Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
767 Door Design
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
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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.
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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.
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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.
RE: 767 Door Design
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
RE: 767 Door Design
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
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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.
-
- TZTriStar500
- Posts: 891
- Joined:
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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.
RE: 767 Door Design
| Quoting AbirdA (Reply 8): For a second I thought Mel was behind that "question." |
Its wasn't me
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:
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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:
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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:
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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.
 Photo © John Heggblom |  Photo © John F. Ciesla |
Photo © Günter Grondstein
 Photo © Lars Söderström |  Photo © Mel Lawrence |
 Photo © Mel Lawrence |  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.
 Photo © Mel Lawrence |  Photo © Günter Grondstein |
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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.
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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:
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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.
RE: 767 Door Design
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
-
- TZTriStar500
- Posts: 891
- Joined:
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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.
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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.
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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:
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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.
-
- LHRBFSTrident
- Posts: 574
- Joined:
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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:
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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!
-
- LHRBFSTrident
- Posts: 574
- Joined:
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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
RE: 767 Door Design
| 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.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Flow2706 and 27 guests