User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 4990
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

757-200 Mtow

Sat Jan 10, 2009 8:12 pm

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.
 
User avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 866
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:52 pm

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.
 
sdf880
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:13 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:15 am

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 avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Wed Jan 14, 2009 3:30 am

Whats contributes to the increase in MTOW on the B757 in terms of Equipment used?
Or is it only structural.
regds
MEL.
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
User avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 866
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:34 am



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.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Thu Jan 15, 2009 9:19 pm



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 avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:02 am



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
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
DingDong
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 5:45 pm

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:11 am



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 avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Fri Jan 16, 2009 2:58 pm

Thanks I guess I overlooked that.
$ 1million for a paper....& only for one customer is a lot.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
FlyASAGuy2005
Posts: 3965
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:55 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:49 am

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.
 
lotsamiles
Posts: 254
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 1:22 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Sun Apr 12, 2009 4:42 am



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.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5644
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:46 pm

Just to be finicky, Continentals 752's max take off weight is 255,500 pounds.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Wed Apr 29, 2009 12:01 am



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.
 
wagz
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 12:48 pm

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:35 am



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
 
DescendVia
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:26 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:30 am

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]
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:20 pm



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.
 
lax25r
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:41 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:36 pm



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.
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Wed Apr 29, 2009 10:29 pm



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.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5644
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Fri May 01, 2009 6:06 am



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.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7715
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Fri May 01, 2009 6:54 am



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"
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Fri May 01, 2009 12:52 pm



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.
 
DescendVia
Posts: 141
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 4:26 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Fri May 01, 2009 1:35 pm



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

Got the numbers back wards  Smile

We got ours at 407,000.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7715
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Fri May 01, 2009 9:14 pm



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.
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Fri May 01, 2009 10:15 pm



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

I agree especially since the A380 is 'Super'

Leo  Smile
You live and you die, by the FMA
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 3943
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

RE: 757-200 Mtow

Sat May 02, 2009 2:29 am



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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cubsrule and 10 guests