, you have to pay for the paper

Any approximation on the cost involved here.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineDingDong From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 7562 times:



Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 6):
Any approximation on the cost involved here.



Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 1):
The aircraft is structurally capable, but can only be authorized with a Flight Manual change. This is easiest to got to Boeing as they built the aircraft, but it costs in the high six figures to $ 1 million and is customer specific and cannot be transferred if the aircraft changes owners.

There's your answer.  Smile



DingDong, honey, please answer the doorbell!
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31684 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 7550 times:

Thanks I guess I overlooked that.
$ 1million for a paper....& only for one customer is a lot.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6606 times:

An old thread I know but I asked this same question in another thread. It's quite amazing, the capabilities of the 757. Even some many years prior, it was capable of heavy status but never used it for the most part.


What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineLotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6592 times:



Quoting SeaBosDca (Thread starter):
at what line number the switchover happened?

Line 298 and above were built with max weight capability in the factory. Line 210 to 297 can be retrofit with a fuse pin replacement. Earlier build frames back to line 125 can be retrofit with landing gear and some fuselage reinforcements, but that would be very expensive.

Of course, you will also need the revised manuals.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4515 posts, RR: 18
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6274 times:

Just to be finicky, Continentals 752's max take off weight is 255,500 pounds.


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 6245 times:



Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
Just to be finicky, Continentals 752's max take off weight is 255,500 pounds.

A great idea so there is no issue with ATC separation, they are all simply a B752, not a "Heavy" for separation.

Yet another reason.......WORK HARD, FLY RIGHT.  Smile



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineWagz From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 516 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6223 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 12):
A great idea so there is no issue with ATC separation, they are all simply a B752, not a "Heavy" for separation.

Yet another reason.......WORK HARD, FLY RIGHT.

So I take it CO doesn't file their birds as Heavy then either? Up here at PHL its quite annoying as US' ETOPS birds are all 255,500 apparently but they never get filed as Heavy either. Then all the sudden they call for taxi and are calling themselves a Heavy. At that point its time to bug Flight Data to have them ammend the type to H/B752.

We never get CO 752s in PHL (except for EWR diversions on occasion), so do their pilots ever call themselves heavies down there?



I think Big Foot is blurry, Its not the photographers fault. Theres a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside
User currently offlineDescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6210 times:

Not to chime in on an old topic or go off topic but the MTOW on the 757 can be 255K but its actually limited a lot depending on the flight in regards to single engine driftdown.

As I know it......

FAR 121.191(a)(1) or called Method 1: requires the MTOG (MTOW) to be limited.
FAR 121.191(a)(2) or called Method 2: route of flight is set to provide appropriate dirftdown alternates. This starts at FL240 and has taken into account the TAFs, NOTAMS, etc. for the selected airports. It also shows that the dirftdown routes route will provide 2000 feet obstacle clearance and 5 miles on either side of the route.

Both can actually be applied on the same flight as well and if the flight is planned at or below FL240, only Method 1 is allowed.

This is stuff is only required for airplanes that pretty much can't dump fuel. So for example, the MTOW on the 767-300 stays constant at 470,000 but the on the 757 it will very.

I must confess that I actually looked up most of this stuff as I went along because unfortunately I'm not that much of a brianyack  

[Edited 2009-04-28 21:41:29]

User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6171 times:



Quoting Wagz (Reply 13):
So I take it CO doesn't file their birds as Heavy then either?

You are correct, CO does not file the B752's as "Heavy". They made that decision when the weight was lowered from the 300,000 lbs down to the current 255,000 lbs to define the "Heavy" or not.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineLax25r From United States of America, joined May 2008, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6113 times:



Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
Just to be finicky, Continentals 752's max take off weight is 255,500 pounds.



Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 12):
A great idea so there is no issue with ATC separation, they are all simply a B752, not a "Heavy" for separation.

Yet another reason.......WORK HARD, FLY RIGHT

I don't understand how they couldn't file as a heavy. If their MTOW is above 255,000, to me it isn't up to CO whether to file as a heavy or not.


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6103 times:



Quoting Wagz (Reply 13):
so do their pilots ever call themselves heavies down there?

Not too often, but since the crews are typed in the B756 and fly all of them, the 752/753 and 762/764 that they would certainly get crossed up with 3 out of 4 being a "Heavy" you'd think the 200's would be a canidate for them adding it on at the end of the flight number!!  Smile

Quoting Lax25r (Reply 16):
I don't understand how they couldn't file as a heavy. If their MTOW is above 255,000, to me it isn't up to CO whether to file as a heavy or not.

It is simple, they restrict the -200's to less less than 255,000 lbs so not an issue. Yes it is up to them however, they simply don't.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4515 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6039 times:



Quoting DescendVia (Reply 14):
your local time (2 days 1 hour 28 minutes ago) and read 170 times:


Not to chime in on an old topic or go off topic but the MTOW on the 757 can be 255K but its actually limited a lot depending on the flight in regards to single engine driftdown.

As I know it......

FAR 121.191(a)(1) or called Method 1: requires the MTOG (MTOW) to be limited.
FAR 121.191(a)(2) or called Method 2: route of flight is set to provide appropriate dirftdown alternates. This starts at FL240 and has taken into account the TAFs, NOTAMS, etc. for the selected airports. It also shows that the dirftdown routes route will provide 2000 feet obstacle clearance and 5 miles on either side of the route.

Both can actually be applied on the same flight as well and if the flight is planned at or below FL240, only Method 1 is allowed.

This is stuff is only required for airplanes that pretty much can't dump fuel. So for example, the MTOW on the 767-300 stays constant at 470,000 but the on the 757 it will very.

I must confess that I actually looked up most of this stuff as I went along because unfortunately I'm not that much of a brianyack

Your point is well made DecendVia, however for the sake of this conversation we have been discussing Maximum Gross Take Off Weight with no other performance considerations taken into account.


Incidentally, MTOW on the 763 is 412,000 lbs, even the -400 max is 'only' 450,000 !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6036 times:



Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 17):
It is simple, they restrict the -200's to less less than 255,000 lbs so not an issue. Yes it is up to them however, they simply don't.

The way I read the rule, if your MTOW is at 255,001 pounds or above, then legal identification of the aircraft would be Heavy. If they are not saying Heavy, they may not be correctly identifying their aircraft weight class, legally.

Anyway, certainly not a "big deal," but it is an important rule. You don't want an A380 forgetting to say "heavy."

Attributed to FAA.gov:

"Weight class is coded into three ordered levels: Small aircraft are those of
41,000 lbs. or less maximum certificated takeoff weight;
Large aircraft are those of more than 41,000 lbs. up to
255,000 lbs. maximum certifi cated takeoff weight; Heavy
aircraft are those capable of takeoff weights of more than
255,000 lbs. whether or not they are operating at this
weight during a particular phase of flight"


User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6021 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
The way I read the rule, if your MTOW is at 255,001 pounds or above, then legal identification of the aircraft would be Heavy. If they are not saying Heavy, they may not be correctly identifying their aircraft weight class, legally.

So what are you really saying?



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineDescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6017 times:



Quoting Max Q (Reply 18):
763 is 412,000 lbs

Got the numbers back wards  Smile

We got ours at 407,000.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8532 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5982 times:



Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 20):
So what are you really saying?

I don't know the real truth, but there has been word on a.net that certain ATC people are pissed that Heavy aircraft are not identifying themselves like they should.


User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5972 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
You don't want an A380 forgetting to say "heavy."

I agree especially since the A380 is 'Super'

Leo  Smile



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5958 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 22):
I don't know the real truth, but there has been word on a.net that certain ATC people are pissed that Heavy aircraft are not identifying themselves like they should.

That is pretty weak if true, there are certainly other ways to ID if an aircraft is a "Heavy" or not. I'd be surprised if that was actually the case, there is much more to be pissed about than the lack of "Heavy" on the radio!



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 757-200 Mtow
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Which Frequency Do Delta 757-200 Use For Acars? posted Tue May 1 2007 01:37:10 by Tomascubero
Cost Of Blended Winglet Installation On 757-200 posted Sat Feb 24 2007 09:04:27 by MD11Fanatic
757-200 And BAe 146: Danger? posted Sun Feb 4 2007 14:55:50 by BA787
What Engines Do The DL 757-200's Use? posted Sat Aug 5 2006 08:27:20 by Usair320
757-200 Varieties... Differences? posted Wed Feb 15 2006 05:34:35 by Tornado82
Our 757-200 Doesn't Make It From STO-EWR posted Mon Oct 17 2005 04:36:10 by Winglet
Need Some Detailed 757-200 Info. posted Sun Apr 10 2005 00:00:39 by Dan2002
757-200 Old 3 Crew Aircraft posted Sun Jan 11 2004 17:25:58 by Ryder10uk
757-200 & "Heavy" Designation posted Fri Nov 7 2003 05:41:32 by RockyRacoon
Boeing 757-200, Kissing The Ground? posted Sat Sep 20 2003 04:11:01 by Tarzanboy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format