edelag
Topic Author
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:35 am

Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:21 am

Does the B767 aerodynamically stink?
That is my question.

I recently flew on one, and I still have that small question. The 767 is slow at takeoff, slow to climb, hard to land, hard to liftoff, quite slow at turns. So again, my question is why is the 767 so sloppy?

Secondly, let's not make this a Boeing vs Airbus fight. In my personal opinion, I like both of them. So this is not me trying to bad mouth Boeing. I prefer the 777 over the A340/A330. I prefer the A320 over 737. This is just a simple question. If it did stank, airlines would not have bought it. What are the pros and cons of the 767?

Thanks in advance for the answers.

Saludos,
Eugenio de la Garza
It's not just the destination, it's the journey.
 
dz09
Posts: 433
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:20 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:28 am

I don't know which 767 you're talking about. The 767 and 777 in my opinion are the best flying machines out there. Not comparing range, payload and all that happy stuff, they offer a much better ride than any other aircraft out there.
 
phatty3374
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:38 am

It's definitely possible that your experiences on a 767 felt "sloppy," as you say. It might have taken a long time to take off and it might have made a hard landing, but you can't generalize like that. The "sloppiness" depends on numerous factors: fuel load, passenger load, temperature and pressure among others, and my experiences on all models of 767 (-200, -300, and -400ER) have been quite different from yours. EVERY plane can feel slow and lacking aerodynamics, except the 757 of course  biggrin  Freakin' rocket!!!

TG
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:46 am

Yes, the 767 aerodynamically stinks. That's why Boeing has sold only what, 600-800 (guesstimate) of them?
 
md80fanatic
Posts: 2365
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:29 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:51 am

Quoting DZ09 (Reply 1):
Not comparing range, payload and all that happy stuff, they offer a much better ride than any other aircraft out there.

Ahhh....yes....I get it. Someone hasn't flown MD in a long time,,,,,, No worries, plenty of time to change your mind.  Wink
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26700
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:57 am

Quoting Edelag (Thread starter):
So again, my question is why is the 767 so sloppy?

Sloppy pilots?

I've flown in my fair share of 767-200s and 767-300s and I haven't noticed them to be "sloppy" in terms of performance. And these have almost all been UA birds where I have been able to monitor our climb rate and airspeed thanks to Channel 9 (ATC Communications).
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:57 am

Boeing has sold a solid thousand of the 767. If it were a dud, I would think they might have had a harder time selling them.


As for it being slow on takeoff, the 767, especially the 762ER and 763ER have an awful lot of thrust for their weight. The 767 airfoil is actually pretty efficient, for its size it creates a great deal of lift, though it does not have the most acute angle of sweep, which explains it cruise speed being slower than 747,777, and 787.

It does not aerodynamically stink. Like any airplane (757 esp) it was aerodynamic quirks, but go figure.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:02 am

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 3):
Yes, the 767 aerodynamically stinks. That's why Boeing has sold only what, 600-800 (guesstimate) of them?

Through January, Boeing had delivered 948 767s, and had 30 more on order (978 orders total). With the UPS order last month, the total sold is now over a thousand.
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:11 am

I think the problem with the 767 in your case is one of a poor observation. How can you say it was slow to climb, turn, etc. Were you flying it? Did you even stop to think the climb rate may have been an ATC requested climb rate? Where were you flying from? Where were you flying to?

The plane would have been doing exactly what it was told to do. Bad landing, I suggest you blame the pilot. Sloppy flying can turn an f18 into a sloppy aircraft. To base your assumption of the type on one flight is flat out (hrmm what word can I use...let's just go with...) Silly.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
AADC10
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:12 am

I do not know if the 767 aerodynamically stinks, although it definitely does not seem to have as much lift as the 757. What killed the 767 is that it normally only has 7 seats abreast in most configurations but is considerably wider than a narrowbody. While that makes it comfortable for passengers, its CASM was not good as a result, hence the need for the 9 abreast 787 "Sardineliner." So the additional drag from the increased frontal area (compared to Boeing narrowbodies) is not compensated by the increased capacity. The inability to carry LD-3 cans side-by-side hurts too, although that has little to do with aerodynamics.
 
VC10DC10
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 9:56 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:19 am

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 9):
What killed the 767 is that it normally only has 7 seats abreast in most configurations but is considerably wider than a narrowbody

If 1,000+ orders is death, what's success?
 
MD88Captain
Posts: 1224
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 9:50 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:30 am

Man oh Man, what a silly OP. The 767/757 are amazing aircraft. They are a dream to fly. I remember doing a clean slow speed demonstration at cruise altitude where the 767 flew perfectly at clean speeds that would see other types descending in a full stall. I just love posts from the passengers seats about slow climbs and sloppy turns. How would you know? From the back - everything is perception. You have no idea about rate of climb, V speeds, turn radius/rate, ATC desires, limits, and requirements.

It reminds me of the guy who after the flight wanted to know why we lied about out altitude since he had a watch that had an altimeter on it. He of course knew nothing about cabin altitude vs. aircraft altitude. He was perfectly willing to show his ignorance in a belligerent manner.
 
acabgd
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:55 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:38 am

Quoting Osiris30 (Reply 8):
I think the problem with the 767 in your case is one of a poor observation

Well if the guy flew only on 737s and DC-9s up to now, the 767 might really feel somewhat slow due to its size.

If that was the case, I would suggest trying the 744. Now, that might feel "sloppy" when turning!
CSud,D9,MD8x,D10,Trid,BAC1,A30,31,319,320,321,33,346,B71,72,73,74,75,76,77,L10,S20,A42,A72,T13,T15,F50,F70,F100,B146
 
Confuscius
Posts: 3683
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:29 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:38 am

Through January, Boeing had delivered 948 767s, and had 30 more on order (978 orders total). With the UPS order last month, the total sold is now over a thousand.

Perhaps more with the upcoming USAF tanker competition.




It reminds me of the guy who after the flight wanted to know why we lied about out altitude since he had a watch that had an altimeter on it. He of course knew nothing about cabin altitude vs. aircraft altitude.

He should've stuck his hand out the window.
Ain't I a stinker?
 
BAalltheway
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:36 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:41 am

I sat next to a backup pilot on a 767 on the way to HNL, and of course I talked his ear off...he hates the 767 (despite being a 767 pilot) and actually referred to the thing as a "PIG". I don't know if this has to do with aerodynamics, weight, powerplants or a combination of any of these.
 
c680
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:03 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:41 am

Quoting Edelag (Thread starter):
I recently flew on one, and I still have that small question. The 767 is slow at takeoff, slow to climb, hard to land, hard to liftoff, quite slow at turns. So again, my question is why is the 767 so sloppy?

Thats a little like saying that my BMW is a slow car because I let my wife drive. It's the driver (pilot) not the car (plane.)

Quoting MD88Captain (Reply 11):
It reminds me of the guy who after the flight wanted to know why we lied about out altitude since he had a watch that had an altimeter on it. He of course knew nothing about cabin altitude vs. aircraft altitude. He was perfectly willing to show his ignorance in a belligerent manner.

Exactly. Too many posts about how a plane takes off too slow, or rockets up, or is "horrible in tubluence." Granted there are plane with interesting aerodynamic qualities. I flew a King Air 300 for years that IIRC required the Yaw damp above 20k ft. Turn it off and you would think you the plane was drunk it yawed so much.


PS: I don't think my wife reads A.net, but if she does: just kidding sweetie! Love Ya!
My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:43 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 6):
Boeing has sold a solid thousand of the 767. If it were a dud, I would think they might have had a harder time selling them.



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 7):
Through January, Boeing had delivered 948 767s, and had 30 more on order (978 orders total). With the UPS order last month, the total sold is now over a thousand.

Thanks guys. I was pretty sure it was near 1,000 - but some people on here get really nit-picky so I didn't want to over estimate and start another A vs. B feud.

Edited for spelling.

[Edited 2007-03-03 00:44:08]
 
Super Em
Posts: 427
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 7:55 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:53 am

I remember speaking to a Delta 767 Captain and he described the '67 as a Cadillac in the sky. Smooth and comfortable. Of course the younger pilots had no complaints about the 757
 
Adria
Posts: 781
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 7:53 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:55 am

The 777 (if you believe Lauda) has a better handling than the 767 but I remember some time ago a thread about the 767 climb performance and it really isn't that good.
 
Super Em
Posts: 427
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 7:55 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:01 am

Quoting Adria (Reply 18):

I was told you would not want an engine-out on takeoff on a 767-200 near a mountanous region
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:08 am

Quoting BAalltheway (Reply 14):
I sat next to a backup pilot on a 767 on the way to HNL, and of course I talked his ear off...he hates the 767 (despite being a 767 pilot) and actually referred to the thing as a "PIG". I don't know if this has to do with aerodynamics, weight, powerplants or a combination of any of these.

It would be interesting to know what he was comparing the 767 with. More than likely it was strictly his personal opinion, founded on whatever he chose. I drive trucks for a living. One driver loves Internationals; another loves Freightliners; still another loves Volvos and each will bemoan the idea that he might have to drive a truck other than the one he truly loves. Operatores, whether truck drivers or airplane pilots, can be like that.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
SkyyMaster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:34 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:16 am

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 20):
More than likely it was strictly his personal opinion, founded on whatever he chose

Agreed. My brother is a retiring captain, started on a TW CV-880, 707, 727 and moved to AL/US and flew everything in their jet fleet except the widebodies. He said the Airbus beats any American built product he's ever flown. All a matter of perspective obviously.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:17 am

Quoting Super Em (Reply 17):
I remember speaking to a Delta 767 Captain and he described the '67 as a Cadillac in the sky. Smooth and comfortable. Of course the younger pilots had no complaints about the 757

My brother is also a Delta 767 Captain, and he loves flying it. And he's flown the 727, MD-80, and 757.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
kaneporta1
Posts: 733
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:22 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:29 am

I've flown in a 767 over 100 times and it seems like it's up to the pilot whether to do a slow take-off or go like a bullet. As for the landing, I've never had a bad landing in a 767, unlike in a 737, which I've never had a good landing. But performance-wise, there's nothing like a A300-600. No flaps and climb like Saturn 5. Then again, it could just be those OA pilots, always in a hurry to go.

I was in CFU a few years ago, watching planes land on rw35. Planes that came from north would fly parallel to the runway to the opposite direction (towards the south) and then do a 180 turn to final. All the 73s and 75s and 320s would turn about 5 miles out. Apart from the Monarch and Airtours A306s which turned as soon as they were abeam of the runway threshold, in a spiral dive sort of way, and land Kai Tak style. I swear those airplanes can maneuver like F-16s...
I'd rather die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather, not terrified and screaming, like his passengers
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:42 am

Adding my own highly unscientific observations from the last row of a Delta 767 heading from ATL to FCO -- It did seem that it took forever for that poor plane to get off the runway. In fact, it appeared from my seat that we used up virtually the entire runway before becoming airborne. And when then the plane shook like a leaf as it lumbered off.

Of course, our plane was stuffed to the gills with passengers, all of whom (yours truly excluded of course) appeared to be at least 30lbs overweight. And the amount of luggage people on our flight were schlepping to check in and stuffing in the overhead bins. I had the distinct feeling that our poor plane was working overtime to get our fat asses airborne and keep em there.

I felt that the plane wasn't the problem, it was all of us fat passengers and our mountain of luggage.

Once the plane reached altitude, however, it was a smooth, quiet, pleasant flight across the pond. That was a fun flight!
 
SJCRRPAX
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:29 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:43 am

Quoting MD88Captain (Reply 11):
It reminds me of the guy who after the flight wanted to know why we lied about out altitude since he had a watch that had an altimeter on it. He of course knew nothing about cabin altitude vs. aircraft altitude. He was perfectly willing to show his ignorance in a belligerent manner.



LOL  rotfl   rotfl  That's classic. I gotta try that on a pilot someday. I love pulling you guys legs. I once advised a WN pilot on a trip from SEA to SJC that the next time he should request to use 12L instead of 30R, that way we could save time because he wouldn't need to fly all the way south down to Gilroy.... I'm glad to see there is other wise guy passengers out there that can keep a straight face. Gotta do something on those boring business trips.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 20):
I sat next to a backup pilot on a 767 on the way to HNL, and of course I talked his ear off...he hates the 767 (despite being a 767 pilot) and actually referred to the thing as a "PIG". I don't know if this has to do with aerodynamics, weight, powerplants or a combination of any of these.



Probably flys an F16 on the weekends for the Air Force Reserve.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2726
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:55 am

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Reply 25):
Probably flys an F16 on the weekends for the Air Force Reserve.

nah, F14
Those guys have all the humility of an pro wrestler.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:03 pm

The 767 is baller. Period. Even if it is "sloppy" which is B.S. claim anyway.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
osiris30
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 10:16 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:24 pm

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 26):
nah, F14
Those guys have all the humility of an pro wrestler.

Why should they.. the Tomcat kicked soooooo much arse... man could she shake the ground when they lit em up... wow....
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:39 pm

The 767 has very competitive CASMs with other widebody aircraft and has the lowest trip costs of any widebody aircraft.

The 767 like just about every aircraft can be ordered with different take off weights and engines. The 767ER equipped with 60K engines has a better thrust to weight ratio than a 772ER, even with the max 95K class engines.

The 767 is a 2nd generation widebody but the aerodynamics have not been significantly been improved on any subsequent aircraft. The 767 was designed as a small widebody primarily to serve domestic markets while the 777 was designed from the ground up as a longhaul int'l aircraft. It is a tribute to the 767 that it can fly 12+ hour flights of 6000 miles or more.

As for speed, the 767 cruises nearly as fast as the A330 and A340, which are both slower aircraft than the 777. So does that make Airbus aircraft inferior if they don't have a plane that can fly as fast as Boeing's longest range aircraft?

ATL-FCO is an easy route for a 767, esp. going eastbound and doesn't even require MTOW even if every passenger was 30 pounds overweight. DL flew the 764 in a high density domestic configuration last summer and even with a full passenger load, the 764 was still about to carry cargo out of FCO on an 11 hr+ flight to ATL. The 763 is even more capable.

I'll let MD88 Captain and other pilots comment but airlines are not interested in providing the most thrilling ride for you when jet fuel costs $2/ gallon. Flight performance for commercial airlines is very much a function of burning the least amount of fuel while maintaining safety and maximizing comfort for passengers.

If you want to have your ears pinned to the back of your head during takeoff, join the Air Force and get qualified to fly fighters.
 
captaink
Posts: 4010
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 10:43 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:55 pm

Quoting Edelag (Thread starter):
I recently flew on one, and I still have that small question. The 767 is slow at takeoff, slow to climb, hard to land, hard to liftoff, quite slow at turns. So again, my question is why is the 767 so sloppy

That is an observation very subjective to the situation at that time. I have flown in 763s and 762s and I haven't noticed anything strange about them. Whatsmore with regards to their handling being sloppy, that is for the pilot to say, as he has control of the airplane. If you feel it is sloppy from the back maybe you can attribute that to the pilot flying.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 3):
Yes, the 767 aerodynamically stinks. That's why Boeing has sold only what, 600-800 (guesstimate) of them?

Compared some other airplane types, I would say the 767 has sold pretty well.

The 767 is a very capable and loved aircraft by many airlines.
Look Up
 
ha763
Posts: 3201
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:58 pm

Seeing that the OP is from Mexico, it is quite possible that the 767 flight he took was from MEX, which is a hot and high airport. That would affect the performance of any aircraft and affects twins more than quads. It would explain the long takeoff roll and slower climb.

The 767 is not sloppy aerodynamically. It was purposely built narrower than other widebodies to reduce drag and to cruise at .80 mach to reduce fuel consumption. The 767 is still a very efficient aircraft.

BTW, why isn't this thread in the tech ops forum?
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:05 pm

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 29):
ATL-FCO is an easy route for a 767, esp. going eastbound and doesn't even require MTOW even if every passenger was 30 pounds overweight. DL flew the 764 in a high density domestic configuration last summer and even with a full passenger load, the 764 was still about to carry cargo out of FCO on an 11 hr+ flight to ATL. The 763 is even more capable

I gotta say, I enjoyed the flight. The plane is about as comfortable in coach as you can get. Is that how long the flight is from FCO back to ATL? 11hrs?
 
User avatar
Goodbye
Posts: 934
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 1:41 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:05 pm

I was spotting at Brisbane once with Mr Joge, and we saw a 767-300 begin its takeoff roll, then after what could only have been a few hundred metres take off like a rocket, with a climb angle I had never seen before, absolutely amazing.

I think the 767 is one of the ugliest aircraft around, but I don't think you can generalise and say that all 767s are sloppy or poor aerodynamically.
✈︎
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:23 pm

To the starter of this thread. I have to ask, while sitting in the back of the plane, why don't you just relax. Take your pictures of the wing and leave the details to the pros.

I have been flying the airplane for 8 years. To say the aircraft is sloppy is about the most ridiculous comment I have ever heard.

Should you ever graduate from the cabin to the cockpit, may I ask you to inquire amongst the people actually flying the aircraft their opinion. In fact, go up to any 767 captain what he thinks and he I will about guarantee it is about the most highly regarded airplane by drivers ever.

I fly in Canada, to places like TLV, MUC, EZE, SCL, non stop. For an aircraft that was designed years and years ago, I am rather impressed that while at all-up-weight, 32 degrees celcsius we can perform a reduced thrust takeoff. Try that with a transcon A321. But if climbing at 300 feet a minute out of FL250 constitutes a non-sloppy aircraft then I stand corrected. Last wek actually, we took off behind a 321. We levelled at 340 while he checked in passing 190.

The 767 is about the most stable, trusted, most able airplane in the sky today.

There seems to be an air of PC here, where people can't defend themselves without pissing off some loser. All I can say buddy, is read some more magazines and build some more models. YOU ARE OUT TO LUNCH.
Stand-by for new ATIS message......
 
luke7e7
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 3:16 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:28 pm

I personally always thought that the 767 was not such a good performer until my last trip. I was on LOT's 763, and the way this think took off , it changed my point of view about 767.I guess it is all about how they are required to take off. But that was the steepest climb I've ever been on ( full house).
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:45 pm

Quoting MD88Captain (Reply 11):
It reminds me of the guy who after the flight wanted to know why we lied about out altitude since he had a watch that had an altimeter on it. He of course knew nothing about cabin altitude vs. aircraft altitude. He was perfectly willing to show his ignorance in a belligerent manner.

That was funny. For a second there, I thought you'd say the guy tried to stick his arm out into the slipstream to get a altitude readout.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
777gk
Posts: 1488
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2000 3:04 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:47 pm

The 767-200ER is a very robust performer, capable of very high departure AOA with ease and style. The 767-400ER is not quite as impressive in this phase than the 767-200ER or even -300ER (I have never flown a -300 series) due to its slightly lower thrust-to-weight ratio and relatively small wing area (decreased lift), but it is by no stretch of the imagination a dog. Compared to some of the early 747s and DC-10s we had years ago, when the high-bypass-ration turbofans were in their infancy, these aircraft practically leap off the runway like the proverbial homesick angel. Anecdotal evidence is rarely a true indicator of an aircraft's capability. There are a number of factors you were likely unaware of that contributed to the precise envelope of operations on that day. 99.999999% commercial aircraft are operating well within their performance limits under normal conditions.
 
FL370
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 2:25 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:51 pm

i have flown on lots of 767's, i think i had maybe 1 or 2 bad experiences but that was due to the weather. other than that it was a smooth and quick flight. i ususally flew the 767-200/300 of UA from SFO/LAX-JFK before P.S came in. But i like 757 and the P.S config. those planes go fast!!!! they are the commecercial rockets!!!


long live the 767 and the flying 757's



fl370
 
9V-SPJ
Posts: 671
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2000 1:51 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:05 pm

The 767 is a great aircraft aerodynamically, mainly because of its super-critical wing. A supercritical wing has great high lift characteristics. You may have felt that the takeoff was sluggish, probably because it was a de-rated takeoff. Running engines at high power settings degrades performance over time.
As others have pointed out, you can't really judge the speed of a turn by sitting in a passenger seat.
For an aircraft to be a good performer, it doesn't need to have a rocket like takeoff. Those use a lot of fuel and if there is no need to achieve a high rate of climb, why do it?

9V-SPJ
 
deltajet757
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:26 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:14 pm

You have to understand that every flight on any plane is going to be different no matter where you are going or what route you are on. It depends on weather, noise abatement, load, fuel, pressure blah, blah, blah. If you are taking off from an airport that has restrictions on jet noise the pilots can't use absolute full power. It can also be that the you may not need to get into a steep climb in the first place. If the plane is totally full and perhaps a little overweight you are gonna have a slow climb and a long takeoff roll to begin with. If the flight happens to be somewhat empty or very empty the plane will have a short takeoff and a quick climb.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 22):
Quoting Super Em (Reply 17):I remember speaking to a Delta 767 Captain and he described the '67 as a Cadillac in the sky. Smooth and comfortable. Of course the younger pilots had no complaints about the 757
That's about right. The 767 goes nice and easy whereas a 757 rockets off and gets up to altitude very quickly as it is a great climber. I prefer the 757 over anything else. It happens to be my favorite A/C.

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 23):
unlike in a 737, which I've never had a good landing.
737: touches down and bounces like you're on a trampoline and the brakes come on hard
747: lands pretty well due to the huge wings creating a pillow of air underneath, but can also land hard depending on how it touches down; crosswind, no wind etc.
757: usually lands nice but it can land anyway you want it; hard or soft
767: generally lands harder possibly due to the position/orientation of the wheels on the main gear*
777: always land soft b/c the main gear has so many wheels
787: (yet to be determined)

*That brings me to the question: Why does the 767 land so hard? Is it because the front wheels on the main gear hang lower than the rear wheels?

I could rant on about this for a very long time because I've experienced all types of landings from soft and barely even noticed touchdowns to heavy crosswind landings where the overhead bins fly open and junk falls out.
Takeoffs are all pretty much the same except for when or if the pilots decide to do a slow and boring takeoff or a takeoff that ends you up getting sucked into your seat and being unable to lean forward or to be able to lift your arm without it smacking into your face. (of course i exaggerated that just to get my point across) A bumpy runway helps make a takeoff/landing more exciting. Trust me. If you have ever flown into OGG/PHOG RWY 2. It's kind of bumpy right at the beginning of 2 (end of 20). Came in on 20 then left on 2.

-DeltaJet757

[Edited 2007-03-03 06:28:07]
FLY DELTA JETS
 
sixtyseven
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:42 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:29 pm

777gk.

Your little blurb there makes no sense. You speak of a high AOA on departure as it's a good thing.

A high AoA is not something strived for. A fighter with a 1:1 thrust to weight ratio could take off in the vertical and not have a high AoA. A high AoA is something people want to avoid. It means you are near the stall, something to be avoided I'd say.

A big jet whether laden heavily or not will depart at between about 10 degrees NOSE UP, to about 18 degrees NOSE UP, which is a totally different thing than AoA. Most airfoils will stall at about 14 degrees nose up regardless. Angle of attack is totally different from DECK ANGLE.

Though you were not the moron that started this thread, perhaps a little less time on flight sim will get him to realize the fact that the 767 is about the most verstile a/c out there. Hence the fact that there are none on the market........
Stand-by for new ATIS message......
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:31 pm

interesting observations regarding the 767 aerodynamics.

the nose of the 777 and the 767. adopted by the 777

the tail of the 787 and the 767. adopted by the 787, in lieu of a 777 style tail.

interesting characteristic adopted by the next two programs!
learning never stops.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:41 pm

Quoting 9V-SPJ (Reply 39):
You may have felt that the takeoff was sluggish, probably because it was a de-rated takeoff. Running engines at high power settings degrades performance over time.

I've always found 767s, both -200 and -300 (I haven't flown on a -400 yet), to have impressive takeoff performance, even on longhaul international routes. I recall a few YYC-LHR and YYC-FRA nonstop 767-300ER flights when AC (and predecessor CP) was using the 763 on those routes where they they seemed to use barely more runway on those 9 hr. sectors than on a 3.5 hour flight to YYZ, and YYC is about 3,500 ft. above sea level. I also recall a couple of 763 flights on the one hour YVR-YYC leg where they made it up to 41,000 ft.

The only minor negative comment about the 767 is that it's a little slow compared to the 747 and 777, but no worse than the A330/340. On the other hand it has the best Y class seating configuration at 2-3-2, with only a 1 in 7 chance of a middle seat.
 
707lvr
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:41 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:20 pm

My dad was a pilot. We kids discovered that pilots love to talk about planes and flying - With Other Pilots! Instead of whining all the time, "Daddy, tell us about planes!" I can see now that I should have been smarter, like, "Say dad, I hear the P-51 was sloppy and aerodynamically stunk. What about that?" Thanks for the interesting stuff guys.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2726
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:44 pm

Quoting DeltaJet757 (Reply 40):
737: touches down and bounces like you're on a trampoline and the brakes come on hard

I've had many great landings in 737s Kinda fun too when the WN pilots going into ABQ would stand on the brakes and full thrust reversers so they could turn right into the gate instead of roll way the hell down by the military end of the airport and taxi back. Funny thing is everyone seemed love it too since it was kinda thrilling and cut 5-10min minimum off the time spent driving around the airport.

Worst landing I've had was a MD-80 that the monkey in the cockpit somehow managed to pogo stick down the runway I now pick turboprops before MD-80's thanks to that ride. NOTHING reassured me that the thing wasn't a heap.
 
moek2000
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:37 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:50 pm

I noticed that 767's make a harder landing compared to 777, 330, etc...

I wonder if it has anything to do with the position of the main landing gears during landing, as 767 landing gears are diagonally left-leaning compared to T7 or 330's diagonally right-leaning gears... Anyone know?

Also, the climb performance on 767 is pretty good I should say.

I recently flew AMS-IAH on CO 764 and that thing took off like a rocket... I have a video but I don't know how to post it...

Cheers
 
captaink
Posts: 4010
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 10:43 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 5:53 pm

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 41):
Though you were not the moron that started this thread

To the thread starters defense. His profile states 13 - 15. You are an adult and a 767 pilot. I really dont see the need for name calling. I mean this is what airliners.net is supposed to be about. Sharing our love for aviation. At times though we may not know the facts, but they can shared in a civil manner. So simply state the facts if you know them, instead of letting it get personal. I mean we are talking about a 767, an airplane, not someone's mother.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 45):
Worst landing I've had was a MD-80 that the monkey in the cockpit somehow managed to pogo stick down the runway I now pick turboprops before MD-80's thanks to that ride.

A bad landing, most likely due to pilot error, or external possibly unavoidable circumstances and you avoid flying on the aircraft type? Dude.........

[Edited 2007-03-03 09:53:55]
Look Up
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2726
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:23 pm

Quoting Captaink (Reply 47):
A bad landing, most likely due to pilot error, or external possibly unavoidable circumstances and you avoid flying on the aircraft type? Dude.........

ah, no, I know that the landing was the pilot, what made me swear off them was the overall experience... including something in the plane flexing so much that the distance between the top of the seat in front of me to the interior paneling was changing by 2-2.5" on every little bit of turbulence. Pinch your hand one minute with it pushed in palm to the side of the seat, next thing I could rotate my hand 90 palm to the floor and not touch the sidewall or the seat on either side. That I can recall every trip on a MD-80 more or less was horrid. So don't mind me if I am "silly" and don't fly on a plane I certainly never have to fly on to get to where I want to go.

Oh and I swore off America West cause their 737's were looking more and more like a back alley in the wrong part of town than an aircraft... or at least the ones I was getting the "privilege" to fly. I also try my best to avoid some of the routes on WN thanks to I was getting tired of riding on their oldest aircraft all the time. I love the 737-700 WN use though, and will usually take it even at a higher cost if I know I can get it over Frontier's 319's and crummier routes for where I fly.
 
cba
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2000 2:02 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:35 pm

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 24):
I had the distinct feeling that our poor plane was working overtime to get our fat asses airborne and keep em there.

Ever flown an A343 long haul? Flew one a few years back on AF, CDG-IAH, fully loaded. It felt like the thing needed some afterburners to get off the ground!

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 29):
airlines are not interested in providing the most thrilling ride for you when jet fuel costs $2/ gallon.

 checkmark 

Quoting Goodbye (Reply 33):
we saw a 767-300 begin its takeoff roll, then after what could only have been a few hundred metres take off like a rocket, with a climb angle I had never seen before, absolutely amazing.

Ever fly a 757 out of SNA? That's a hell of an experience with that whacky noise abatement rule...

Quoting DeltaJet757 (Reply 40):

737: touches down and bounces like you're on a trampoline and the brakes come on hard

Wow, I thought it was just me who had this experience! As much as I love the 737, I always feel like we're going to bounce all the way to the gate after touchdown!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos