Cargo aircraft

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
1,156
Location
FL - Gulf Coast
Hey guys, we're just finishing up loose ends on this latest C check and mod work so thought I'd snap a few pictures. Boeing 767-300 cargo aircraft. Main deck is 16 feet across. Don't have the build date. Yes we fixed those overhead lights. Hope you enjoy.







This storm came rolling in with 60 mph winds and dime size hail. Not sure what the story is on that plane on the ramp. Been sitting there awhile.

image_zps3es8ar1w.jpg
[/URL]
 
That's pretty cool. I have always wondered what was up with planes that sit on the tarmac for months on end. I see it at my local airport, they are always in the same spot and have obviously moved in a long time.
 
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Any idea how much this C check cost ?

Cool photos.
If you have to ask !!!
grin.gif
 
Cool.
Alloy wheels
GE engines.
No winglets. Fits in DC 10-10 gates with ease.
Lambs wool seat covers.
Still in production.
Thanks for the pics.
 
Is that tire a recap? Been to United MOC in SFO many times for work. Amazing and the AP guys are incredible.
 
757/767 are magnificent airplanes. Much commonality between the two including engines, cockpit and I believe wings. That's why the 57 is so powerful. Same type rating even. A beautiful thing too. Where I worked did the cockpit integration job (first time Boeing didn't do it themselves).

757/67 were also the first commercial application of ring laser gyro inertial reference systems (no moving parts) instead of spinning mass gyros. I came in at the end of that development in 1982 so no kudos to me.

But three years later in 1985, while DC rep to SECAF I helped get RLG's baselined on all Air Force aircraft. Where they still are today. Fun stuff and I'm grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute.

That 757 is one classy looking airplane almost like a successor to the Connie.
 
Some commonality, but NOT the engines or wings. Think about it. The 767 is much bigger and heavier than the 757. The engines make around twice the thrust as the 75 engines. The wings have much more area and other significant differences. The wings on the two aircraft are optimized differently.

There can be significant similarities in the avionics packages if they are ordered that way. There are many similarities in systems components as Boeing has used the same part numbers for components where able, i.e., generators, hydraulic pumps, etc., at least up until the 787.

They do share a common type rating due to similar cockpit setups and system operation. All airlines are required to teach a differences class on the numerous operational differences of the two aircraft.
 
You are correct of course. Early versions were closer in thrust levels (around 43000 vs. 50000)) than their differing max takeoff weights would suggest but certainly not the same. Thirty years is a long time for my enthusiastic memory apparently. The beautiful and powerful 757 will be dearly missed. I was reading about three of the oldest at Delta last night, all with about 40,000 cycles each. Roughly average four ops/day, every day, for 30 years, that is some utilization rate! Thanks for correcting the input.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/269651/
 
Last edited:
BTW the introduction of the Honeywell ring laser gyro based inertial systems on the 757/767 marked the transition away from spinning mass gyros and was seen as significant enough that one of the earliest 1982 versions is still displayed at the Smithsonian. There have been 1.5M nav grade rlg's produced. We had been able to prove its performance on the F15E prior to the Boeing Commercial sale. And, as noted above, they became the US Air Force and other services standard in 1985 and later. The 757/767 pair were a remarkable achievement in aviation for many reasons.
 
The 757 is a GREAT pilot's jet (not so much for the pax with its narrow body design and looooong flight capability).It was fuel efficient for its day and flew really long flight segments with ease. With the Honeywell RLG Triple Inertial Reference System (reportedly developed for the Cruise Missile ??) it was a revolutionary leap in technology, with amazing takeoff and climb performance (PW2037), incredible brakes, full autoland/Cat2/3, etc. It's a Boeing...

It was truly a revolutionary hybrid between the old round dial cockpits (think B-727/737) and the newest gen glass cockpits with active autothrust, full FMS, etc. During my 2.5 years flying it as an F/O from 1988-1990, two flights stand out. One was an autoland at DCA on RWY36 at minimums (amazing brakes) and the other was a Full T/O power launch from FAR to MSP on a frigid winter morning at minimum gross weight. Both flights were eye watering given the performance of the jet. To remember these two flights some 25+ years later speaks to that.

While I actually trained on the 767 at TWA's simulators in MCI (off campus training) we went back to NWA for differences training for the 757 before actually flying IOE on the line in the 757. Wish I could have flown a couple of hours in the actual 767 aircraft at TWA to feel the differences in performance.

On the line, some of us quietly referred to the 757 as "the skinny girl with big t*ts..." If you catch a 757 at the right nose angle, you understand why looking at those huge Pratt's on that narrow body jet.
blush.gif


"If it ain't Boeing...I ain't going!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top