Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Cubsrule
Topic Author
Posts: 14724
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

767 Door Design

Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:18 pm

2 simple but related questions: Why did Boeing design the 767 with "non-standard" doors (i.e. doors which retract into the ceiling)? And what did Boeing learn from the 767 that caused them to go back to 'normal' plug-type doors on the 777?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2564
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:54 pm



Quoting Cubsrule (Thread starter):
Why did Boeing design the 767 with "non-standard" doors (i.e. doors which retract into the ceiling)? And what did Boeing learn from the 767 that caused them to go back to 'normal' plug-type doors on the 777?

Other aircraft have had doors like this, they aren't unique to the 767. I'd guess it was a styling choice rather than any design requirement. I would imagine they could be difficult to open in the event of a power failure, so maybe that's why the 777 reverted to the more normal style door.
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Thu Nov 29, 2007 6:21 pm



Quoting Cubsrule (Thread starter):
2 simple but related questions: Why did Boeing design the 767 with "non-standard" doors (i.e. doors which retract into the ceiling)? And what did Boeing learn from the 767 that caused them to go back to 'normal' plug-type doors on the 777?

Why do you say they are "non-standard"? They were "standard" on the DC-10, MD-11 and the L-1011. IMO the only reason Boeing went away for the upward opening doors to the old fashion swing open, hinged doors, was to save money.
 
Cubsrule
Topic Author
Posts: 14724
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:18 pm



Quoting 474218 (Reply 2):
They were "standard" on the DC-10, MD-11 and the L-1011.

3 aircraft families out of all those ever built is a bit of an anomaly, and I'm wondering why... How were they cheaper?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Thu Nov 29, 2007 8:55 pm



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 3):
How were they cheaper?

All you have to doors look at the mechanisms that are required to operate upward opening doors. They required a motor to run them up and down, they need some type of counterbalance to open them in a emergency and that have to have tracks to run on. However, in my dealing with them, once they were installed and rigged they functioned extremely well.
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: 767 Door Design

Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:20 pm

McDonnell-Douglas designed the 767 Type I passenger doors, which is why they're very similar to DC-10/MD-11 doors.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
SFOMB67
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 1:20 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:50 am

I always liked the 767 entrance doors. Never any w/u's about air leaks; pretty low maintenance. Another thing I liked, if you ever work on one in a facility with catwalks along the acft., you never have to worry about a door getting hung up on a catwalk during fueling, defueling, strut servicing or dejacking. Shouldn't happen, but it does!
Not as easy as originally perceived
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:51 am



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 5):
McDonnell-Douglas designed the 767 Type I passenger doors, which is why they're very similar to DC-10/MD-11 doors.

Could you please provide a web site/document where this statement can be verified.
 
abirda
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:52 am

RE: 767 Door Design

Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:08 am



Quoting 474218 (Reply 7):
Could you please provide a web site/document where this statement can be verified.

For a second I thought Mel was behind that "question." But seriously, I can't provide corroboration from elsewhere on the web for that statement about McDonnell Douglas and the doors, but I know what he said to be true. Hopefully someone can find something to convince you.
 
User avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: 767 Door Design

Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:24 am



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 5):
McDonnell-Douglas designed the 767 Type I passenger doors, which is why they're very similar to DC-10/MD-11 doors.

This is not true. While they share the same concept, they are not similar in design. In fact, the 767 doors use a mechanical spring counterbalance only and do not require electrical or other emergency opening assistance like the DC10/MD11 and L-1011. The 767 1L door does have electrical assist but does not really need it to open/close.
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 30114
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:27 am



Quoting AbirdA (Reply 8):
For a second I thought Mel was behind that "question."

Its wasn't me  Sad  wink 

What about Emergencies in case of an impact,I presume this upward moving doors are more prone to jamming.
regds
MEL
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3678
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:46 pm



Quoting Cubsrule (Thread starter):
Why did Boeing design the 767 with "non-standard" doors (i.e. doors which retract into the ceiling)? And what did Boeing learn from the 767 that caused them to go back to 'normal' plug-type doors on the 777?

To go back to the original question.
Prior to the B767 all Boeing doors were similar. Swing out and open.
These doors are always heavy, especially in any wind. Try opening a B757 door that is a bit worn. Good job it has an assist bottle in emergency or it would never work.
So they must have looked at the DC10 and L1011 doors, and improved on the design. B767 is an improvement because it opens relatively easily normally. A F/A can open and close it. (Unlike the L1011 which needed a motor to close) and the B767 door in automatic whiizzes up into the ceiling without the weight of the slide.
But upward opening doors take up a lot of space in the overhead. So Boeing must have seen the extremely simple design of the A320 door which is so light and easy to open and close that they must have decided this was a better way to go.
I personally am surprised that the FAA/JAA still allow Boeing to certificate new B737 designs using the door from 1965! It should have been banned decades ago. It is dangerous to close from inside unless you are big and strong. People have fallen out of the aircraft doing it, and I have read accident reports when the cabin crew have been unable to push it open in an emergency. With the escape slide attached to the floor, the B737 door is heavier to open than it normally is.

Sorry just a pet hate of mine.
I also think that Airbus should fit B737NG type overwing exits in the A320!
 
grandtheftaero
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 1:05 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Fri Nov 30, 2007 5:39 pm



Quoting 777236ER (Reply 5):
McDonnell-Douglas designed the 767 Type I passenger doors, which is why they're very similar to DC-10/MD-11 doors.

This would explain why you see these kinds of doors in C-17s too.
 
Cubsrule
Topic Author
Posts: 14724
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:05 pm



Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 11):
I also think that Airbus should fit B737NG type overwing exits in the A320!

I've actually thought about that... a window that you remove and toss (or leave inside) makes some sense when there's no slide involved (on -9s and 737s), but it seems like it makes less sense when you have to open the window, toss the window, and deploy the slide separately.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:00 am



Quoting 474218 (Reply 2):
Why do you say they are "non-standard"? They were "standard" on the DC-10, MD-11 and the L-1011.

Going further back, that type of inward-opening passenger door was used on many other types including the Constellation (all models), L188 Electra, Britannia, Comet and Caravelle. On some types they slid upward into the roof area and on other types they slid sideways.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Heggblom
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John F. Ciesla



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Günter Grondstein



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Lars Söderström
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mel Lawrence



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mel Lawrence
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Armstrong



Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 11):
Prior to the B767 all Boeing doors were similar. Swing out and open.
These doors are always heavy, especially in any wind.

Also going back in history, that's why the doors on the Vickers Viscount were changed from the large oval outward-opening design on the original 700 series to the rectangular doors that slid sideways along the fuselage on the 800 series. The 700's doors could be difficult to open/close in windy conditions.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mel Lawrence
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Günter Grondstein

 
abirda
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:52 am

RE: 767 Door Design

Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:02 pm



Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 9):
This is not true. While they share the same concept, they are not similar in design.

I'm not sure if you're refuting the fact that McDonnell Douglas was involved in their design or the fact that they're similar to the MD-11's doors. If it's the former, I maintain that Boeing did employ MD's help in creating these 767 doors. If it's the latter, obviously "similarity" is in the eye of the beholder. The two door designs are certainly similar to a point.
 
VC-10
Posts: 3552
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 1999 11:34 am

RE: 767 Door Design

Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:22 am



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):

Going further back, that type of inward-opening passenger door was used on many other types including the Constellation (all models), L188 Electra, Britannia, Comet and Caravelle.

Don't forget the HS Trident
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Sun Dec 02, 2007 6:23 am



Quoting VC-10 (Reply 16):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):

Going further back, that type of inward-opening passenger door was used on many other types including the Constellation (all models), L188 Electra, Britannia, Comet and Caravelle.

Don't forget the HS Trident

Right. Also the Tu-104/114/124/134 and IL-62.
 
Cubsrule
Topic Author
Posts: 14724
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:51 pm

So maybe the more interesting question is why the 777 has plug doors? Did the availability of lighter materials make the difference?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
TZTriStar500
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 1:33 am

RE: 767 Door Design

Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:54 pm

Quoting AbirdA (Reply 15):
I'm not sure if you're refuting the fact that McDonnell Douglas was involved in their design or the fact that they're similar to the MD-11's doors. If it's the former, I maintain that Boeing did employ MD's help in creating these 767 doors. If it's the latter, obviously "similarity" is in the eye of the beholder. The two door designs are certainly similar to a point.

I refute that McDD was involved in the design...where is the proof? Just because the design is similar does not mean thay were involved in it. The mechanism between the 767 and DC10/MD11 is completely different so they only share the inward and up opening plug concept. Lockheed came up with the same concept for the L-1011 which they obviously came up with through normal engineering design and deduction on their own. Also logically, why would a company with Boeing's depth and capability need help from McDD for a door design concept?

[Edited 2007-12-02 14:00:04]
35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 2368
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

RE: 767 Door Design

Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:13 pm



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 13):
I've actually thought about that... a window that you remove and toss (or leave inside) makes some sense when there's no slide involved (on -9s and 737s), but it seems like it makes less sense when you have to open the window, toss the window, and deploy the slide separately.

Almost every safety card w/the "pull and toss" doors shows that you're supposed to pull 'em, and lay them across the seats before exiting the aircraft ...

Almost every picture I've seen of an aircraft w/this style overwing exit that's had an evacuation, where are the doors? Laying atop the wing some distance out (amazing how far you can toss something w/adrenaline!) ...

Makes perfect sense to change over to a swing out/up design ...

- litz
 
Cubsrule
Topic Author
Posts: 14724
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:54 pm

Quoting Litz (Reply 20):
Almost every safety card w/the "pull and toss" doors shows that you're supposed to pull 'em, and lay them across the seats before exiting the aircraft ...

I assume there's some reason that you lay some windows across the seats and toss others, but I haven't yet figured it out.

[Edited 2007-12-04 10:54:41]
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
pmk
Posts: 609
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 10:07 am

RE: 767 Door Design

Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:02 pm



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 21):
I assume there's some reason that you lay some windows across the seats and toss others, but I haven't yet figured it out.

There is one reason...a door that is on the seats can be replaced back in the hole after the evacuation, one tossed on the tarmac is normally scrap. That's what my old friend the old mechanic told me.

PMK
 
WNCrew
Posts: 996
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:22 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:50 am



Quoting Pmk (Reply 22):
I assume there's some reason that you lay some windows across the seats and toss others, but I haven't yet figured it out.

On window exits with slides you wouldn't want to toss out a window as it can damage an inflated evacuation slide...on exits without a slide you can simply toss the window out and clear of the aircraft.
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
Cubsrule
Topic Author
Posts: 14724
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:07 pm



Quoting WNCrew (Reply 23):
On window exits with slides you wouldn't want to toss out a window as it can damage an inflated evacuation slide...on exits without a slide you can simply toss the window out and clear of the aircraft.

Isn't WN a "put it on the seats" carrier? That seems to be my recollection...
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

RE: 767 Door Design

Fri Dec 07, 2007 1:52 pm



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 21):
I assume there's some reason that you lay some windows across the seats and toss others, but I haven't yet figured it out.

The explanation I got was that the ones laid across the seats (a la MD-80) are too heavy to toss far enough to not get in the way of an evacuation. It made sense, as the MD-80 ones are about 50 lb (if I remember right), whereas the CRJ ones are lighter. I don't remember the weight. Also, I think the CRJ exit is close enough to the front of the wing so that you could toss the exit to the front, and slide off the wing to the back, but this is speculation on my part.

However, the other explanations seem reasonable, except for the one about using it again. After all, if you're doing an emergency evacuation, who cares about the plug?
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
User avatar
LHRBFSTrident
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:38 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:34 am



Quoting VC-10 (Reply 16):
Don't forget the HS Trident

Which, like the Viscount mentioned previously, also had 2 different door mechanisms depending on the series - 1Cs and 2Es had side-hinged inward-opening doors, while 3Bs had inward and upward sliding doors, IIRC...
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:36 pm



Quoting Pmk (Reply 22):
There is one reason...a door that is on the seats can be replaced back in the hole after the evacuation, one tossed on the tarmac is normally scrap. That's what my old friend the old mechanic told me.

When many lives are endangered, the last thing you care about is the condition of the door after the evacuation.
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3678
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:47 pm



Quoting LHRBFSTrident (Reply 26):
Which, like the Viscount mentioned previously, also had 2 different door mechanisms depending on the series - 1Cs and 2Es had side-hinged inward-opening doors, while 3Bs had inward and upward sliding doors, IIRC...

Yes, I knew there were two different styles, but couldn't remember which was which.
Glad you know, and I will back you up!
 
User avatar
LHRBFSTrident
Posts: 574
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:38 pm

RE: 767 Door Design

Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:26 am



Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 28):
Glad you know, and I will back you up!

to be honest I am only SURE of the 1Cs and 3Bs - the 2Es could be something completely different!

The 1C design was a terrible waste of interior space when open, not to mention the one I operated (read: played with) on the static display 1C at RAF Cosford would jam in the door frame if opened too quickly.

That combined with hand-held escape slides stored separately from the doors made it the a/c you prayed you never had to get out of in a hurry  Wow!
 
flyboy80
Posts: 2074
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

RE: 767 Door Design

Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:56 pm



Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 25):
The explanation I got was that the ones laid across the seats (a la MD-80) are too heavy to toss far enough to not get in the way of an evacuation. It made sense, as the MD-80 ones are about 50 lb (if I remember right), whereas the CRJ ones are lighter. I don't remember the weight. Also, I think the CRJ exit is close enough to the front of the wing so that you could toss the exit to the front, and slide off the wing to the back, but this is speculation on my part.

CRJ overwing exits are pretty heavy. Im not a little guy, but not a huge guy (6'0 150lbs) But I often have a little trouble with the CRJ overwing doors, and Im pretty atheltic, played sports all my life. The test in recurrent was tough last time I did it, Im always unprepared when I begin to open the CRJ overwing exit as you feel like you have it and then all of a sudden it just slides off into your arms. Whichever F/A is evacuating the overwings on the CRJ, you are trained to evacuate off the leading edge because of a few things, but mostly because the engines. We always want to go away from those engines.  Smile

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Flow2706 and 27 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