Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Transpac787
Topic Author
Posts: 1421
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:04 pm

Several US carriers that took delivery of the early-model 767-200A, eventually converted them to a bastardized version of the 767-200ER for use on oceanic flights. UA, AA, and TW all did post-delivery conversions. I believe Air Canada did, as well.... and I'm sure several other carriers.

My question is: what all was modified, and what weights were they certified up to?? The original 767-200's were certified up to a maximum weight of 315.0 - whereas late-delivery 767-200ER's could get as heavy as 395.0


 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Wed Oct 17, 2018 11:21 am

The 767-200 series was never certified for winglets. The customer base was so small that it did not justify the development costs. 395K was the heaviest the -200ER was certified. 241,000 USG compared to 16,700 for the base models. Not all ERs had the big center tank, so you could see smaller fuel capacity numbers. The HGW models needed fuel dump which again was not seen on the lower MGW versions. Some enhancements to the electrical systems were a part of the ER package.

The final 767-200ERs had exceptional range and one time were only 2nd to he 747 for going the distance. Pre 777 era.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:15 pm

BravoOne wrote:
The 767-200 series was never certified for winglets. The customer base was so small that it did not justify the development costs. 395K was the heaviest the -200ER was certified. 241,000 USG compared to 16,700 for the base models. Not all ERs had the big center tank, so you could see smaller fuel capacity numbers. The HGW models needed fuel dump which again was not seen on the lower MGW versions. Some enhancements to the electrical systems were a part of the ER package.

The final 767-200ERs had exceptional range and one time were only 2nd to he 747 for going the distance. Pre 777 era.


Sorry but I fat fingered that fuel load for the ER. Should read 24,100, not 241000.

The later GE and PW engines were also a part of the higher gross weight models. Lots of early 767-200ERs were JT9D equipped along with an equivalent GE power plant.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:25 pm

Transpac787 wrote:
UA, AA, and TW all did post-delivery conversions. I believe Air Canada did, as well.... and I'm sure several other carriers.

Air Canada's first order for 767s was for 12 aircraft. At the time, ETOPS wasn't even a consideration. They were to replace domestic DC-8-61s flying domestic routes. However, between the time when the order was made and deliveries started, the world's thoughts about twin engine flying changed.

The first 6 aircraft, 601-606 were too far in construction to be changed and could never be ER aircraft. (and never were). 607 and later were built and delivered as domestic aircraft, but had the capability pre-built during construction and eventually were converted. The aircraft from PWA, 671 and 672 as well were never intended nor flown as ETOPS aircraft.

I am curious though. What would have been missing on the earlier aircraft that could never have been added to make them ERs?

Things like slide/rafts, HF radios, improved cargo fire detection/suppression can all be added later. While the aircraft were lighter, even to do shorter ER flights like the UK and Caribbean flying was not possible with these aircraft. (Although they occassionally did Caribbean flying taking the "long way" around WATRS). Any old Boeing guys around here recall what the issue was?
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
Max Q
Posts: 8430
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:23 am

BravoOne wrote:
The 767-200 series was never certified for winglets. The customer base was so small that it did not justify the development costs. 395K was the heaviest the -200ER was certified. 241,000 USG compared to 16,700 for the base models. Not all ERs had the big center tank, so you could see smaller fuel capacity numbers. The HGW models needed fuel dump which again was not seen on the lower MGW versions. Some enhancements to the electrical systems were a part of the ER package.

The final 767-200ERs had exceptional range and one time were only 2nd to he 747 for going the distance. Pre 777 era.




I flew the 767-224 at Continental, these
were the last civilian-200 models that
Boeing built


In fact they had not made any for years
and re-opened the production line
for Cal’s order


These were the 395K version with the
most powerful GE engine available and
had really impressive performance


They made our 757’s look underpowered
amazing climb rate and handled beautifully


We never pushed the range capabilities
though


There was a plan to put them on
EWR-NRT but they would have required
a dedicated crew rest area which was never installed


Would have taken up too much room
in a cabin that was already short on seats


Should have bought the -300 I think but
it was useful on long, thin routes


All retired now, which seemed premature
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
fr8mech
Posts: 8061
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:45 am

longhauler wrote:
I am curious though. What would have been missing on the earlier aircraft that could never have been added to make them ERs?


My memory is a bit fuzzy, been almost 30 years since I worked on an early -200, but I don't think they had an Hydraulic Motor Generator (HMG) installed. While, I'm not sure that would be a show-stopper for modification, it would be a significant change to the electrical architecture of the aircraft. Of course, the hydraulics would need some modification also, but I'm thinking that would be easier.

Equipment cooling may have needed redesign...I seem to recall a much simpler system, with less headache on the early jets.

Passed that, I'm not sure...too far in the past.
When seconds count, the police are minutes away, or may not come at all.
It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person. ~B. Murray
Ego Bibere Capulus, Ut Aliis Sit Vivere
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6313
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Thu Oct 18, 2018 5:27 am

fr8mech wrote:
longhauler wrote:
I am curious though. What would have been missing on the earlier aircraft that could never have been added to make them ERs?


My memory is a bit fuzzy, been almost 30 years since I worked on an early -200, but I don't think they had an Hydraulic Motor Generator (HMG) installed. While, I'm not sure that would be a show-stopper for modification, it would be a significant change to the electrical architecture of the aircraft. Of course, the hydraulics would need some modification also, but I'm thinking that would be easier.

Equipment cooling may have needed redesign...I seem to recall a much simpler system, with less headache on the early jets.

Passed that, I'm not sure...too far in the past.


I was also going to reply HMG, then saw your reply. My understanding is that if a 767 doesn’t at least have provisions for it, it simply isn’t feasible to retrofit.

At one time, the HF system was optional on the 767 also, but it’s been baseline for around 20 years now.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3225
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:25 am

You can find a list of max. taxi weights for the 767 engine- airframe combinations at the Boeing 767 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning

See PDF file page 10 out of 272 : http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ps/767.pdf
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3225
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:28 pm

Found this older thread about this subject : viewtopic.php?t=755673
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
longhauler
Posts: 6488
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:00 am

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:58 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
fr8mech wrote:
longhauler wrote:
I am curious though. What would have been missing on the earlier aircraft that could never have been added to make them ERs?


My memory is a bit fuzzy, been almost 30 years since I worked on an early -200, but I don't think they had an Hydraulic Motor Generator (HMG) installed. While, I'm not sure that would be a show-stopper for modification, it would be a significant change to the electrical architecture of the aircraft. Of course, the hydraulics would need some modification also, but I'm thinking that would be easier.

Equipment cooling may have needed redesign...I seem to recall a much simpler system, with less headache on the early jets.

Passed that, I'm not sure...too far in the past.


I was also going to reply HMG, then saw your reply. My understanding is that if a 767 doesn’t at least have provisions for it, it simply isn’t feasible to retrofit.

At one time, the HF system was optional on the 767 also, but it’s been baseline for around 20 years now.


Thanks for your comments Gentlemen ... I had always wondered.

I have always thought the -200 to be the best looking of the bunch. The short fuselage seems to make the long wings and tall tail even better. But ... I had to acknowledge, with only 169 passengers in an F/J/Y configuration, they just weren't feasible in our fleet any more.

Two days ago though, I saw two ... count 'em ... two -200s in YVR!
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:44 pm

I got involved in project where a potential owner wanted to purchase a -200ER and fly it from JFK to HKG, non stop, Easliy done if aux tanks were installed and we pushed hard to get Aero Partners to do winglets for us. Actually had a purchase agreement between ourselves and the Russian outfit who bought several from UAL/CAL but in the end the stars simple did not align and the guy went small, and bought a G650. It was very interesting running various combinations of flight plans using "what ifs" to test the capability of the airplane. Keep in mind that this was to be a corporate airplane, not a pax version.

There is at least one 767-200ER that is tanked and has 22 hours range. It was N registered but based in the ME.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6313
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:49 pm

longhauler wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
fr8mech wrote:

My memory is a bit fuzzy, been almost 30 years since I worked on an early -200, but I don't think they had an Hydraulic Motor Generator (HMG) installed. While, I'm not sure that would be a show-stopper for modification, it would be a significant change to the electrical architecture of the aircraft. Of course, the hydraulics would need some modification also, but I'm thinking that would be easier.

Equipment cooling may have needed redesign...I seem to recall a much simpler system, with less headache on the early jets.

Passed that, I'm not sure...too far in the past.


I was also going to reply HMG, then saw your reply. My understanding is that if a 767 doesn’t at least have provisions for it, it simply isn’t feasible to retrofit.

At one time, the HF system was optional on the 767 also, but it’s been baseline for around 20 years now.


Thanks for your comments Gentlemen ... I had always wondered.

I have always thought the -200 to be the best looking of the bunch. The short fuselage seems to make the long wings and tall tail even better. But ... I had to acknowledge, with only 169 passengers in an F/J/Y configuration, they just weren't feasible in our fleet any more.

Two days ago though, I saw two ... count 'em ... two -200s in YVR!


If you like the 767-200 fuselage then come down to PAE and see all the KC-46s here. Will be an outstanding airplane for the USAF once it’s delivered.
 
Elshad
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 am

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:22 pm

Isn’t the KC-46 fuselage slightly longer?
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:26 pm

Financially you could not justify converting any -200 over to a -200ER. Blue City Holdings, aka Google, picked up a former Qantas -238ER from Victorvile and paid somewhere around 12 million for it, including a spare engine. Nice airplane that even though being an earless, still had pretty good legs. The JT9D were problematic in that there were few if any engine OH facilities available should serious off the wing work be required.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2343
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:27 pm

Elshad wrote:
Isn’t the KC-46 fuselage slightly longer?

No, there was a while where it was going to be, but then wasn't. The LOA is longer because of the boom.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:50 am

Transpac787 wrote:
Several US carriers that took delivery of the early-model 767-200A, eventually converted them to a bastardized version of the 767-200ER for use on oceanic flights. UA, AA, and TW all did post-delivery conversions. I believe Air Canada did, as well.... and I'm sure several other carriers.

My question is: what all was modified, and what weights were they certified up to?? The original 767-200's were certified up to a maximum weight of 315.0 - whereas late-delivery 767-200ER's could get as heavy as 395.0



the B767-200 came with an inactive center tank fully equipped with pumps Valves and plumbing. What it didn't come with was a control panel in the cockpit. When TWA American Delta and United decided they wanted to ETOPS the airplanes? they installed all the overwater equipment, Activated the Center tank south and got FAA Approval AND? Had at it!! I was still in college when I interned at the FAA Oak City in the summer of 1982,1983. where ETOPS and EROPS was a HOT topic!!
TWA was the one who brought the topic to the FAA and they had done the majority of the research. An? Proved the concept flying Transcon flights. From the beginning there was only ETOPS 60 and 90 so the flights were only to Europe from as far west as Chicago. It was a few years before the B767-300 came out but by then? ETOPS 120,180, and 240 were already planned for, I think only Airbus got caught flat footed as they were trying to sell that "DOG" A340 with the CFM's pushing it.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:08 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Transpac787 wrote:
Several US carriers that took delivery of the early-model 767-200A, eventually converted them to a bastardized version of the 767-200ER for use on oceanic flights. UA, AA, and TW all did post-delivery conversions. I believe Air Canada did, as well.... and I'm sure several other carriers.

My question is: what all was modified, and what weights were they certified up to?? The original 767-200's were certified up to a maximum weight of 315.0 - whereas late-delivery 767-200ER's could get as heavy as 395.0



the B767-200 came with an inactive center tank fully equipped with pumps Valves and plumbing. What it didn't come with was a control panel in the cockpit. When TWA American Delta and United decided they wanted to ETOPS the airplanes? they installed all the overwater equipment, Activated the Center tank south and got FAA Approval AND? Had at it!! I was still in college when I interned at the FAA Oak City in the summer of 1982,1983. where ETOPS and EROPS was a HOT topic!!
TWA was the one who brought the topic to the FAA and they had done the majority of the research. An? Proved the concept flying Transcon flights. From the beginning there was only ETOPS 60 and 90 so the flights were only to Europe from as far west as Chicago. It was a few years before the B767-300 came out but by then? ETOPS 120,180, and 240 were already planned for, I think only Airbus got caught flat footed as they were trying to sell that "DOG" A340 with the CFM's pushing it.


Thanks for the history lesson! The 763 was introduced in '86 BTW.

Did the non ER 763's ever come with these provisions?
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
User avatar
DL_Mech
Posts: 2492
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 7:48 am

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Tue Apr 09, 2019 10:48 am

Pictures of the conversion of a TWA 767-231 to -ER status on pages 4,5 and 6.

http://digital.shsmo.org/digital/collection/twa/id/8234
This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 4094
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Tue Apr 09, 2019 1:34 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
Transpac787 wrote:
Several US carriers that took delivery of the early-model 767-200A, eventually converted them to a bastardized version of the 767-200ER for use on oceanic flights. UA, AA, and TW all did post-delivery conversions. I believe Air Canada did, as well.... and I'm sure several other carriers.

My question is: what all was modified, and what weights were they certified up to?? The original 767-200's were certified up to a maximum weight of 315.0 - whereas late-delivery 767-200ER's could get as heavy as 395.0



the B767-200 came with an inactive center tank fully equipped with pumps Valves and plumbing. What it didn't come with was a control panel in the cockpit. When TWA American Delta and United decided they wanted to ETOPS the airplanes? they installed all the overwater equipment, Activated the Center tank south and got FAA Approval AND? Had at it!! I was still in college when I interned at the FAA Oak City in the summer of 1982,1983. where ETOPS and EROPS was a HOT topic!!
TWA was the one who brought the topic to the FAA and they had done the majority of the research. An? Proved the concept flying Transcon flights. From the beginning there was only ETOPS 60 and 90 so the flights were only to Europe from as far west as Chicago. It was a few years before the B767-300 came out but by then? ETOPS 120,180, and 240 were already planned for, I think only Airbus got caught flat footed as they were trying to sell that "DOG" A340 with the CFM's pushing it.



Don't think DAL ever converted the -200 to a -200ER config ? Also the -200, -300ER's were never certified beyond 180'.
 
A320FlyGuy
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 8:31 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:38 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Transpac787 wrote:
Several US carriers that took delivery of the early-model 767-200A, eventually converted them to a bastardized version of the 767-200ER for use on oceanic flights. UA, AA, and TW all did post-delivery conversions. I believe Air Canada did, as well.... and I'm sure several other carriers.

My question is: what all was modified, and what weights were they certified up to?? The original 767-200's were certified up to a maximum weight of 315.0 - whereas late-delivery 767-200ER's could get as heavy as 395.0



I think only Airbus got caught flat footed as they were trying to sell that "DOG" A340 with the CFM's pushing it.


I don’t know why everyone says that the A340-200/300 was a dog - it may not have climbed like a 757-200, but it certainly met all its objectives. If it was such a dog, Air France and Lufthansa wouldn’t have kept them around as long as they have.
My other car is an A320-200
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Thu Apr 11, 2019 5:37 am

1989worstyear wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
Transpac787 wrote:
Several US carriers that took delivery of the early-model 767-200A, eventually converted them to a bastardized version of the 767-200ER for use on oceanic flights. UA, AA, and TW all did post-delivery conversions. I believe Air Canada did, as well.... and I'm sure several other carriers.

My question is: what all was modified, and what weights were they certified up to?? The original 767-200's were certified up to a maximum weight of 315.0 - whereas late-delivery 767-200ER's could get as heavy as 395.0



the B767-200 came with an inactive center tank fully equipped with pumps Valves and plumbing. What it didn't come with was a control panel in the cockpit. When TWA American Delta and United decided they wanted to ETOPS the airplanes? they installed all the overwater equipment, Activated the Center tank south and got FAA Approval AND? Had at it!! I was still in college when I interned at the FAA Oak City in the summer of 1982,1983. where ETOPS and EROPS was a HOT topic!!
TWA was the one who brought the topic to the FAA and they had done the majority of the research. An? Proved the concept flying Transcon flights. From the beginning there was only ETOPS 60 and 90 so the flights were only to Europe from as far west as Chicago. It was a few years before the B767-300 came out but by then? ETOPS 120,180, and 240 were already planned for, I think only Airbus got caught flat footed as they were trying to sell that "DOG" A340 with the CFM's pushing it.


Thanks for the history lesson! The 763 was introduced in '86 BTW.

Did the non ER 763's ever come with these provisions?

I can't speak for any other Airline but all of United's 767-322's came ready for ETOPS. Not long afterwards? We retired all the -222's (we only had 19 to start with)
And the engines were not interchangeable with the -322's (JT9D 7R4D's VS the PW-4060's)
 
Transpac787
Topic Author
Posts: 1421
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:39 am

A320FlyGuy wrote:
I don’t know why everyone says that the A340-200/300 was a dog - it may not have climbed like a 757-200, but it certainly met all its objectives. If it was such a dog, Air France and Lufthansa wouldn’t have kept them around as long as they have.

The A340-300 being called a dog is in reference to its lethargic takeoff and climb performance. Airlines, of course, don't really care about that when they consider the viability and longevity of a fleet type.
 
User avatar
dlednicer
Editor
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:35 am

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Fri Apr 12, 2019 2:24 am

Elshad wrote:
Isn’t the KC-46 fuselage slightly longer?


Nope. See my posts in viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1026493&p=13615279&hilit=dlednicer#p13615279
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4985
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:55 am

the KC46 is no longer a 767 in any respect aside from Looking like it. The USAF made so many changes to the airplane starting at the windshields and working back tp the Tail that I would guess that maybe only the Reverser Cowlings and some Engine components from the PW 4060's might still be the same.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 887
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:09 am

strfyr51 wrote:
the KC46 is no longer a 767 in any respect aside from Looking like it. The USAF made so many changes to the airplane starting at the windshields and working back tp the Tail that I would guess that maybe only the Reverser Cowlings and some Engine components from the PW 4060's might still be the same.


Couldn't you say the same thing about the -300ER and the earlier 767 variants? I heard there is not much commonality.
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3225
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: 767-200 to 767-200ER Conversion

Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:07 am

strfyr51 wrote:
the KC46 is no longer a 767 in any respect aside from Looking like it. The USAF made so many changes to the airplane starting at the windshields and working back tp the Tail that I would guess that maybe only the Reverser Cowlings and some Engine components from the PW 4060's might still be the same.


The KC46 has no reversers installed,for weight saving (not enhancing safety), so the engine cowlings are also different
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests

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