baw716
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:49 pm

Ok, I have to ask a few questions before I answer the original poster. So, Eduardo, answer this for me please, then I will give my observations:

1) You say the aircraft was slow to climb.
What airport did you take off from? If it was a high altitude airport, say Mexico City, ANY aircraft will take a long time to take off and it will climb like a pig.
2) You say it was hard to land:
Were you flying the plane? If so, what conditions existed at the time you landed? If not, what do you mean by "hard to land"? Was it a hard landing? Did one wheel come down before the other? A number of factors can affect a landing: Crosswind, terrain, runway surface, speed, pitch angle at touchdown, pilot technique, flap settings, etc.
3) Hard to lift off, slow in the turns, your overall description is sloppy.
If you were flying the plane, what was your rotation speed, what was the weight, CG? In the case of turns, again, if high altitude, turns will be more gentle, not as tight unless the speed has built up significantly due to the thin air. Was it a hot day?

Here is my point:

I have flown quite literally thousands of hours in this aircraft, and I have about 500 hours flying it in the simulator. So far, I have taken off from high and hot airports, sea level, max payload from a short runway (8000 ft), landed at max landing weight with a 40 degree turn to final at less than 500 feet and with the possible exception of the 757, no aircraft I have flown responds as well as the 767. It has sufficient power to overcome most situations and frankly, it handles quite nimbly, but it isn't a fighter jet, so it doesn't handle like one.

The only thing about the 767 which is important to understand when landing is the fact that the reverse thrust is not terribly effective to slow the aircraft on landing. It tends to take a little more autobrake and slower speeds to land on short runways; but I have not had real difficulties. However, I have had more landing that kiss the runway rather than bang it in the 767 than any other aircraft in which I have flown or piloted. In crosswinds, it handles quite well, the power of the engines is quite helpful if I have to bail out of a landing in a crosswind. Even fully loaded, the 767 has a fairly sporty climb out performance and accelerates promptly to 250kts in most conditions.

So, forgive me, but I find your questions a little hard to understand, unless I know the context in which you ask the questions. Perhaps if you could clarify these points, the real 767 pilots on this forum as well as I (who is a sim pilot with thousands of hours in jet aircraft) can provide you some differences between this aircraft and others I have flown, both as a pilot and as a passenger. I have done a lot of both in the past 25 years and I think I have a pretty good feel for most western aircraft out there and especially ALL Boeing aircraft, since the Boeing plant is quite literally 10 miles up the road from my house.

I look forward to reading your response.
Muchas gracias y saludos,
Dave/baw716
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
 
rampart
Posts: 1800
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:58 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:05 pm

Quoting C680 (Reply 15):
PS: I don't think my wife reads A.net, but if she does: just kidding sweetie! Love Ya!

too funny!

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 34):
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.

Back off. There's PC, and on the flip side there's uncalled for arrogance. I saw a question from someone who could use more information. Most people responded correctly. Several of you, SixtySeven is not the only one, have no tact and whatever courage you may have is by benefit of anonymous posting on this net. Wow, big man. We're all impressed.

-Rampart
 
User avatar
BALandorLivery
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:54 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:09 pm

How on earth can you post such a topic without having flown the aircraft yourself?!?!?!
 
flight7e7
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:26 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:09 pm

As a flight attendant friend of mine once said, in even the most dire of situations " If it is Boeing, it's Goeing" . The 767 is a cornerstone of advanced avionics and was one of the first widebodied jumbos to sit a 2 man crew and first ever twin certified for ETOPS,virtually changing long haul travel the way we knew it until the certification. Since then, millions have traveled the globe safely and comfortably in one of the most popular Boeings ever built. The 767's performance might lag a bit behind her sisters, however, it is still a dynamic (short field ops, long haul-trans oceanic-profitable, and the main stay of many transatlantic fleets -DL and AA for one)-sort of the underdog of the Boeing family. A sterling reupation is an understatment. Get Goeing on a Boeing.
Cheers  thumbsup 
 
MarcoT
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:55 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:44 pm

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 34):
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.

Get lost.

This is a moderated forum on a private owned website, with rules and terms of use which you accepted upon subscribing. Amongst them, in no particular order, no insults, no personal attacks, heck even no hostile language or criticing of others ...
So stop whining about PC as somehow you are above the rules and have a right to be as insulting and abusive here as you wish.

BTW, apropos PC and bigotry, is funny (really, not) to notice that everytime (ie every other day) someone makes some lame, malicious (and ignorant) comment about say the A340 and its supposed slow climbing, you don't see dozen of righteous patronising posts, much less anyone freely spewing insults.
But when a 12-15 years old make a maybe naive, but not malicious, honest question about a B's ac he's immediately lynched on the spot. It may be not PC, but sometime one wonder who died and made this forum BoeingBigots.Net  Smile
Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
 
AJ
Posts: 2298
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:54 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:59 pm

I'm with Dave. I have thousands of hours on 767-200 and -300 series aircraft, powered by PW, GE and RR. They are a joy to fly and a challenge to land. They are aerodynamically amazing with good field performance, excellent climb performance (always outclimb 737s on domestic runs!) and a ceiling of 43,100'.

Obviously at the heavy end 185,000kg takeoffs aren't spectacular, but she is solid as a rock. On the other hand at 102,000kg (or more common around 120,000kg) she is a sports car! Max thrust takeoffs at the weight still bring a smile to my face.
 
ncelhr
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:53 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:12 pm

Quoting Kaneporta1 (Reply 23):
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.

Exactly.
Due to economics, pilots do not like going full throttle on take-off except in emergency situations.
I have once been in a missed approach on a BA 763. I will always give respect to this aircraft & the 757.
The thrust these engines have on full throttle is amazing. We shot like a rocket and I was glued to my seat. I tried leaning forward to look outside and I had to fight the acceleration. No - really incredible -.  crazy 
We reached 3000ft in no time at all.
 
AceMcCool99
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:58 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:54 pm

I think that the Gimli Glider proved that the 767 is a very aerodynamic aircraft. 'Nuff said!
 
Birdseed
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 9:12 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:59 pm

No of course the 767 doesn't aerodynamically stink!

Don't forget, it has to be capable of continuing a safe take off and climb after having an engine failure at V1. Any twin-engined airliner therefore has a large reserve of power.

As for all this 'sloppy' business...could be your (misguided) assessment of different weight, handling, temperature, ATC environment, performance requirements on any given day.
 
aircanada014
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:24 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:02 pm

I've been on B767s alot in the past 200ERs, 200s and 300ERs but never experience hard landing or any other sloppy flight.
They are great a/c to fly with, my dad loves flying the B767-200s and B767-300ERs..
 
aces727
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:40 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:14 pm

I've flown the 767-200ER out of high altitude airports such as BOG, fully loaded, and it just sky rocketed, I've flown the 767-300 out of ORD and MIA and have always experienced a powerfull take off. The only slow climb rate was on DL's 767-400 out of MCO. But it just depends on the settings for the flight, the 767 is a powerful airplane. My opinion for the 767 is that the 767-400 just looks elegantly beautiful, the 767-200 looks chubby (of course is short and fat), and looks funny.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11141
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:16 pm

Quoting C680 (Reply 15):
PS: I don't think my wife reads A.net, but if she does: just kidding sweetie! Love Ya!

If she does, you are really in trouble now. Better buy her some flowers and a new diamond.  Silly

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

If the B-767 is a Cadillac, then the B-757 has to be either a Ford Mustang GT, or a Corvette.  bigthumbsup 

Quoting Adria (Reply 18):
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.


Please remember there was 15 years between the time the B-767 and the B-777 entered service. Research with aerodynamics showed advancements in that time period.

Also remember the B-767 is not a slow jet. Yes, the B-777 and B-747 has a higher cruise speed, but the B-767 is no slouch, it still has a higher cruise speed than the A-330 or A-340. If the speed of the B-767 was a real issue, the USAF would not ever consider it for the KC-X program. Both the B-767 and A-330 can and do fly at some of the higher speeds required by some tanker receivers, but neither will have the speed envelope of the current KC-135.
 
MarcoT
Posts: 238
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:55 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:41 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):
Also remember the B-767 is not a slow jet. Yes, the B-777 and B-747 has a higher cruise speed, but the B-767 is no slouch, it still has a higher cruise speed than the A-330 or A-340.

???
I have always understood that actually it is the opposite case, nor I remember having ever read a post here claiming so...

FWIW the range chart from Boeing's PDA are valid for a cruise speed of 0,80 Mo for the 767ER and 0,84 Mo for the 777ER while the range chart from Airbus's PDA for both the A333 and the A343 are valid for a cruise speed of 0,82 Mo ...
Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
 
Morvious
Posts: 656
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:36 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:28 am

Isn't such a thing a personal oppinion rather then a global one?

People prefer Mercedes over BMW or Audi, Lamborgini over ferrari or an Opel (Vauxhall) over Renault. Its mostly based on one experience that won't chance anything after a period of time.

Now, if the B767 really did stink on Aerodynamics, the fuel ticket would be very high at the end of a year. If that was so the B767 wasn't flying today. (Offcourse there are newer, more advanged and more economic airplanes out there). The B767 was offcourse the most used airplane oer the atlantic for a long period of time.

But if you look at the handling of the bird, it could be very different with another pilot in command, ATC or just the weather of the day.

Ive seen some NASA style takeoffs with B767's that amased me of its performance.
have a good day,

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

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:15 am

Thanks for the info guys. I do feel a bit bad, because I did generalize. But the truth is that this is just another battle over boeing vs airbus. The "A" guys badmouth Boeing and vice versa. That is not what I wanted. I just wanted to know if my view was the true view or just my view. Anyway, thanks for the input. Really appreciate it. Maybe I felt my flight, like I felt it because the MTOW was almost at its max.

Saludos,
Eugenio de la Garza
It's not just the destination, it's the journey.
 
c680
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:03 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:50 am

Quoting Edelag (Reply 64):
Maybe I felt my flight, like I felt it because the MTOW was almost at its max.

Now that makes sense - and is a good observation!
My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
 
trnswrld
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sat May 22, 1999 2:19 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:51 am

I wasnt going to reply to this thread because I thought that asking if one of the worlds most proven aircraft could be said to "stink" was a bit rediculous but what the heck. I flew on a TWA 763 from STL to OGG and back. Let me tell you that aircraft was anything but a slouch. Very smooth aircraft great flight and tons of power on takeoff.
 
highflier92660
Posts: 713
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:16 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:14 am

Let's turn back the clock. The Boeing 767 wing was designed and wing tunneled back in 1970's in the midst of the first fuel crises and oil embargoes. The goal was not for a faster aircraft than the Boeing 707-320B but a more fuel efficient. Aerodynamics have come a bit further along in 30 plus years, but what emerged was a wing optimized for .80 mach and moderately swept at 31.5 degrees at 25% mean aerodynamic chord. With an Mmo of .86 the Boeing 767 is not a speed demon.

When the first -200 was rolled out it was obvious that the airplane had a huge wing capable of carrying an airplane with a lot more stretch in the fuselage: Boeing had leaned their lesson in "rubberizing." Recall the limitations of the 707 vs. the DC-8. So in the end the engineers of the 1970's had done a fabulous job.

Edelag, every take-off is computed using the lowest EPR setting to lower maintenance costs and extend engine life. A 767 domestic departure out of JFK using their fourteen thousand footer seems to roll forever, while a take-off out of 6,995 Kahalui, Maui is considerably more lively (and sometimes turbulent.)

For real fun, thrills and an E ticket ride go to Southern California's 5,700 ft. SNA for a light Boeing 757 departure off of runway 19R. The parameter limitation is in the permissible pitch angle in the ops manual, not the power available from the Pratts. By the time the a/c is abreast Back Bay one needs to cut-back for the noise abatement procedure lest the company get a nastygram from the good folks at John Wayne.
 
SJCRRPAX
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:29 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:45 am

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 44):
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.


 thumbsup 

Now we know how to get the pilots to respond. I suggest once we get a fair amount of pilots here on a-net with A380 and B787 experience we start the same thread over substituting "B787" or "A380" for "B767" and we can find out how the pilots really feel.
 
flyorski
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:23 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:54 am

Who all thinks it's time for WINGS to do a 767 tribute thread and educate some people on the 767?? Big grin
"None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsly believe they are free" -Goethe
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:28 am

Quoting Super Em (Reply 19):
I was told you would not want an engine-out on takeoff on a 767-200 near a mountanous region

You would not enjoy an engine out on any twin-jet near mountains. If you believe an A330 or 777 would be any nicer to lose an engine on while you were trying to climb past mountains, you are deluding yourself.

Quoting SixtySeven (Reply 34):
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 does have fantastic climb out properties, thanks to its abundance of thrust and solid aerodynamics.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 29):
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.

Anyone who has run the numbers knows that there isn't much flying commercially that can outgun a 762ER for thrust to weight.

Quoting Captaink (Reply 47):
To the thread starters defense. His profile states 13 - 15. You are an adult and a 767 pilot.

Pretty amazing how much argument a 13-15 year old can cause amongst adults, huh?

Quoting AceMcCool99 (Reply 57):
I think that the Gimli Glider proved that the 767 is a very aerodynamic aircraft. 'Nuff said!

Haha, yeah, go ask those Canadians if the 767 aerodynamically stinks.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):
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

If the B-767 is a Cadillac, then the B-757 has to be either a Ford Mustang GT, or a Corvette.

757-200 = 40,100 lbs of thrust (PW2040) X 2 = 80,200 lbs. thrust / 255,000lbs MTOW = .3145 lbs thrust/lb.
767-200ER = 63,300lbs of thrust (PW4062) X 2 = 126,600 lbs. thurst / 395,000 lbs MTOW = .3205 lbs. thrust/ lb.

Who is your corvette now?

762ER has more thrust per pound at MTOW... and at less than MTOW... it's even more of a rocket.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
Super Em
Posts: 427
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2000 7:55 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:56 am

Like others before have stated, there are different scenarios that affect an A/C's takeoff performance

I flew B6 A320 recently from JFK to OAK. The flight was near full. 152 out of 156 seats were filled.

I didn't expect much for my money. Boy was I wrong. She shot out of there like the cops were after us. We must have been no higher than 500 ft and made a sharp left turn (Rwy 31L) Talk about getting sucked in your seat. I thought I was at Great Adventures! Good power  Smile Never doubt an A320 again.

Coming back we were not as full. Expecting better climb perfomance, I was clearly dissappointed. We lifted off gently into the sky. Soft and smooth.

So again it depends. Especially the pilots mood that day  Wink
 
KevinSmith
Posts: 626
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:08 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:59 am

IIRC Boeing was very careful when designing the 757 and 767. They were very concerned with fuels saving and henceforth aerodynamics. Mind you this was in the time of oil shortages and price hikes of the 70s and 80s. As proof of Boeing's attention to detail, IIRC the reason that the 767 main landing gear tilts to the back instead of forward is because it was found that on that a/c it would save fuel. The exact reason as to how it saved fuel I do not know.
Learning to fly, but I ain't got wings.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:00 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):
Yes, the B-777 and B-747 has a higher cruise speed, but the B-767 is no slouch, it still has a higher cruise speed than the A-330 or A-340.

No , it absolutely does not have a higher cruise speed than the A330 or A340.

NS
 
N1120A
Posts: 26541
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:12 am

Quoting Edelag (Thread starter):
slow to climb

Actually, 767s have just about the best takeoff performance of any widebody, mainly due to their smaller size. United flew the 762A off the 6886' runway at BUR to ORD.

Quoting Edelag (Thread starter):
hard to land

767s do land hard, but that is mainly because of their center of gravity.

Quoting Acabgd (Reply 12):
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.

The 767 is significantly faster than either one of those.

Quoting Acabgd (Reply 12):
If that was the case, I would suggest trying the 744. Now, that might feel "sloppy" when turning!

Then they wouldn't be flying on a 744.

Quoting Adria (Reply 18):
I remember some time ago a thread about the 767 climb performance and it really isn't that good.

I want to see another aircraft that heavy do what it does.

Quoting FL370 (Reply 38):
But i like 757 and the P.S config. those planes go fast!!!! they are the commecercial rockets!!!

And those aircraft use the lowest powered engines available on the 757.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):
then the B-757 has to be either a Ford Mustang GT, or a Corvette.

Don't insult the airplane like that. With that performance and efficiency combination, you are talking BMW territory.  Wink

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61):
but the B-767 is no slouch, it still has a higher cruise speed than the A-330 or A-340.

Actually, it doesn't. The 767 is built for efficiency and takeoff performance, not cruise speed.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
baw716
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:21 am

Quoting Ncelhr (Reply 56):
Due to economics, pilots do not like going full throttle on take-off except in emergency situations.

This is very true, and may also explain why the takeoff performance for Eduardo may have not been as sporty as he may have been expecting. Depending upon the situation, even at MTOW, you may have a de-rated takeoff (although probably not much). I rarely use full power on takeoff unless I'm at an airport where I need obstacle clearance and/or a short runway. Example, if you have a 20kt headwind, there is no need for full power, the extra headwind will help provide extra lift thereby making full power unnecessary.

baw716
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
 
worldtraveler
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:18 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:45 am

Quoting AceMcCool99 (Reply 57):
I think that the Gimli Glider proved that the 767 is a very aerodynamic aircraft

may our little friend in Mexico needs a refreser on the Gimli Glider.... perhaps he doesn't even know the story. Maybe one of our Canadian friends can do a quick recap. And is there a similar story w/ any other aircraft type?

Quoting Edelag (Reply 64):
ut the truth is that this is just another battle over boeing vs airbus.

No it's not. You questioned whether the 767 stinks aerodynamically. that is not an A vs B discussion. there are solid numbers to justify the positions expressed here. The only A vs B discussion is re: cruising speed and I for one do not claim the 767 is quite as fast as the A330 but the difference is so small that it really only comes into play for a very long flight... and only matters if you have the two competing schedules.... rather unlikely.

You asked a question that was designed to evoke a response. Don't be surprised if you are shown to be wrong and given lots of data to support to prove it.

FWIW, the 767 will still be in service in 20 years... a service life for the model of at least 50 years; any machine that can be viable for 50 years is pretty remarkable. You will see plenty of 767s for a good long time.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26541
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:13 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 70):
757-200 = 40,100 lbs of thrust (PW2040) X 2 = 80,200 lbs. thrust / 255,000lbs MTOW = .3145 lbs thrust/lb.
767-200ER = 63,300lbs of thrust (PW4062) X 2 = 126,600 lbs. thurst / 395,000 lbs MTOW = .3205 lbs. thrust/ lb.

Who is your corvette now?

762ER has more thrust per pound at MTOW... and at less than MTOW... it's even more of a rocket.

Except of course that the 757 still outclimbs any commercial aircraft flying at MTOW to FL410

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 76):
And is there a similar story w/ any other aircraft type?

There was the A330 in the Azores, though the conditions were much more ideal in many ways and didn't require the same kind of flying that Gimli did.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 76):
I for one do not claim the 767 is quite as fast as the A330 but the difference is so small that it really only comes into play for a very long flight... and only matters if you have the two competing schedules.... rather unlikely.

Actually, they compete on similar schedules all the time. Then again, the difference is not nearly as big as between a 744/772ER and a 767/A330/A340
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
comorin
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:52 am

RE: Does The B767 Aerodynamically Stink?

Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:30 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 77):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 70):
757-200 = 40,100 lbs of thrust (PW2040) X 2 = 80,200 lbs. thrust / 255,000lbs MTOW = .3145 lbs thrust/lb.
767-200ER = 63,300lbs of thrust (PW4062) X 2 = 126,600 lbs. thurst / 395,000 lbs MTOW = .3205 lbs. thrust/ lb.

Who is your corvette now?

762ER has more thrust per pound at MTOW... and at less than MTOW... it's even more of a rocket.

Except of course that the 757 still outclimbs any commercial aircraft flying at MTOW to FL410

Any discussion of thrust/MTOW needs to include drag coefficients, as the plane is not flying in a vacuum. If the 757 outclimbs an aircraft with higher thrust/weight, then she has lower drag per lb of lift - right?

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