Boeing 757 and 767

/

Boeing 757 and 767

ThoDlas Becher

AcknowledgementsFi"t puhli,hed in 1999 hI'

The Crowood Pre" Ltd

Ram,hury, M.. r1horough

Wilt,hire SN 2HR

© Thoma' "lecher 1999

All right, reserved. No parr of thi> puhlicatlon may

he reproduced or transmirred In any form or hI' any

mean". electronic or mechanical. IIlciuding

rhotncop)\ rccoflhng, or any information ')toragc

and rctnc\'al ~)'stem, withollt permission in \\Tltlng

from the puhl ishers.

British Library Caraloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this hook is availahle from

the British Lihrary.

ISB I 6126 197 7

Photograph previou, page: Boell1g 767 (Boell1g).

Cover photographs

Front: America West 757-200 (Darren AndeNm);

Canada Airlines 767-300 (joe Pries).

Back: Continental Airlines 757-200 (Boh

Polaneczky); Boeing 757-200s in production

(Boeing); United Airlines 757-200 (Turk Apps/

Flying Images Worldwide); Boeing 767 and 757

together (Boeing).

Typefaces used: Goudy (text),

Cheltenham (headinl(s).

Typeset and designed hI'

D & PuhllShing

1\ lemhury Bu"ne" Park, Lamhourn Woodl.md,

Hungerford, Berbhire.

Printed and hound hI' Redwood Boob, Trowhrldge.

This hook would not have been possihlcwithout energetic support from Boeing. Iwish to thank Dehbie Heathers and Deb­bie Nomaguchi of the Everett communi­cations office for their help in supplyingbackground material and e tab!ishing con­tact with the many people who worked onthe 767 programme. Cheryl Addams, inthe Renton communications office, wasincredihly helpful in my quest to researchthe 757, and reach out to the wonderfulretirees and employees who worked on theprogramme. l also appreciate the helpgiven to me by Tom Lubbesmeyer, Boeing's

archivist; he guided me through the manydocuments that tell the story of these twowonderful aircraft. Thanks also to RobertHegge of Boeing's visual communicationsoffice for supplying the many photographsin this look. I am also grateful to my supe­riors Marcy Cain and Martin Kraegel atPratt & Whitney, for upporting myefforts. Many thanks, too, to Nick Veron­ica, editor of Airliners magazine, withoutwhom this project would not have beenpossible. Above all, I wish to thank mywife, Amy, for putting up with so manylonely nights while I completed this book.

Introduction

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

11

12

13

14

Appendix I

Appendix II

Index

Contents

HISTORY

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT

EVOLUTION OF THE 767 AND 757

FURTHER DEVELOPME TAD IMPROVEME TS

DlVIDUALlTY A 0 SI llLARITIES

POWERPLA TS

ROLLOUT

HOW THE BIRDS ARE BORN

FLIGHT TESTI G

THE FAMILY GROW

SERVICE

CONTINUOU IMPROVEMENT AND RE ORDS

THE COMPETITION A 0 OTHER USES

I TO THE FUTURE

Operators of the Bo ing 757 and 767

Deliveries

6

9

13

16

31

47

60

69

75

93

111

129

169

175

1 6

18

190

191

The world's airlines faced rising fuel bills asa result of the oil crisis of the 1970s. Theydemanded new aircraft that could carrymore pa sengers for less fuel, and Boeing,the venerable American maker of commer­cial aircraft, had the solution - the 767 and757, a new family of fuel-efficient, high­tech airliners. Their versatility and reliabil­ity would make them among the most pop­ular commercial airliners ever made.

The efforts of the innovative Boeingengineers will be remembered not just forwhat they accomplished - the creation ofthe most advanced airliners of the time­but also for what they inspired: a new gen­eration of aircraft that introduced aviationto the computer age.

This dynamic duo re\'olutioni:ed airtr'lYel. Because of their range, economyand flexibility, the 767 and 757 were usedby airlines to open new routes to morecities, enabling more people to fly thanever before. This family of airlinersreplaced larger, more expensive air mftthat could not profitahly serve many cities.At the same time, they gave airlines thecapacity to begin more point-to-point ser­vices, bypassing busy hubs.

It is no wonder, then, that air travelcontinues to flourish nearly two decadesafter the 767 and 757 entered commercialservice. nd, as older aircraft are retired,airlines around the world continue to lookto these aircraft as the medium-sized work­horse' of the new century.

A Growing Family

The miracle of fl ight i' sustained every dayat the Boeing Company.

In two oversized factories near Seattle,Washington, along the damp north-westcoast of the United ~ tates, aircraft parts inevery state of assembly - wings, tails, fuse­lage sections, noses, landing gear, and alu­minium and titanium of all shapes andsi:es - lie throughout the cavernous build­ings, waiting to come together like somegiant jigsaw puz:le. They are assembled

Introduction

into fuselage sections, which are joinedtogether, riveted to wings and filled withhydraulic cables, electronics, wiring, seats,bins and carpeting. After forty-five d::lys'work, an aircraft sit on its wheels, readyfor painting and delivery to anywhere inthe world. For more than forty years, thisis how Boeing has produced the most pop­ular commercial aircraft in the world - itsfamous' even eries'.

Between the show-stopping 747 and theall-new 777, two dynamic models weredesigned and developed - the 767 and the757 - ushering in a new era of fuel-effi­cient flight and cutting-edge technology.These workhorses of the skies evolved at acritical juncture in aviation history. Withspiralling oil prices, rapidly expanding air­lines needed to replace expensive, first­generation airliners. At the same time,new technology emerged that would helpmake the newest members of the Boeingfamily the most cost-effective, efficientand reliable airliners ever made.

The genesis of Boeing's 757/767 familyis revealed in the company's 1972 annualreport: 'We are ·tudying new airplanetypes employing advanced technologythat will make air transportation more effi­cient and more attractive. We have estab­Ii hed a design investigative effort, desig­n<Hed the 7X7, to explore a possible newfamily of Boeing airplanes. Discussions ofour design concepts are under way with anumber of carriers.'

These were hopeful words at a difficulttime. By the early 1970s, Boeing had soldtwenty billion dollars' worth of 707s, 727s,73 7s and 747s, but had yet to see steady prof­its. Less than a decade later, with cash final­ly flowing in, Boeing launched two newtwin-engined aircraft: the wide-body 767and its smaller, narrow-body sister, the 757.

These new additions to Boeing's aircraftfamily gave airlines the aircraft they need­ed to combat rising fuel prices, to feed agrowing market demanding point-to-pointservice, and to moderni:e ageing fleets. Thesleek 767 and 757 would go on to becomethe most fuel-efficient commercial airliners

6

of the time, standard-bearers against whichtechnology of future civil air transportswere judged. Over time, their design hall­marks were incorporated into newer Boeingaircraft - the 747-400, the 777, and sevenmodels of the popular 737 series.

The family's list of firsts is impressive.The 767 was the first twin-engined aircraftcertified for transcontinental flight. It wasthe first commercial airliner to crosoceans on two engine. Both the 767 and757 were the first aircraft with an alI-digi­tal flight deck, built specifically for twocrew members. Both were built with acomposite material that was lighter andsturdier than aluminium, and their all-newwing designs helped to set a number oftwin-engine speed and distance records.

Both planes, thanks to their economicaloperating costs and technical reliability,gave airlines around the world the capaci­ty to open nell' routes that would havebeen uneconomical to operate with otheraircraft. In turn, the 767 and 757 havemade non-stop air travel more convenientand affordahle for air travellers. Today, the767 is the leading aircraft across theAtlantic - more than thirty carriers use iton these routes - and the 757 is the mostpopular model on transcontinental flightsin the nited tates, and a favourite ofEuropean charter carriers.

Similarities and Differences

Introduced within five months of eachother, the 767 and 757 are very muchalike. Both aircraft share the same techno­logical advancements in propulsion, aero­dynamics, avionics and materiel. Bothburn less fuel and make less noise thanprevious airI iners. Both ai rcraft arc pow­ered by two engines, and both have manyof the same components, including anelectronic flight deck that replaces instru­ments and gauges with video display ter­minals, giving rise to the term 'glass cock­pit'. Pilot qualified to fly one model canfly the other with Iittle additional training.

In fact, 35 airlines operate both typeI.lrgely hecause such commonality reducesIl.uning and simulator costs, and sparepart s requ iremenrs.

The 767's size is between that ofa 757 andrill' 777. The two-aisle, medium- to long­I lI1ge wide-body is available in five models:rill' 767-200 and -200ER (extended range);lilt' 767-300 and -300HZ, stretched versionsIII the -200; and the 767-300 freighter. Thei(17 f'1I11ily is being joined by a ix h model,rill' larger 767-400ER, itself stretched fromI Ill' - 300 derivative.

The smaller, medium-range 757-200,Il'signed to replace the 727, retains a stan­I.lrd-body, single-aisle configuration. Its

l.lracity is between that of the 73 7-400

INTRODUCTION

and the 767, making it the world's largestnarrow-body aircraft. The 757 is alsooffered as a freighter and as a combi. The757-200 is joined by the 757-300, astretched derivative. The 757-300, alongwith the 767-400, ensure that the aircraftfamily will grow and serve airports aroundthe world well into the new century.

Every month, about four 757s leave theassembly line in Renton, Washington, de ­tined for anyone of 50 airline in 27nations around the world. More than 920757s will be in service at the dawn of thenew millennium. Thirty-five mile' (56km)north of Renton, in the city of Everett, fourof the larger, wide-body 767s roll out everymonth, adding to a worldwide fleet in

7

service with 60 airlines in 39 countries.More than 25 767s will be flying early inthe next century.

The 767 has already carried nearly 20million people on more than 5 millionflights over 20 million hours ofservice. The757 has transported I billion people a totalof 1.5 billion miles (2.4 billion km) - 16times the distance from Earth to the sun.

De'igning, developing and buildingboth aircraft at once was no small feat.When the 767/757 programme was formal­ly announced in the late 1970s, it was themost aggres ive and ambitious new airlinerprogmmme ever. It offered a challenge thatperhaps only one company, with a rich tra­dition in aviation stewardship, could meet.

A 767 and 757 together in an animated drawing. Boeing

)

From Seaplanes to Missiles

'I\<ICl11g ... The very word, cold in print bUl rich

III .t"'~()C1illion. invokes images a~ vivid a~ m<ln'~

l1ll'l1lorics and imagination can create.

'Images o( mighly jerliners, leaving while

""l1rails (rnzen againsl lhe blue sky as lhey

lll'ak across continents and oceans, ~hrinking il

\\"rld thilt no'" mcasurc~di'-)wncc,", in hour;." nor

IIldl".

'Im;lges o( lhe great homher> defending lhe

l1.ltHlt1.

'Image", of all American corporatIon whose

ILI11lL' ha ... hccomc ..,ynonymolls with tl'chnlGd

" ,dlence and I11legmy.'

(From ul(l'nd lind Ll'l(lIc)'

hI' Rohen J. ,'lerll11g, 1992)

IIIl' development of fl igh t has beenr 1II,lrkable. In less than 100 years, pow­Inl flight has progressed from canvas,\lll,d and a single passenger flying a fewIrd" to more than 400 people on one jet

11\ II1g non-stop half-way around the world., the same time, flying has become safer,

hc',lper and more reI iable,fo understand the philosophy behind

till' Boeing 767 and 757, it is important toullderstand the history of their maker.

fhe Boeing legacy goes back to avia­Illlll'., infancy, In 1915, just a dozen years,l1c'r the Wright brothers flew 120ft (40m)

1'" their first attempt to take mankind sky­\\ lid, - a distance shorter than the length

.1 ,he 767-200 - a Seattle timberman,'III lam Edward Boeing, was assembling

I" lirst seaplane in a boathouse. It was ahUlllhle beginning for a company thatII "I,I~ produces more commercial jets than111\ lIther in the world, and prides it elf onI II1g the largest exporter of the

fhe Boeing Company has been linked,Ill' hy step, with the development of avi­IlIllll. It built fighters for the First World",II', homhers for the econd World War

111<1 rhe first commercial transporters in,hc' 1930s and I940s. In 1954, BoeingInc'loped the Dash 0, the prototype forrill' Boeing 707, ushering in the jet age of"lIIl11ercial air transportation.

CHAPTER ONE

History

It all began with curiosity about thoseincredible flying machines. In 1910, 28­year-old William Boeing travelled to LosAngeles to sec the first American air show.He returned to Seattle excited andenthused, but found few people whoshared his interest. At the time aircraftwere unreliable and rickety, barely able tolift their own weight.

Undeterred, Boeing turned to Lt. Con­rad Westervelt, a naval engineer based atnearby Bremberton Navy Yard, to create anew, more practical aircraft based on design'tandards for Navy vessels. Westerveltdesigned Boeing' first plane, which wasnamed the B&W, for Boeing and Wester­velt. The single-engined biplane, with twopontoons, was craft d from wood, linen andwire. It was completed in June 1916. incethere was no such thing as an aircraft work­er, that first Boeing model was as embled bya ragtag team of shipbuilders, carpenters,cabinet-maker and seamstresses.

According to company lore, just beforethe maiden flight of the B&W, Boeinggrew impatient when it seemed that thetest pilot was late. He took the controlshimself. As the tardy pilot hurried to thehangar, he could only watch as Boeing tax­ied to the end of Seattle's Lake nion,[urned and took off. The first Boeing aero­plane flew for a quarter of a mile (400m).

Westervelt never designed anotherplane for Boeing, He was transferred tofleet duty. The first two B&Ws, unable toarouse the interest of the Navy, weresold to the ell' Zealand Flying chool forpilot training and used for express and airmail deliverie',

Boeing officially entered the aircraftbu ines on 15 July 1916, with an enter­prise initially called the Pacific Aero Prod­ucts Company. year later, the fledgl ingcompany became known as the BoeingAirplane Company, A vi 'ible reminder ofBoeing's legacy in the region stands todayon East Marginal Way in cattle, in theform of a replica of the red wooden build­ing that housed the original company.Boeing went after the best engineers in the

9

country to design new planes. In 1916, heemployed 24 people. The lowest wage was14 cents an hour and top pilots earned200 to 300 a month. William Boeing

used his own finances to guarantee a loanthat covered all the wages - 'lhout 700per week.

avy orders during the First World Warhelped the Boeing company to grow, fterthe war, with demand dwindling, WilliamBoeing decided that air mail was a way toget the business going again. On 2 larch1919, Boeing and pilot Eddie Hubhard tookoff in a Boeing Model C from Lake nionnorth across the Canadian border to Van­couver. The return trip to cattle, with apouch of Canadian mail, took three hour,.It was the first international air mail flighrfrom the nited tate. However, even thismilestone was not enough to keep the com­pany fluid, and it was teetering on the vergeof bankruptcy in the 1920s.

fter Charle Lindbergh's hi,torictransatlantic solo fl ight, in 1927, thefuture of A merican aviation began to lookconsiderahly more rosy. Boeing took hiscompany public in 1928. A year Imer, hebecame chairman of United Aircmfr andTransport Corp., a diversified trust mad,up of some of America's early aerospaceleaders. The group comprised Boeing 'lIldother 'lircraft companies Chance Vought,Stearman and Sikorsky; engine manuf,lC­turer Pratt & Whitney; propeller makerIlamiiton; and nited Airlines, previous­ly known as Boeing Air Transport,

In 1934, the U Mail Act banned anyconnection I etween an aircraft or enginemanufacturer and an airline. United Air­craft and Transport was forced to splinterinto Boeing, United Airlines (today theworld's largest airline), ami nited Air­craft Corp., the predecessor of nitedTechnologies Corp., whose holdings todayinclude Pratt & Whitney, ikorsky andHamilton tandard.

Boeing's tradition of building passengeraircraft began in 1928 with the Model 80,America's first airliner designed specificallyfor p,lssenger comfort and onvenience.

HISTORYHISTORY

The Boeing 247, developed in 1933, was considered the world's first modern passenger transport, including

retractable landing gear. Pratt & Whitney

From the 707 on, Boeing believed in offering a family of aircraft. Pratt & Whitney

757s in Renton. Since the 737's dehut, in1967, more than 280 airline' in more than100 countries have ordered the aircraft.Boeing likes to point out that more than800 737s arc in the air at any time, withone taking off every six seconds.

Arguably Boeing's most famous model,the 747 jumbo jet, was developed ,lt a timewhen air traffic was growing, fares werefalling and higher-thrust engines weredeveloping. When Boeing approached theairlines about a 550-seat jetliner in 1966,the reaction was positive. Launch cus­tomer Pan Am placed a $525 million orderalmost immediately.

The 747s arc produced in the samebuilding - the largest on earth, by volume- as the 767s and the all-new 777s. Boeingfollowed up an already huge 747 with anextended upper-deck 747-300 and alonger-range 747-400. A total of morethan 1,200 747s have been built.

Despite the rapid succession of newplanes, a recession in the early 1970s forcedBoeing to reduce its workforce from 80,400to 37,200. A billboard outside Seattle read,'Will the last person out please turn out thelights.' The company went 18 months with­out a new domestic order. This sour eco­nomic period, influenced by rising energycosts, inspired a new generation of airliners- the 767 and 757 - which would becomeBoeing's most fuel-efficient aircraft. Theadvances of these new planes secured Boe­ing's future and influenced its later models.

Britain's Trident in the short-to-mediumrange of jetliners. The US company envi­sioned a high-speed jet that would replacethe world's ageing turboprop fleet. The72 7, the company had forecast, would havelow operating costs, a durable airframe andreliable equipment - the hallmarks of laterBoeing transports. It would also be able touse small airports, and to fly in bad weath­er, and would have quick turnaround timesat airports. With the financial backing ofseveral US airlines, Boeing unveiled thethree-engined 727 in 1962. Originally,Boeing had planned to build 250 of theplanes. They proved so popular that a totalof 1,831 were produced by 1983.

In 1965, Boeing saw an opportunity fora small, short-range jet - the 737 - thatwould feature the same fuselage cross-sec­tion as the 707 and 727. 'Fat Albert,' as itwas called, would go on to become themost prol ific airI iner ever bu iIt. Besidestwo early versions, the 737-100 and -200,Boeing produced the upgraded -300, -400and -500 series. Three 'Next Generation'73 7 models have entered service, the 737­600, -700 and -800, ensuring this type wi 1Idominate the skies on short-haul routes farinto the next century. A longer derivative,the 737-900, not much smaller than the757, will be the longest 737 when it fliesearly in the new century.

Boeing has delivered more than 3,00073 7s, and more than 1,000 more arc onorder and being built side-by-side with

DDEltvC 707

• •

Illd was the plane that ultimately becamethl' Boeing 707. The four-engined 707 was'linpleted in 1954, before its primary com­

Il'Wor, the DC-8, hit the market. The tim­IIlg g<lve Boeing an advantage that it neverInst, and ultimately led to the merger ofI\neing and McDonnell Douglas in 1997.

The 707, the first 'Seven Series' aircraft,lit air-travel time almost in half for flights

IInm one US coast to the other. The planetIL-w high above turbulent clouds, and theIhlisy vibrations heard in the cabins ofI'rnpeller-driven aircraft were reduced.J he 707's relatively low operating costsI rnllght air fares within reach of more peo­I'le. The aircraft helped to create the newIIIdustry of international air travel. Threek'Cades later, the 707's distant cousins, the

7(17 and the 757, would refine and sustainlhat tradition.

Boeing delivered 855 707s between1957 and 1992,725 of them for commer­\ lal usc. Mil itary versions are sti II bei ngIIsed as tankers and radar aircraft.

From the 707 on, Boeing believed inIltkring an aircraft family - planes withImilar features and a common fuselage

lhat, when used together, would give air­IIlles the ability to fly from 100 to 500 pas­l'ngers to the next city, or around the

\\,()r1d. The 707's airframe influenced the.lesign of future Boeing narrow-bodypLlI1es, including the 757.

By 1960, Boeing faced increasing com­PI'I ition from the French Caravelle and

Boeing engineers had envisioned a jet­powered plane as early as 1943. Usingengineering and manufacturing experi­ence gained from building the B-29, andknowledge from the German scientistsand engineers who pioneered jet aviation,Boeing designed the world's first swept­wing jet bomber, the B-47 Stratojet. Thatwas followed by the eight-engined B-52,which is still in service today. These earlyjet successes gave Boeing the foundationto launcb commercial jet service.

Boeing engineer Wellwood Beall re­turned to Boeing in 1950 after deliveringan order of Stratocruisers to the BritishOverseas Airways Corporation. He toldhis colleagues how the British had devel­oped a medium-range airliner, the de Hav­illand Comet. Although that plane largelyfailed to capture of the imagination of theairlines, Beall and other Boeing engineersbecame convinced that jets were theplanes of the future. By then, propeller-dri­ven aircraft were becoming difficult andcostly to maintain. The high speed andefficiency of the jet made long-distance airtravel more practiGll.

In a decision that would revolutionize airtravel, Boeing announced, in August 1952,thm it would invest $16 million, two-thirdsof its post-war net profits, to build <l proto­type for a new long-range, jet-powered air­craft. This was to be known as the Dash 80,

The Jet Agefirst pressurized airliner - a Boeing innova­tion without which commercial jet travelcould not have happened. It was also thefirst plane to employ a flight engineer in thecockpit, a move later reversed with jets.

Perhaps more than its early successes incommercial aviation, it was the onset ofthe Second World War that vaulted Boe­ing into aviation history. Among its con­tributions were the B-17 Flying Fortress­the workhorse of the American andBritish bombing fleets - and the B-29Superfortress, one of which, the EnolaGay, dropped the first atomic bomb tohasten the end of the war.

Boeing produced 60 planes a month in1942, and 250 a month by 1943. Thousandsof women, symbolized by 'Rosie the Rivet­er,' flooded the workforce, boosting produc­tion to an amazing 362 planes per month byMarch 1944. On one occasion, the Seattleplant rolled out 16 planes in 24 hours.

With the end of the war, commercialaircraft production flourished, using thetechnical innovations developed duringthe conflict. Boeing's Mode! 377 Stra­tocruiser, a design based on the B-29bomber, set a new standard for luxurioustravel, carrying up to 100 p<lssengers inextra-wide cabins connected to a lowerdeck lounge by a circular staircase. Boeingbu iIt 56 Stratocru isers between 1947 and1950. However, Boeing did not become <lmajor producer of passenger transportsuntil the dawn of the jet age.

The Model 80 carried twelve passengers ina cabin appointed with leather seats, readinglamps, ventilation, and hot and cold run­ning water. Commercial aviation did notimmediately catch on, because of the highcost of flying and lack of airports. However,for those few people who could afford tick­ets, Boeing planes quickly began to earn areputation for reliability and comfort.

The Boeing 247, developed in 1933,was considered to be the world's first mod­ern passenger transport. The all-metal,twin-engined plane was the first with anautopilot, pneumatically operated de­icing equipment, a variable-pitch pro­peller, and retractable landing gear. Itcompleted the trip between New York andLos Angeles in 20 hours, seven and a halfhours quicker than any previous airliner.The Model 247 was the first in a long lineof durable Boeing workhorses. Along withthe DC-2 and DC- 3 from rival Douglas,the 247 brought speed, rei iability, safetyand comfort in air travel to the world.A Ithough the 247, and the improved247D, were soon outclassed by the immor­tal DC-3, its place in history was secure.

Following the success of the 247, the Boe­ing Company heg,m ro concentrme on largeaircraft, starting with the Model 314 Clip­per and the Strmoliner. The Clipper, basedon an experimental bomber, came about inresponse to a demand for an aircraft able tocross oceans; it was a four-engined, Iong­range flying boat. The Stratoliner was the

70 77

HISTORY

The 727 was Boeing's answer to short-haul travel. The 757 was designed more than 20 years later toreplace the 727, Pratt & Whitney

CHAPTER TWO

Early Orders

With vivid memories of sky-high fuelcosr-, airlines demandeJ a fuel-efficientaircraft that would boost their bottom line.They were also looking for a plane tharwould fill capacity gap between the Boe­ing 727 anJ the larger wide-bodies, theDC-IO, L-lOll and the 747.

Another facror contributed to the needfor a new model. In the 1970s, theCivil Aeronautic Board (later disbanded)initiated moves allowing for more airlinecompetition in the A. This lcd, inDecember 1979, ro the passing of the Air­line Deregulation Bill, which eliminatedroute control and gave airlines permis ionto fly anywhere they pleased. With morefrequent flights ro more cities, the airlinesneeded more plane .

Despite the perceived demand, many inthe aviation indu try were sceptical aboutplans for new medium-haul airliner', feel­ing they might Jetract from the highly suc­cessful 727. Boeing's intention was that,instead of buying the 767 to expand fleets,as had been the case with the 747, airlines

only difference between the 727 and the757 was thar the 757 was ro have twowing-mounted engines insteaJ of two onthe aft fuselage anJ one on the tail. Intime, however, an all-new aircraft wasborn. The 757, whicb at first was not sup­posed to be similar to the 767 except forthe Boeing name, ended up with many ofthe same feature as its larger cousin,including an identical flight Jeck.

Introducing two new models five monthsapart was something no other aircraft man­ufacturer has ever done. (Boeing did rollout the 737-400 and 747-400 on the sameday in 1988, but both planes were deriva­ti ves.) The ri k were great, and the rewarduncertain.

The early and mid-1970s brought manynew challenges ro the aviarion imlu try. Inthe United States, the airline industry wasweak, and no carrier had sufficient fundsfor a new aircraft programme. Even when

airlines began to make money again, in1976, the scars of recession anJ high fuelprice remained, and it was not until themiJdle of 197 that the all-new 767 pro­gramme coulJ begin. The aim was roreduce costs per scat for the first time,without having to build a bigger airliner.

Design and DevelopDlent

)rigins

ABrilish Airways 757. BA was a launch customer for the model. Peter Sweeten/Aviation Images Worldwide

t I 767, Boeing' seconJ wide-body andIf II '~e\'en ,eries' aircraft, was known inI IIltancy as the 7X7 - a name that onceh I I heen assigned to a brand-new aircraftI ·\'mg was to build with Aeritalia of Italy.

I\\'n thar project was dropped, the 7X7ph t'd in the mid-1970, into a transcon­

IlIll'nt.t1 airliner si::ed between the 727 anJt h . 747, yet ,mailer than the McDonnellI l\lvLIS DC-I 0, or its similar-si:ed rival,lIH Illckheed L-IO] I. The 767 was alsoI" prime competitor of a new airliner, IIlg introduceJ by a scrappy new Euro­I .lllulI1sortium, Airbus - the A300 - and

\,llt'n confu~ed with it. The 767 targeted111,11 ·density routes, and it prospective

II 11ll11erS were large S airline. It wasI 'm,t1ly envisioned by designers as a

I .It'ntial wide-body version of the 727,Illplcte with the 727's hallmark tri­

ll' 'me design.I he 757, meanwhile, \\'as originally

,,,'wn as the 7 7. Boeing' fourth nar­r 1\ hlldy, or ~tandard-body, model, itI g,lll as an airliner study project in ]976.

Iltttly a Jerivative of the 727, it was1111 \'ndeJ as a replacemen t for the 727. The

The Missing Model

Whatever happened to the 717, the 'missing' modelnumber in Boeing's 'Seven Series'?

In January 1998, Boeing renamed the MD-95, aplane it inherited from its merger with McDonnellDouglas, as the Boeing 717-200. This struck aviationhistorians as peculiar, since the model number 717showed up in Boeing history as a military plane. Themoniker was originally assigned in 1956 to theKC-135 Stratotanker aerial refueller, a 707100kalike,of which nearly 200 are still in service with the USAir Force.

In the 1950s, Boeing began assigning a set of num­bers to each of its product lines - 600 for missiles,700 for commercial jets, and so on. Every significantinitiative in a series was assigned a number, even ifit was just a sketch. When the 707 came out in 1954,the marketing people decided they liked the sound of707' so much that every 700-series jet would endwith a 7.

The 717 was also to be the name of a shorter-range707, but that was later changed to the Boeing 720.The first 'new' 717 enters service in 1999.

flight and entry into service. Despite sepa­rate developmental paths, though, the twoprogrammes soon merged to become onecomplementary dynamic duo that wouldredefine commercial aviation.

Today there arc more Boeing planes fly­ing than any other manufacturer's.

Numbering

The designation of Boeing's 'Seven Series'commercial fleet had always increased byone number over time, each model distin­guished by a different middle numeral. The707 was followed by the 72 7, then camethe 737 and 747. The 707 houlJ havebeen the 700, if the tradition of earlier Boe­ing aircraft whose numbers began with 2, 3or 4 had been followed (the numbers 5 and6 were used for missiles and pilotless air­craft). According ro company lore, Boe­ing' first jet-powered commercial airlinerwas known as the 707 rather than the 700because the public relations departmentthought it a good idea.

o matter what the story, the modelnumbers 757 and 767 were out of sequence.Why) Since both planes were designedaround the ame time, it was seen as neces-ary to define one model as smaller than

the other. The 757 is a smaller plane andtherefore was given the lower middlenumeral. The wide-body 767 actually pre­dated the sm~dler 757 in final design, first

The World's LargestAerospace Company

On I August 1997, Boeing, also a maker ofmilitary fighters, space rocket anJ mi ­si!cs, merged in a 16 billion deal withanother American aviation powerhouse,the McDonnell Douglas Company, ro cre­ate the world's largest aerospace company,The acquisition turneJ the world's leadingmanufacturer of com mer ial jets inro thebigge't maker of military aircraft as well.At the time, McDonnell Dougla wa pro­ducing only a handful of commercialplane - the MD- 0, MD-90 and MD-l!.Boeing Jecided to halt production of thesemodels, but ro continue making the MD­95, a shorter version of the MD- 0, itself aJerivative of the DC-9. The MD-95 waslater renamed the Boeing 717-2 O.

The merger gave Boeing cusromers in145 countries, generating 45 billion inrevenues in 1997. In 1998, Boeingdeliv­ered 563 jets, surpassing the 1997 rotal of375. It takes the effort of a nation - wi th agreat deal of help from suppliers aroundthe world - for every Boeing jet ro takeflight. The giant aerospace companyemploys 20 , 00 people in Z7 U statesand two Canadian provinces.

72 73

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMEI'\T

pecification - 767-200/-200ER

Pratt & Whitney PW2037 or PW2040; Rolls-Royce RB2 I I-535E4

Overall length 155ft 3in (47.32m); height 44ft 6in (13.56m); wingspan124ft JOin (38.05m); cabin width 11ft 7in (3.53m); cabin height 7(t(2.13m); abin length 118ft 5in (36. 1m)

17 , I 6,202 or 20 (two class), 214, 220, 223, 224 or 239 (one class)

1,790 cubic (t (50.7 cubic m)

I J,2 76 gallons (42,684 litres)

Plane weight 127,8101b (57,975kg); max. take-off weight

220,OOO-255,500Ib (99, 00-115,900kg); max. landing weight210,0001b (95,255kg);

pecification - 757-200

Passenger:

Dimensions:

Engines (two):

Fuel capacity:

Weights:

Performance:

Cargo volume:

Max. speed 0.86 Mach

Max. landing speed 152mph (245km/h)

Max. operating altitude 42,OOOft (I 2,800m)

Range (I 6 passengers) 3,20 ,520 miles (5,150-7,240km)

Take-off field length: 5, 75ft (1,791 m)

( I ), nOkm). The stretched 767-300 isI 'It 3111 (54.9m) long and can carry 21 ­I,l) I'assengers for 4,300 miles (7,340km);

1111 the extended-range version, that dis­LUlU' is up to 6,830 miles (j 0,990km).

fhe 757 is the about same length as the) ( 200 and shares the same cross-section,

lIlt It C,H) carry more passengers. The 757­) Is 155ft 3in (47.3m) long with a wing­

I 111 of 124ft lOin (38m). Its cabin mea­IIll'S 11ft 7in (3.5m) across. The 757 canIlTy 201-231 passengers up to 4,520 miles

(7,240km), at speeds of. 0 Mach flying at4,l'(10ft (11,3 33m).

fhe first 767 rolled out of the factory ont\ ugust 1981, and flew for the fi rst ti me

IIIl 26 September 1981. The 767 enteredl't' ICC nearly a year later, on SeptemberIlh2. The 757 was ul1\'Ciled on 13 January!lIS2, ,md first flew on 19 February 1982.II l'!1tered sen'ice on I January 19 3.

The 767 made its debut five months prior to the 757, Boeing's other fuel-efficient twin jet. Boeing

The 767-200, the first 767 model, is 159ft2in (4 .5m) long, with a wing span of156ft lin (47.6m). Its cahin is 15ft 5in(4.7m) wide. The 767-20 can carry 1 1­224 passengers (up to 285 in a single-class,charter configuration) for up to 5,260miles ( ,465km), at speeds of. 0 Mach, or530 mph ( 4 )km/h). The 767-200ER(extended range) can fly up to 7,66 miles

Specification

stop, point-to-point flights, many of whichhad provided long-haul services hetweenmajor citie . This hurt the 767 and, to adegree, the 757, but it boosted sales of thesmaller, short-hop 737.

In light of this situation, the planes, infact, sold hetter than many experts hadpredicted. The 757, in particular, was asurprising success, although Boeing wascritici:ed for introducing a new narrow­body plane at a time when wide-bodieswere so popular.

Boeing worked for more than four yearson the design of both aircraft before theywere launched officially. They becameknown as Boeing's ' ell' Generation'aircraft - light, efficient, powerful andcomfortable.

,100-9,000ft (2,469-2,743m)

Max. peed O. 0 Mach

Max. landing peed 162mph (251 km/h)Max. operating altitude 42,000ft (12,800m)

Range 4,6 3 miles (7,408km),

6,760 miles (10, Okm) for extended-range model

Pratt & Whitney PW4056; General Electric CF6- OC2; Roll -Royce

RB211-524G/H

Plane weight 192,1001b ( 7,135kg), 199,6001b (90,535kg) for

extended-range model; max. take-off weight 345,000-351 ,000lb

(I56,490-l59,2l3kg),3 0,000-4l2,000lb (172, 6 -1 6, 3kg) for

extend d-range model; max. payload 52,2001b (23,675kg), 45,7 Olb(20,765kg) for extended-range model; max. landing weight 300,000lb

(136,0 Okg)

Overall length 180ft 3in (54.94m); height 52ft (15.85m); wingspan 156ft

lin (47.57m); cabin width 15ft 5in (4.7m); cabin height 9ft 5in (2. 7m);

cabin length 132ft 5in (40.36m)

21 (three cia. ),269 (two cia ), up to 350 for charter

4,030 cubic ft (I 14.2 cuhic m)

16,700 gallons (63,200 litre ); 24,140 gall ns (91,400 litres) for extended­

range model

argo volume:

pecification - 767-300

Performance:

Engines (two):

Passengers:

Fuel capacity:

Dimensions:

Weights:

Take-off field length:

hub system gave airlines greater scheduleflexibility and increased flight frequency,but it also cut down on the number of non-

Plane weight 177,500-1 6, Olb (80,510- 4,370kg);max. take-off weight 300,000-335,000Ib (136,0 0-1 51,956kg),

345,000-395,000Ib (156,492-179, I72kg) for extended-range model;

max. payload 38,01O-43,200Ib (17,240-1 9,595kg); max. landing weight

270,000Ib (122,470kg), 2 5,OOOIb (129,275kg) for extended-tange model

Pran & Whitney PW4056; General El ctric F6-80C2

Overall length 159ft 2in (4 .51m); height 52ft (15. 5m); wingspan 156ft

lin (47.57m); cabin width 15ft 5in (4.7m); cabin height 9ft 5in (2.87m);

cabin length I 11ft 4in (33.93m)

181 (three class), 224 (two cla s), up to 2 5 for charter

2,875 cubic ft ( 1.4 cubic m)

16,700 gallons (63,200 litres); 24,140 gallon:, (91,400 litr s) for

extended-range model

Performance:

Fuel capacity:

Pa enger:

argo volume:

Engines (two):

Weight.:

Dimensions:

Max. speed O. 0 MachMax. landing speed 157mph (252km/h)

Max. operating altitude 42,000ft (12, OOm)

Range 3,636-4,430 miles (5,852-7,130km),

5,869-7,675 miles (9,445-12,352km) for extended-range model

Take-off field length: 5,900-6,500(t (1,798-1,981 m);

7,900-8,900ft (2,40 -2,7 13m) for extended-range model

would use the 767, and later the 757, to

replace older planes in their fleet. Boeingknew from the start thar the 767 would notsell as brisk Iy as the 747 had in the 1960s,but they optimistically projected sales ofbetween 1,000 and 1,500 767s by 1990. Infact, 343 models were deli,'ered by 1990.By 199 , more than 700 had been deli,·­ered, all but 250 of them the stretched-300 model. While the airlines had bought225 747s in the first five years of their pro­duction, Boeing delivered just 156 767s inthat programme's first five years.

When the 757 debuted, Boeing forecastthe need for l,400 'uch airliners into the1990s. By 1990, just 332 757s had beendelivered; more than 800 were in serviceby 199 , with another 1OO-plus on order.

Early orders for the two aircraft were rel­atively loll' because the recession of 19 o-

j made airlines cautious. In addition,despite the perception or an increase indemand for nell' aircraft following deregu­lation of the S airline industry, thechange' in the system initially had theopposite effect. One of deregulation'major legacies was the build-up of the huband spoke system, begun by Delta Air Linesat Atlanta. The carriers established hubs inthe U A by feeding traffic into varioucities where passengers connected withother flights to their final de tination. The

74 75

EVOLUTION OF THE 767 AI 0757

CHAPTER THREE

Evolution of the 767 and 757

which at the time was powering the L­I II.

By the beginning of 1976, another newaircraft designation emerged, the 7N7,which would become the 757. Presenta­tions later that year indicated that the 7X7remained under study as a medium-rangeaircraft for 1 0-200 passengers, but that a212in (53 cm) fuselage diameter was nowprojected to permit comfortable eight­abreast, two-aisle seating. The 7X7 wasnow viewed as a medium- to long-rangeaircraft, with two or three engine. Vari­ables yet to b' decided included the exactfuselage width, length, tail position,engines and payload-range capahility. By

this time, the 7X7 had completed nearly2, 00 hour, of wind-tunnel testing to ver­ify the overall aerodynam ic characteristic,of its layout. Aeritalia was still a full part­ner with Boeing on the 7X7, on whichmore than 50 million had been investedby m id-1976.

Boeing's new aircraft programme, Withstrong 72 7 sales, the company tended tofavour three-engine layouts for its new air­craft; three engines, it was felt, would inany case be needed by operators for long,over-water routes. However, Airbus was atthe time gaining support for the concept ofa big twin, the A300 - bigger, in passengercapacity, than the 7X7 was expected to be- and it wa' accepted that the decisionhe tween twin-jet and tri-jets would in theend be made by airline customers. WhileBoeing's plam remained fluid, the threelarge engine manufacturers - GeneralElectric, Pr<ltt ,Whitney and Rolls-Royce- busily prepared low-noise powerplants to

cover e"ery pos'ible thru't requirement.The 7X7 tri-jet version was based on nell'engines that were never built: the Pratt &Whitney JT I D and General Electric',CF6-3 D. Early twins were hased on thePratt & Whitney JT9D and GE's CF6-6D.Rolls-Royce was offering the RB211-524,

I 'uhled, or even tripled, around the world.Illlbtion rates were growing, and interestI Ill" rose. Boeing saw short-haul airl ine traE­11< II1creasing at the expense of long-haulIlld International traffic. Previously ground­

l ,I wide-bodies were returned to service, and,I.ln aircraft were being retired.

t)n 20 August 1974, Boeing agreed on a\'L'n-abreast, low-tail tri-jet with 201

l',II', known a' Model 751-741. At theJl175 Pari Air Show, the aviation indus­11\'" Luge,t biennial trade event, BoeingIIhllGlted possible options, which includedI l'\Tn-abreast layout for 175-2 I passen­, r" and a 2 '3-passenger version withIght-abreast seating. By 25 ovember of

An earlv 767 proposal in American Airlines colours. Note the T-tail, later abandoned. Boeing

I h It year, two new versions evol ved: Mod­I 751-770/771, seven-ahreast low-tail

Ifl Jl'h, and an alternate todel 751-9541\\ Ill-jet, all with 2 I seats.

fhere were times when the impending1IIIIlch of a stretched version of the popu­I,ll 727, the 727-300, would further delay

767. 0 less than 24 different configura­tions were considered in moulding the first767 model, the 767-200.

Early 7X7 configurations included asmall, medium-range twin-jet with 140seats, known as Model 751-651. Initially,this version had engines mounted on topof the wing, to project noise upwards andaway from the ground. For longer-rangevariants, which drew the interest of air­lines, a three-engined 7X7 was proposedby I May 1973 (Model 751-666), bearingtwo engine, underwing and one in the rearfu'e1age in a 727-type installation. eatingcapacity would he ahout 200, but in theseearly proposals Boeing demonstrated anopen mind on fuselage cross-sections,showing possible cabins with six- andseven-abreast layouts, and even an eight­abrea,t, high-density arrangement.

To serve long routes, another version ofthe 7X7 was studied, this time with fouroverwing engines. Thi, ver ion includedModels 751- 2,751- 2-1 and 751- 92­I. (By January 1974, the wing placementon thi, version was switched to underwing,nacelle-mounted engines for reduced fuelconsumption.) All were intended as all­new aircraft, with no commonality withexisting Boeing aircraft. As a result of theOPEC fuel crisis in 1973, the primaryde'ign objective changed from minimumnoise to minimum fuel hurn.

In its fir t round of airline briefings onthe new model, Boeing contacted thirty­seven airlines in an attempt to establish anacceptable specification for the 7X7,including cockpit, interior, engines andnacelles. From this point on, the eventuallaunch customer, nited Airlines, playeda key role in the 767 definition. However,in 1974-6, airlines were struggling torecover from recession and the first fuelcrisis in 1973, and, while Boeing onstant­Iy refined its 7X7 propo'als, no consensuscould be found on which one to launch asa final design.

By this time, a realization of the econom­ic realities was setting in. The impact of thefuel crisis was making itself felt, as prices

The 7X7 Series

Earlier in 1971, Boeing had concluded anagreement with eritalia for the jointdevelopment of a quiet, short-haul ShortTake-off and Landing ( TOL) airliner for100-15 passengers - the Model 751. Theplan was that the plane would be in serviceby 1975, delivered from assembly linesestablished simultaneously in Italy and theUnited tates, but the project was droppeda year later.

Boeing and Aeritalia next collaboratedon a proposed QSH (Quiet Short Haul) jettransport that could operate at close-in air­ports with short runways. This objectivewa' based on the marketing hypothesisthat new technology - high bypass-ratioengine" improved acoustic materiab andunique configurations for noise shielding­would achieve a significant reduction innoise. This ver,ion wa' given the namesModel 751-207A and 751-612A, but thisproposal did not materialize either. Instead,in September 1972, the QSH ventureevolved into one adv~mced aircraft pro­gramme, for which the designation 7X7was used for the first time. (The 'X' wasgiven hecause it was uncertain what therange of the new aircraft would he.) Theobjective of the programme was to'deter­mine the appropriate new aircraft whichwill complement the present Boeing prod­uct line and be si:ed to meet airlinerequirements beginning in the mid-1970s'.

The adoption of the 7X7 designationemphasized that the new aircraft, whenlaunched, would be a member of the Boe­ing family, In early 1973, Boeing made pre­sentations to a number of airlines, showinga family of related de igns in the 7X7series. The target date for the launch was IJanuary 1974, with service entry in 1977.However, it would be another four yearbefore the 7X7 was finally defined, aftermany permutations, into the shape of the

unrelated to the eventual de ign. This wajwt the beginning of a long process.

P°rli.1I1CC.

'A '1gn,(;canr S markct cxi,rs lor a 180­

J1<l~~engcr, rnln~c(lntinenlal~range airplane.'

'Impro\'cment:"l in nobe and fuel productivity

arc important

T\\'o-aisle comfort Ic\ocl ,md srand<lrdi:cd cargo

cont ...lIner:"l are reqlllred.'

'AIrlII1C CCO!lOIl1IC'i arc of ptlfamoullt 1111#

The Needs of the Market

During 1971, a whole range of possible newairliner designs was examined. In August1971, the company released an artist'simpression of a possihle 'advanced tech­nology transport', which it described as'one of several possihle configurations nowheing studied for future appl i ation tolong-range air routes'. The aircraft featureda narrow fuselage with accommodation for200 pa "engers, a highly swept-back wingwith supercritical airfoil, two engines onthe rear fu elage and one under each wing,and a Mach.9 cruising speed. It was giventhe designation 767, but it was actually

Boeing's fortunes were at a low point whenthe fi rst steps were taken towards thelaunch of the 767. The shape of that firstnew aircraft was far from certain whenBoeing's New Aircraft Programme was for­mulated, in 1970-71. The initial objectivewas to establish likely aircraft marketrequirements for the next decade, and tosee how the company might re,pond tothose need by developing one or morenew types to complement or replace suchmodels a the Boeing 7 7 and McDonnellDouglas DC- .

Why develop a new aircraft) With theworld's commercial fleet rapidly ageing,Boeing recognized the availability of adecade's worth of new technology. t thesame time, there was an urgent need forenergy-efficient aircraft that could operateunder stricter noise regulations. The avia­tion industry wa also a changing marketthat demanded new capacitie,. Boeingspelled out these need.' in an early internalmemo with these arguments for a new plane:

76 77

Design Decisions andVariations

In May 1976, Boeing establ ished aTwin(rri-jet Task Force to look at three ofthe biggc t issuc to bc dccidcd: twoengincs I'S. thrcc, a low tailor a Tshapcdtail, and seven-abreast or eight-abreast,cating. As a rcsult of thesc discussions,Boeing came out, on 10 August 1976, withtwo variants: a tri-jct Modcl 751- 336 andtwin-jct Model 751-251, cach with cight­abrcast scating capacity of 203. Thcse fur­thcr evolved, by November 1976, into the

EVOL TION OF THE 767 AND 757

March 1977, Bocing had unveiled a tri-jetwith eight-abrea t scating, known as theModel 751-424. This was followed amonth later by the 751-434, an alternatetri-jct with a Trail and eight-abreast seat­ing.

Betwcen mid-1976 and thc spring of1977, Boeing made a major configurationchangc, adopting a Ttail for both the 7X7and the 7 7, a design used on the 72 7.Thc two new programmcs, running paral­lel, had grown closer, with the 7 7 takingadvantage of the extensive work onadvanced wing design already completed

The hope that managemcnt could make ago-ahead dcci ion in Octobcr 1977 wasfound to he over-optimistic, largelyhccause the airlinc' that would be likc­Iy to launch thc aircraft continued to havedifferent opinions on the viral 'ubject' ofbody width and number of engine,. In anattempt to broker a compromise, Boeingrcvcrtcd, later in 1977, to a 19 -in (503­cm) fu,elage, and to the 'twin fir,t, tri-jetlater' philosophy that it had pursued earli­er in the programme.

In ugu t 1977, two more ,even-abreastproposals emerged: a twin/tri-jet family

Ii I" and, subsequently, 2 per cent Ie's fuel111111, comparcd with an cight-abreast cabin.

H,'cing considcrcd the ,cven-abrea:t,1\\ I ,lisle body to be a major tcchnologicalI II .lIKe, and this configuration latcrII II11C an indu try srandard. In addition\11 thc wcight and drag rcductiomI h IL'I'cd, it offered a measure of thc pa,-

·11I.':L'f comfort and favourable cabin1I1.1llgement, that Boeing hoped would'1111 thc attention of traveller,.

. fhat was a kcy decision on the pro­'I Illlll1l',' ,ays Joe Sutter. Regarded ,IS one, I hc world's pre-eminent aircraft design-

EVOLUTION OF TilE 767 AND 757

the highest levels in the company: 'Whatwas always prctty certain was the passcn­ger requircment, I 0-220 people. Wcwere looking more at the passenger com­fort cnd of it. Thc scvcn-abrcast sct-upseemed to fit well with the two-aisle con­cept. And t\\'o aisle' seemed very popular\\'ith the airlines.' Mock-ups would laterconfirm that.

That decision was not easy. Engineerswere in dispute over whether the ne\\' air­craft should have a larger or smaller con­figuration. 'After a while, people becameconvinced that the seven-abreast format

like T-tail. This version was hown to Boe­ing's board of directors for approval on 22December 1977.

Initially, the 767 was offered as a shortl'Cr,ion, the 767-10 ,and a longer model,the -200. The -100 was offered to '<HisfyAmerican Airlines' requirements for 175seats, the -200 to add res nited irline,'need for at least 19 scats. The -20 laterwon out, and the - I00 was nel'er hui It. 'Wewere propo,ing the -100 to them, but timecaught up,' Sutter says. The -200 wasactually getting too popular and grew toofast for a -100 to be developed.'

The 767 as it looked prior to the decision to drop the T-tail configuration. This model is shown in the

colours of 767 launch customer United Airlines. Boeing

An example of the proposed yet never built 767-100. Boeing

Model 751-377, another tri-jet, and thelodel 751-275A, a twin.The 7X7 programme evoh'ed rapidly by

this point into a series of propo,al' thatincorporated all thc vexing design deci­,ions. On 14 January 1977, Boeing pre­scnted tri-jet and twin models with a lowtail and cight-abreast seating for 203 pas­sengers. By 1 February, the wings had bcenrevised to feature a 33-degree sweep, 150ft(45.7m) span and doublc-slottcd flaps. By

for the 7X7. At thi, point, the 7X7 \vas rohal'e an eight-abrea,t fuselage. Boeing saidthat 'con,idering the payload/range, criti­cal field operatiom and over-water flyingrcquirements of somc of thc kcy prospec­tive 7X7 customers, thc initial version wascxpectcd to be a tri-jct'. Out of this, on 22May 1977, emcrged the Model 751-440, aTrailed, eight-abreast version.

In Junc 1977, Boeing was still havingtrouble finalizing the design of the aircraft.

18

known as Model 751-2 16 and lodel751- 3006. By October, a twin-jet with 19,eats (Model 751-2042), and a tri-jet with21 ,cats (Model 751- 30 II) were offered.

In the same month, Boeing determinedthat the new plane would have a sel'en­abreast cross-section. In December, thatconfiguration was revised to provide foreight-abreast charter seating. A seven­abreast design was dccmed to be morc effi­cicnt for a 200-passcnger transport, with less

I'rs, utter retired in 19 6, hal'ing,II hlel'Cd the position of Boeing\ execu­11\ L' I'ice-president overseeing all civil,II rI lI1er engineering and development.\ll.:ording to him, 'thc seven-abreast set­

111'11''1' the most economically attractive'.Evcrett Webb, director of technology

"Ir the new programmc, who went on tob\'come vice-preSident of engincering forI hc 767 programmc, says that considera­I" H1 of the scating configuration wcnt to

was thc most fal'ourable,' \Vcbb says. Boe­ing expanded the proposed fuselage toallow it to squce:e in cight-abreast scatingfor charter flights and cargo containcrs ifthe 7X7 wcre to bccome a frcighter. Therc ulting changc gave thc aircraft bettcrproportions.

With that key dccision made, a versionsimilar to what would become the 767finally cvolvcd. This was thc Modcl 751­2050, a sevcn-abrcast modcl with a 727-

19

A dccision wa' finally madc about thctail design, an I, on 23 May 1978, thc lowtail was adoptcd in Model 751-20 5C.Thc low tail features lowcr cruisc drag, areduction in fuel burn of 2.7 pcr cent, andincrcased rangc. It also allowcd easicr main­tenance and resulted in a shorter overallaircraft Icngth, which improvcd thc rampand parking characteristics of the 767.

utter was in chargc of design whcn thcissuc of the Trail came up. 'Bocing had

EVOLUTION OF THE 767 AND 757 EVOLUTION OF THE 767 AND 757

26.2

-,::

I

7X7cn-223-2-n

MODEL 751-691

:-Q..._-- - -----

[J .........0--_-. CJ-==='"

1::= 0 : 155'_~----_--.:..-.LY

B_._.-"IIJIIJ_~..c:C'

MODEL 751-721

60'-4" ~I65'-0"~.......--------=...:.....- 165'-3"---------~

164'-10"-----~.-4

203219

'CF6-32JT10D-4SRB211-535

16

150'-0" --------.-1

~r~

o PASSENGERS• MIXED CLASS (6/8 ABR)• ALL TOUR 1ST (8 ABR)

o ENGINES

o LD-3 CONTAINERS

.......------ 150'-{j"

Medium range Tri-jet -Model 751-691 (1973)Model 751-721(study configuration - May 1974) MODEL MODEL

751-691 751-721

• WING (SO Fn 2,250 2,250

• SWEEP (DEGREES) 2-;0 22°• ASPECT RATIO 7.8 10

• THRUST(SLST-LB) 26,600 22,800

• TAKEOFF GR WT (LB) 270,000 264,400

• PASSENGERS 201 215(MlXfD ClASS)

General arrangement - Model 751-424.

I!

58'-10·

--r­!

General arrangement - Model 751-428.

Boeing's 7X7 programme evolved into the 767.About 240 configurations were consideredfor the 7X7 before designers settled on atwin-engined wide-body airli~er with sevenseats per row. Among the major designsconsidered were tri-engine models along witheither twin- or tri-engine designs with eight­across seating. Boeing archives

EQUALPASSENGERCAPACITY

-I

2',700

204

214

JTIODSCALED

12

-~-"'" all "'"" ,.'~--,

--i 26'-4~ f-

6 ABREAST

e NO. LD-3

145'-9"

o ENGINE

o DESIGN RANGE - NMIo PASSENGERS

MIXED CLASS (4/6 ABR)

ALL TOURIS T (6 ABR)

f----------- 167 FT - 4 IN.---------------

7 ABREAS T BODY203 PASSENGERS MIXED CLASS

6 ABREAST BODY204 PASSENGERS MIXED CLASS

Configuration comparison.

8 ABREAST BODY203 PASSENGERS MIXED CLASS

20 21

EVOLUTION OF THE 767 AND 757 EVOLUTION OF THE 767 AND 757

Examples of early 7X7 versions that would evolve into the 767. Boeing

I

r ,

22 23

An early version of the 767-200, prior to the decision to go with a conventional tail. Boeing

always had a procedure that, when some­thing important is done, why not haveother look at the design) n the 767, Ttails were somewhat in disfavour, whileothers said low tails might have moredrag,' he says. 'There was a separate study,starting with the 767, looking at alterna­tives. That went on for quite a while. Ididn't want to lock into the decision. Theresults ended up saying you could do theproblem either way. The decision on the

767's tail came down to the fact that main­tenance would be easier and that the char­acteristics of the low rai I were more under­stood. It produced some hard feelingsbecause people chose sides. I got in themiddle of that ruckus.'

Interestingly, when the 767 wa'launched, a cover drawing on the July197 issue of Aviation Week & Space Tech­nology maga:ine depicted the nell' planewith the Trail, well after the hori:ontalsrabili:er was shifted from the Ttail con­figuration to the low, conventional loca­tion. Sutter relates the story: 'We finally

EVOL TION OF THE 767 A D 757

signed a contract with United and had abig get-together and press conference wi th[Richard] Ferris [United's chairman at thetime]. The day before I was given <In via­tion Week article about the launch andasked to check it for errors. Itwas 100 percent accurate, but the cover showed [Tex]Boullioun [Boeing commercial aircraftgroup pre ident] and Ferris holding amodel-still with a Ttail. Well, overnight,the guy' built a model with a low tail to

make sure there would be no mistaking thedecision.'

Launch and Production

On 5 January 1978, Boeing announcedplan to expand the Everett plant in orderto handle the new programme, saying thecompany would have to begin buildingat once to be ready for a possible go­ahead decision at mid-year. Thi importantdevelopment was followed in mid-Februaryby the announcement thar the designations

24

757 and 767 had been allotted to the newproject that were being offered.

In early 197 , the 767-200 emerged asthe central project in Boeing's new aircraftplans. A final round of evaluations tookplace in May and June, by which time thecompany was atisfied that the 767-200met its requirements, and could beat theAirbus AJ10-200. (A shorter derivative ofthe AJOO was being developed at aroundthe ame time.)

The 767 programme received the officialgo-ahead on 14 July 197 , when the boardof directors of United Airlines, the largestairline in the United States and a loyalBoeing customer for a long time,announ ed that it would order thirty 767sequipped with Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4engines, in a deal worth 1.2 billion. The767 would join the 727, 737 and 747 inUnited' fleet. United had begun a ~erious

evaluation of the 200-passenger medium­range aircraft in October 1977. They hadlooked at the AJOO and a future McDon­nell Douglas version, the DC-X-200, and

EVOL TIO OF THE 767 AND 757

A collection of the various 7X7 proposals, along with two 7N7 versions (back row, first and second from left). Boeing

Three examples of the many different variations of the 7X7. Boeing

25

EVOLUTION OF THE 767 AND 757 EVOI_UTION OF THE 767 AND 757

Artist's impression of an early version of the 767. Note the T-tail and the short fuselage. Boeing

The Everett plant had to be expanded to accommodate the 767. which was to be assembled in the samemammoth building in which the 747 came together. Boeing

cost advantage swung the deal. For that tohappen, the engine companies had tocome up with an improved engine. Whenwe started out - and this programme had along birth - early in the game there was abig push to come up with an optimumengine of 25,0001b of thrust. With the sizeof airplane we had, that would have need­ed three engines.'

Looking back, Webb says the decisionto go with two engines on the new planewas vital. 'Going to the twin was probablythe most important decision in the pro­gramme,' he says.

Besides the economic advantage, the767 was designed with two engines, inorder to keep up with - or beat - the com­petition. In Europe, Airbus Indusrrie wasdeveloping the A310 - a shorter butlonger-range version of the A300 - aroundthe same time as the 767. The A310,

it was found that twin-jets have more totalsea-level thrust than tri-jets, resulting in ahigher, more fuel-efficient cruising alti­tude; in <tddition, the development timewould be shorter with a twin. However,studies also found that twin-jets are morelimiting in bad weather, due to differentemergency-landing ficld requirements.

Other issues - engine pod size, potentialdesign changes, range, weight and fuelburn - were also debated, making the deci­sion a difficult one. Boeing's headquarterspushed for a twin. 'We went to lots of tech­nical meetings on the weight benefits ofthe twin vs. n'i-jet,' says Everett Webb.'The twin would have to have at least48,OOOIb of thrust for the engines, offeringbetter performance and lower noise. Themain thing was that the maintenance andspares would turn out much more to theadvantage of airlines, so in many ways the

plane with a 727-type centre engine andtwo engines under the wings. It looked justIike the L-I 011, except for a Tshaped tail,which was later dropped.

The potential buyers - the airlines ­helped to determine the end result. Unit­ed A irl ines wanted two engi nes andAmerican Airlines preferred three. So, inkeeping with its tradition of seekingalways to please the customer, Boeingannounced two versions in February 1978:a twin-engined wide-body carrying 180­200 passengers, and a longer-range, three­engined version.

[n the end, the will of Ed Wells, a con­,ultant during the 767's development, whopatented the 767's landing gear, played a,ignificant role in deciding that the 767should have two engines, not three. Boeinghad conducted exhaustive studies of thethree- vs. two-engine quandary. Generally,

part of Canadian), All ippon Airwaysand TWA. Between them, they ordered atotal of 135 of the airliners, with optionsfor 128 more.

[n an article in the February 1980 issueof AIR International magazine, it was con­sidered that the 767 is 'destined to be oneof the most important tools of the airlinetrade in the forthcoming decade'. Howev­er, after the initial orders, much work wasneeded to prepare the 767, Boeing's firstnew model since the 747 rolled out in1967, for its first flight.

Twin vs. Tri

While the 757 had always been envisionedwith two engines, the number of power­plants on the 767 was a topic of much dis­cussion. As late as the spring of [978 - wellinto the design stage - Boeing was stilltalking about a three-engined 767. Thecompany even distributed a rendering of a

facility was expanded by 2 million squarefeet (666,000 square metres) to providespace for the 767 final assembly line. Aeri­talia, a prominent partner in early 7X7design, assumed a 15 per cent share, and wasresponsible for the design and manufactureof wing control surfaces, the fin, rudder andelevators, wing tips and nose radome.

United's interest did not exactly openthe floodgates. lt would take another fourmonths after the launch decision beforeAmerican Airlines and Delta would placean order for 767s, valued at nearly $2 bil­lion, in ovember 1978. Following theseorders, Boeing dropped plans for a three­engined, 219-seat 777. Years later, the ideaof a new long-range model evolved intowhat would, in 1995, become the 777, theworld's longest twin-engine aircraft, whosegenesis can be attributed to the 767.

[n its early days, the 767 captured theattention of eight airl ines - Un ited, Amer­ican, Delta, Air Canada, CPAir (nowCanadian Airlines), Pacific Western (now

had nearly selected the A300 over the 767.Airbus, eager to sell its first plane in theUnited States, offered an attractive financ­ing and support package, but United hadbeen convinced that the 767 was a betterai rcraft. (I ncidentally, Eastern laterbecame the first US airline co fly theA300.)

With production now getting ever clos­er, the 767's landing gear was changed, inAugust 1978, to cater for a request byAmerican Airlines to meet requirementsat New York LaGuardia Airport's shortrunways. The aft body arrangement andcontours were refined in December 1978,and the final specifications for the interiorarrangement were settled in April 1979.Construction of the first 767 began on 6July 1979.

The United order, with an option forthirty-seven additional 767s, nine of themconverted in October 1980, allowed Boeingto put the new aircraft into full-scale devel­opment and production. The Everett

26 27

EVOL TION OF THE 767 AI D 757

A proposed 757 design, prior to the nose redesign and deletion of 727-like T-tail, shown in the colours of

launch customer Eastern Airlines. Boeing

An early 7N7 example. Note the nose's resemblance to the 727's. Boeing

747 family and for deciding to mount theengines of the 73 7 below the wings. 'Aftera lor of testing on a 727, Boeing deter­mined that a bigger step had to be taken,and that an all-new plane was needed.'

With the 727-300 destined to remain ablueprint, studie' of a new aircraft began inJanuary 1976 under the designation 7 7.(I t i bel ieved that the' 'reflected theinvolvement of Bob orton, the productdevelopment director at the time.) Theobje tives of this new plane were to meetairline size and pelformance requirements,to keep costs low, to minimize fuel burn perseat and to reduce noise. In short, a low-costalternative wa being sought in an industrywhere expenses were mounting daily.

'We rationalized that the 757 could be areasonahly priced derivative approach,'Jackson says. 'I t seemed to be a reasonablethought that we could save a large part ofthe forward section of the 72 7 and much ofthe aft body and systems.'

The first step towards the 757 was knownin the design stage as Model 761-161. Thebody of this aircraft was a combination ofthe 72 7 and 73 7, along wi th new sections.The tail was derived from the 7 7 and 737.Three engine model appeared a possiblepowerplants for this new aircraft: the Rolls­Royce RB211-53 5 and the General ElectricCF6-32, both derivative of engines power­ing existing wide-body aircraft, and the newPratt & Whitney JTIOD (an engine that

Towards the 757

or did they need larger aircraft, to build uphubs? The expected return on investmentdid not warrant the risk. United, the biggestpot ntial customer, backed out after exten­sive development and review. The 727-300programme was scrapped in August 1975.

According to Duane Jackson, at the timeBoeing's configuration de ign manager forderivative aeroplane programmes, 'It was abitter blow to top the programme after fiveyears of evolution.' Jackson was laterinvolved in the development of the 757.

The abandoned 727-300 cost Boeing 5million, but the inve tment was not invain. The de ign evolution proceededthrough the 7 7 study programme, whichlasted from early 1976 through 1977, anddeveloped in 197 -79 into the 757, a newtwin-engined narrow-body that couldeventually replace the workhorse 727. Dur­ing that evolution, Boeing focused on newwings and new high-bypass engines to meetthe performance criteria demanded by theairlines. The extensive development workamI airline feedback created under the727-300 programme gave Boeing the nec­e sary direction for their next step.

'We had quite a bit of input from the air­lines on what kind of planes they wanted,'says Joe Sutter, known for developing the

United Airlines. The 727-300 was to havebeen 20ft (6m) longer, with 35 more seatsthan the 727-200, along with new engines,leading-edge wing flaps and landing gear.

arge airlines indicated that, eventhough the 727-30 was to add capacity,they needed an aircraft that could operatewith the same versatility as the 727-2That meant designing an airliner thatcould operate with equal aplomb from highaltitudes and short runways. To do that,Boeing extended the leading edge of the727-200 wing, lengthened the wing andadded ::t double-slotted inhoard trailing­edge flap. Wind-tunnel tests with re­fanned Pratt & Whitney JT D engines,howed that the 72 7-300 would save 13 percent in fuel cost per scat, compared withthe 727-20 . Noise requirements were alsomet. In addition, the 727-300 was to have,ported new twin four-wheel main landinggears; these eventually became the basis fordevelopment of the 757 landing gear.

In the end, airlines found the 727-300configuration changes expensive, with theimprovement in fuel burn per scat insuffi­cient to cover the costs. In addition, eventhough the model met noise requirements,it was uncertain whether it would urvivemore stringent re trictions in the future.The age of deregulation in the UnitedStates also made airlines unsure of theirequipment needs: were smaller planesneeded to feed new, point-to-point routes,

ew aircraft are developed when new fac­tors - increased demand, for example, anenergy crisis or new technology - appear inair transportation. oise and fuel were thetwo primary issues faced by airlines in the1970s, and the two factor that con­tri bu ted the most to the rise of the 757.

The energy crisis in late 1973 beganwith the Yom Kippur War in the MiddleEast, which spiked jet fuel price from IIcents a gallon (4 litres) to 1.10. Toaddress potentially disastrou fuel costs,Boeing's 707/727/737 division in 1974began to study numerous ways to developadvanced and fuel-efficient aircraft for thefuture.

Th is led to the proposed 72 7-300, astretched 727-200, which nearly beganproduction in late 1975 with the blessing of

The 757 Joins the Family

combination of generous pan and wingarea, wing thickness and decreased weeppromised lower fuel consumption with ade­quate range and speed. It w::ts cle::tr why thetwin 767 prevailed.

between McDonnell Douglas and Lockheedin the three-engine wide-body marker. Themarket was not big enough for two almostidentical planes, let alone a third entry.

'The engine available at the time madethe decision for us,' recall Joe Sutter.'Compared with the reliability of earlyengines, the e were 20 times more reliable.That got people thinking that you don'tneed four engines, or even thre . The im­pie reliability of the gas turl inc enginemade the decision easier. We realized wehad to take advantage of that.

'The idea of using twins over watercame from the Boei ng gang. It was a care­fully thought-out process. Selling it first tothe certifying authorities and then to thepublic was going to be a tough job. At thetime, everyone liked to look out and seefour engines out there. We determinedthat twin over water were a natural,' ut­ter says. 'We were looking at what theplane could do, at least to make it a good

orth Atlantic airplane.'The results of7 ,000 hours of wind-tunnel

tests made the case for a twin-engineplane. They showed that this version wouldhave superb aerodynamic performance. A

essentially the same size as the 767, was abit pudgier, however, with eight- ratherthan seven-abreast seating.

A defining moment came in 1976, whenengineers pondered a pair of proposed 767models. One had three engines, the othertwo. Three engines, some argued, wouldprovide more range, and offer the flyingpublic peace of mind, in case of engine fail­ure. On the other hand, a twin-engineplane would provide airlines with savingsin purchase price, maintenance costs andfuel efficiency. Wells called the meeting ina conference room in Renton. As recount­ed in the Boeing history, Legend and Lega­cy, both models were on display. Accordingto the book, Wells told them, 'I knowwhat's going on. You're spending money onthat three-engine project and paying lipservice to a twin. You've got it backwards­you should be pending money on the twinand paying nothing more than lip serviceto a tri-motor.'

Well, who died of cancer in 1986, feltthat the 767' chances for success would rideon fuel efficiency, and that no tri-motorcould beat the economics of a twin. In addi­tion, Boeing knew the intense competition

28 29

EVOL TION OF THE 767 AND 757

Further DevelopDlentsand IDlproveDlents

The 767nS7 glass cockpit introduced commercial aviation to the computer age. Boeing

CHAPTER FOUR

In the post-deregulation period of thelate 1970s, U airlines were facing heavyprice competition on routes that had beenopened up to new rivals. Meanwhile, air­craft reliahility, redundancies in aircraft

deck seating two pilot~. That meant rip­ping each production model apart andredesigning its sophisticated 'glass cockpit'flight deck right in the middle of aircraftproduction.

Cockpit Conversion

One of the most dramatic move~ was Roe­ing's decision to convert the 767 cockpit,designed for a crew of three, into a flight

the 757's focus on commonality with the727 to be more common with the 767.'

As the 7 7 and 7X7, both the 757 and767 had begun to share common equip­ment and technology. A decision wamade to usc several components of the 767programme in the 757, including the aux­iliary power unit, the air-conditioning sys­tem, the avionics, the flight managementcomputer, and more. Until then, only the72 7's lower-tech components had beenconsidered. ow, the new plane empha­sized commonality with the 767.

'I n early spring 1979, a lot of discussionsand studies were going on about this, andthe decision was not easy,' says Doug Miller,who served as chief engineer of the 757 forseven years. 'The consensus was that theairplane would become obsolete in a fewyears had we not gon this route, and therewere cost benefits for both programmes touse the same production base of expensivesystems that were going into the 767.'

sing common components and sy,­tems would ea e the burden of designingtwo new aircraft, while providing opera­tors with the benefits of reduced mainte­nance and support costs. At the same time,Boeing reali:ed that having complemen­tary aircraft would enhance the saleabilityof both types.

'British irways and Ea tern Airlineswanted a low-cost airplane, and frankly Ifought real hard to keep it to around 160scats, hut the 757 was pushed closer incapacity to the 767 than we at Boeingwanted,' Sutter says. 'We always felt thecustomer was right. We looked at the 767as an over-water plane. The reasons fordoing two airplanes was that there weretwo requirements at the time: a low-cost727 replacement and a new but smallerwide-body that could cross continent andoceans. When the customers wanted quickaction, we felt we had bener work hard tomake the airplane common.'

ow, on the verge of rolling out a newpair of jets within five months, Boeing engi­neer set out to make the 767 and 757 assimilar as possible. This new strategy intro­duced dozen of new challenges that wouldhave to l e resolved before the new aircraftfamily could ever fly. At the same time,both the 767 and 757 were about to gothrough hundreds of thousands of designstages - from the way the doors opened tohow much the aircraft should weigh ­before they would take to the skies. Onlyafter years of exhaustive studies and contin­uous improvement did final plans emerge.

Commonality

wept back 25 degrees, a reduction of 5degrees, introduced as a result of improvedtechnology in airfoil design. With the newmodel's engines under the wings, the wingcould be built slightly lighter; the weight ofthe engines could be used to counter thebending forces created by lift.

This model was de ignated the 757-200because of the possibility, which was neverreal ized, of a shorter -I 00 version. (The 757­100 never appealed to airline because ofhigher scat-mile costs - it would have beennearly the same weight as the -200, but car­ryingjust 160 passengers. Years later, Boeinginstead developed a stret hed 737-400model, which could seat 150 passengers, inorder to satisfy the needs of that market.)

At the press conference announcing thelaunch order for the 757 from Eastern Air­lines and BA, Boeing showed table modelsof its new aircraft, whi h bore an uncannyresemblance to the 727. It had a Ttail andthe same nose section; the only major dif­ference was that it had two wing-mountedengines.

By April 1979, the 767 had evolved toinclude a conventional rail. The 757, ini­tially considered to be just a derivative ofthe 727, also had a Ttail at first. Whileeither a T-tail or low tail were acceptable onthe 757, many engineers preferred the stall­recovery characteristic of the convention­al rail. Others preferred the lower drag ofthe Trail. Eventually, it was decided thatthe 757's tail would be like the 767's. The767's vertical tail was used for the rational­ization of a low tail; the 75 7's tai I came clos­er to the 767's, leading to an all-new hori­zontal tail. The change shortened the 757by 18ft (6m), while offering a perfonmmceequal to that of earlier designs.

Once the 757's low-tail design was set­tled, the plane's aft body was re-lofted,retaining the wide aft pressure bulkhead,which would enhance the pa senger cahin.

The initial customers were happy withthe result. From January to April 1979,Eastern and British Airways had been close­ly involved in detailed discu sions, repre­sented at daily meeting and kept abreast ofmajor changes and galley designs.

With the 767 programme advancing rapid­ly, Boeing began to re-evaluate the 757'soriginal philosophy of retaining common­ality with the 727. 'It became clear,' Jack­son says, 'that we had to decide to change

never went into production, but evolvedinto what later became the PW2000). Thepassenger capacity and low fuel burn of thinew plane resulted in outstanding econom­ic improvement compared with the 727.

The 1M-passenger Model 761-161 wadesigned to share the amI.' structure, toolsand body systems as the 707/72 7/737 fam­ily. To take advantage of commonality,Boeing decided the aircraft should bedeveloped with the 727's Ttail. Much ofthe 727's fuselage could then be used inthis new model without significantchanges, although the centre engine'sremoval would require a new aft body. Thiswas reflected in Model 761-164, whichfeatured a new-technology wing, high­bypass engines, new landing gear, a modi­fied vertical tail, and seating for 165. Itsfuselage was also extended from that of the727-200.

, ome wanted to preserve the charac­teristics of the 72 7,' Suner says. 'Very latein that design, I called over there and said,"Why don't you look at all of the thing~

considered when going to the low tail onthe 767 and then decide?" For the ~ame

reasons as on the 767, we came up with thelow tail on the 757.'

By January 197 , Boeing began ,howingthi~ version to Eastern Airlines and BritishA irways, two carriers that had expressed aninterest for a low-cost 727 derivative. East­ern told Boeing it preferred the I65-passen­ger, dual-class design, while BA was lookingfor a plane that could scat 190 passengers ina single-class configuration. After muchdiscussion, including many talks betweenthe two airlines, Boeing increased the seat­ing from 165 to 175 seats, a hieving 190 ina single class. Both airlines agreed to buythe aircraft; this was a coup for Boeing sinceBA, still linked to its government, wasobliged to consider ordering Airhus planes.At this point, S airlines were forecastingincreased market growth and wanted toincrease passenger capacity.

The Model 761-164 was then stretched,from 165 seat to 1 , and became knownas the Model 76 J-177, which formed thebasis of the 757 development. By AugustJ97 , Boeing had a handshake deal withEastern and BA to launch the aircraft,confident that it would not interfere withsale of the larger 767.

Meanwhile, additional studies continuedto refine the wing geometry and controlrequirements. This developed, by Decem­ber 1978, into the Model 761-280, a 178­passenger version with an all-new wing

30 31

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS AI D IMPROVEMENTS FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS A D IMPROVEMENTS

Ansell Australia first received its 767,2oos designed for three crew members. It later converted its fleet to

accommodate the two crew members the aircraft was designed for. Peter Sweeten/Aviation Images Worldwide

757, those aircraft must also be delivered in the same configuration - an Impossibilitysince the 757 was always designed with acockpit crew of two.

With flight engineers being phased out throughout the 1980s, Ansett acquired five addi­tiona1767-200s with the conventional two-member flight deck. This led to anon-uniformfleet. The first aircraft to be converted was VH-RMG, which entered the company's Mel­bourne maintenance hangar in February 1998. Five days later it no longer had aflight engi­neering station. Four others also were converted in 1998. ending aquirky era for the 767.

Australian Three Crew 767s

-- .

and operational testing was conductedusing the retrofitte I two-crew test aircraft.

The decision to convert the flight decksof the first thirty 767s so late in the pro­gramme had quite an effect. Among theimpacts of offering a two-crew flight deckwere the costs of modifying thirty aircraft,the cost of the original design and installa­tion of the three-person cockpits, and thedelay to the delivery schedule. (Boeingdelivered twenty 767s in 1982, eight fewerthan planned.) With the exception ofthree 767s for Ansett Airlines of Australia,all 173 of the first ordered 767s were sup­plied with two-crew flight decks. Thirty ofthem, bound for seven different airlines,were converted from three-member decksjust prior to del ivery, and these incl udedUnited's first six models. 'We lost money

URI••••••••••••

The two- vs. three-member cockpit issuenever affected the 757. That aircraft wasdesigned with a two-member crew and was,in fact, the first of Boeing's new twin-jets tobe certified with a two-member cockpit.

Even after a two-member crew cockpitreceived regulatory approval, Boeingoffered the option to airlines to converttheir flight decks into three-member con­figurations. No airline took up thc offer.

The midstream cockpit conversationaffected the 767's aggressive flight-testschedule. A seventh test aircraft was addedto the certification programme after it hadbeen retrofitted with the new flight deck.Boeing used the aircraft configured forthree crew members to conduct certifica­tion tests that did not depend on the fl ightdeck configuration. Crew size, workload

Ansett Australia airlines received five 767s configured for three cockpit crew members- the only ones fitted with a flight engineer's station to enter service.

Ansett was one of the first airlines to order the 767, signing up for five in March 1980.At that time, Australian pilot's unions insisted that the aircraft be operated by two pilotsand a flight engineer. The flight engineer's panel would be an advanced side-facingarrangement incorporating an Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICASI.Interestingly. it was also agreed that if in the future Ansett were to order the narrower

stand was replaced with a new unit to pro­vide additional panel space. About a thirdof the aircraft's wire bundles were removed.Two flight-deck computers and a newequipment rack were installed in the elec­tronic bay. Flight-deck air-conditioningand cooling ducts were also changed.

The first 767 to fly had a three-membercockpit. In fact, it was not until Z7 May19 2, eight months after the aircraft'smaidcn flight, that the 767 fir t flew witha two-member crew. This was the begin­ning of a test programme that led, inMarch 1983, to certification of the 767with the two-crew configuration. United,the first 767 operator, took delivery ofthree-man cockpit versions beginning inSeptember 1982, but later retrofitted theplanes for two-person crews.

Taylor's simple argument was that flyingwould he easier and safer with all the newtechnology, leading to rcduced workloadsand fcwer cockpit errors. 'The fact that athird, unmonirored crew mcmbcr can be asafety hazard was on our minds,' Taylor says.

Following thc decision of the task force,nited Airlines' pilot union agreed ro fly

a two-crew 767, and the la t major hurdlewas therefore c1earcd. Eleven of the 12 air­lines that had ordered three-crew 767simmediately changed thcir orders to thetwo-crew design. That change had enor­mous implications for 767 production andcertification. By eptember 19 I, Boeinghad come up with the nece sary plans roretrofit aircraft already produced with thethree-crew flight deck, and to incorporatethe new design into the production line,beginning with the thirty-first aircraft.With the presidential commission's rulingin hand, Boeing announced, in anunprecedented move, that it would modi­fy the first thirty production 767s, so thatthose planes scheduled for delivery sixmonths larer would have the larest, state­of-the-art cockpit. One 767 was modifiedin time for flight te ting, while others wereconverted prior to delivery.

The conversion was a huge undertaking,involving Bo ing's engineering and manu­facturing organi:ations, as well as vendors.Converting the flight deck for two-crewmembers meant replacing the forwardinstrument panel and flight engineer'panel. Forty-nine subsystem panel moduleswere replaccd and twenty-two new oneswere relocated to the pilot's overheadpanel. ixty conventional instrument andthe caution and advisory sy tem were givennew controls and display. The flight engi­neer' scat, scat track, oxygen equipmentand lighting were removed. Linings andfloor panels were changed. The aft aisle

• the advance of technology made theflight enginecr's job extinct;

• all controls and displays would be acces­sible and visible to both crew membcrs,eliminating the need for a third person;

• no in-fl ight actions would bc needed formaintcnance;

• automatic swi tch ing would guardagainst the los' of critical systems with­out the necd for crew action;

• the flight system would indicate appro­priate corrcctive action in the event ofa systcm failure; and

• the crew would be alerted to any unsafccond itions.

two-member cockpits long after it enteredservice, and many airline' believed itwould have sold hetter if it had always beenoffered with the two-crew option.

Dick Taylor, a former Boeing vice-pre '­ident, says that the company was con­vinced that a two-member flight deck, aset-up established with certification of the737 in 1967, would work. 'We had a lot offundamcntal knowledge of crcw workloadand what the pilots looked for,' he says.

The invention of the microprocessor in1975 made it possible to consider buildingthe 767 with a high-tech cockpit for two.'I saw the potential value of doing allthe monitoring through microprocessors,'Taylor says. Such tasks as managing elec­tried and hydraulic systems and fuel wercwell within the realm of the new technol­ogy. At onc 4uarterly vice-presidents'meeting, Taylor rcmembers listcning tothe head of Boeing's computer division.'At the end of his presentation,' he recalls,'I brought up the notion that thc newmicroprocessor was likely to bc a tool that\\'e could use to monitor all the systemsand thar would do a better job than a per­son could do eyeballing all the instru­ments. '

A rmed wi th data from 73 7 crews, wh ichshowed that the safety record of t\\'o-mem­ber crew' wa' bettcr than that of three­mcmber crews, and that two-mcmbcrcrews were not overworkcd - a commonargument (rom pilots - Taylor visited air­lines around the world extolling thevirtues of two-member crews. In manycases, he faced a crowd of angry pilots withmany questions. 'The dcsign of the air­plane was very good and therefore wecould answer those 4uestions,' he says.

The debatc on crew sizes brought on bythe 767 and A310 reached a crescendo in19 I, when the U Presidcntial Task Forceon Crew Complement was commissioned(hcaded by John McLucas), to determincthe safety of two-crew operations for largewide-body aircraft. After months of hear­ings and extensive human-factor and afe­ty data analyses, the task force concluded,in July 19 1, thar two-crew operationscould be conducted safely. The task force'rcport was del ivered Ie s than a monthbefore the fir t 767 was due to roll out ofthe Everett factory, and 1 month beforethe aircraft's scheduled certifi ation.

Dick Taylor was among those who testi­fied before the task force in favour of acockpit crew of two. His argumentsincluded the following:

Airlines were certainly interested in two­crew aircraft. Airbu was marketing itsA 31 0 ~llld McDonnell Douglas the M D­both with two-pi lot crews. Boeing believedthat, if its new model were to be viable inthe long term, they would need the twO­crew flight deck, at least as an option. TheAirbus A300 was changed from th ree- to

• a two-crew operation is significantlycheaper to operate;

• two-men crews arc no less safe thanthree-member crews;

• te hnical developments placed a highemphasis on easing pilot workload andon increasing safety;

• since airline management would deter­mine the number of crew members fortheir operations, Boeing would designthe aircraft to be operated safely by twopilots.

systems, and the exceptional record of thetwo-crew 737 led Boeing to examine thepossibility of expanding the two-crewflight deck to the 757 and 767.

The 767 was designed to be flown bytwo I i1otS, but the prototype ami the firstfew production models were built with anadditional flight engineer' station in thecockpit, at the insistence of launch cus­tomer United Airlines. While the airline'spilots had agreed to fly 737s with twocockpit crew members, they figured that aflight engineer was also needed for such aheavy air raft. United also opted for athree-person crew in order to reduce therisk associated with being the first to putthe 767 into revenue service. Boeing'sargument was thar its sophistielted flightcontrols would simplify the work of flyingan aircraft. The plane had about 140 com­puters and microprocessors on board, per­forming various navigation and monitor­ing tasks.

Despite United's insistence on a tradi­tional flight deck, Boeing continued rodevelop a second, two-crew flight deck asan option for later customers. Contactswith major suppliers for the two-crew flightdeck were e 'tabl ished as early as Ocrober197 . By March 19 ,Boeing revealedpublicly thar all future flight decks wouldbe built to accommodate two-crew cock­pits (although the 7X7 had always beenplanned with a two-man crew).

While researching the benefits of a two­member cockpit in the early days of the7X7 programme, Boeing came to the fol­lowi ng concl usions:

32 33

A United Airlines 757-200. showing a nice view of the model's unique nose. Darren Anderson

Another view of the drooping nose. on a Northwest Airlines 757-200. Darren Anderson

34

on thar, but it's not like stripping out theentire cockpit,' notes Joe Sutter.

The two-person cockpit changed theway commercial airliners are flown. Pilot ,in effect, became system manager ratherthan hands-on operator.

Small Body, Wide Cockpit

Wh iIe engineers faced the daunting task ofconverting 767 cockpits into two-memberconfigurations in the middle of produc­tion, the 757 team had an equally menac­ing challenge: how to shoehorn the samecockpit, designed for a wide-bodied plane,into the standard-body 757.

Following the decision to make the 767and 757 as similar as possible, with manycommon part and ystems, focu immedi­ately turned to the flight deck. As thedesign progressed, a Boeing engineer sug­gested that, if the cockpits were so similar,a potential existed to get a common pilottype rating. 'At that point, we no longerhad a 727 derivative but a totally new air­plane in a design c1as of its own and manyfeatures common to the 767,' said ErnestFenn, the 757 divi ion manager at thetime.

While there were internal disagree­ments over the virtues of two engines vs.three on the 767, and over the Ttail con­figuration, engineer readily agreed that a767 cockpit design wa needed in the 757.One rather large problem stood in the wayof the quest for commonality. The 767'snight deck cab was an all-new design,while the 757 retained, at the time, theconfiguration used on the 727. In a moverarely made after the launch of a pro­gramme, Boeing began to reconfigure the757's nose section. Borrowing the identical767 forward wind hield and related struc­ture, the 767 cab geometry was tailored onto the stanJard-body 757 fuselage.

The 757's nose design was altered in thesummer of 1979 after nine months ofexhaustive studies. The new-look nose ­until then identical to the 727's - gavegreater flight-deck vi ibility, and increa edthe crew working area, as well a providingmore galley and lavatory space for passen­gers, and additional passenger seating.

PCl'hap the most interesting feature ofthe 757 is its distinctive, 'droopy' nose. The757 nose cone evolved into its own lookafter engineer merged the 767 cockpitinto the narrower 757. The 757 nosecurves upwards more dramatically than

that of the 767, and the point of the nose iswell below the centrelin of the fuselage.'The decision to go with the 767 fl ight deckin the 757 essentially created the 757'snose design,' ays Doug Miller, later chief757 designer. 'We had to maintain the rela­tionship of the instrument panel and the767 windshield. That means marching a767 crown line with the centre of the 757body, leading to a drooped nose. It's aunique nose as far as Boeing aircraft go. Itlooks more like a Douglas plane.' Squee:­ing a 767 cab into the 757, Miller says, 'wasthe biggest contrnver"y of the entire pro­gramme. What drove the decision was thefact that pilots would have a common typerating and would he able to fly both jets.'

Making the 767 and 757 cockpits iden­tical involved many challenges, and aninformal committee drove the processdaily. 'When we took the 767 cab andadapted it to the narrower body, we want­ed the pilot to sit in his ear and not knowwhat plane he was in,' Taylor recalls.

The co kpit design provided the 757flight deck with more light and space andbetter vi ibility than the original.' ow wehad a cockpit where you could see morelight,' Taylor 'ays of the finished product.'Under low visibility, we also had a safercockpit. Then we wrapped the 767 struc­ture [outside the instrument panel] tomatch the narrower body of a 757. The767 instrument panel and windshield areidentical, 0 it gave u, a physical structurethat would be the same for either.'

The windshield then had to be tested,to make sure that it could withstand birdstrikes during flight. The windows passedwith flying colours; the crown of the 757failed, however. Dead birds fired ar thewindshield during testing truck the top ofthe plane and damaged the crown. As aresult, the crown had to be rede'igned.

Matching the cockpits was particularlychallenging in an organization thar wasplanning two new transports at once. Tay­lor says that people in both new pro­grammes met frequently to make sure theydid not divert from the design. ommon­ality became a way of life. 'Similarity wasthe top priority,' Taylor says. 'For instance,ome wanted to put more fuel capacity in

the 757, but we said no, because then itwouldn't be the same as the 767.' Ensuingdesign reviews eliminated the auxiliaryfuel tank idea, in tead making the extracapacity a part of the main wing tank; thismeant that the pilot did not have to takeany action to control fuel.

35

The resulting internal geometry of theflight deck led to a number of advantagesfor the 757. The external visual field wasimproved and became identical with thatof the 767. Aerodynamic noise, long acause for complaint in the 727 cab, wasreduced by six decibels. The wider cockpitalso provided better air-conditioning air­flow patterns, more room, and more stor­age space. Adopting the 767 cab allowedfor more space at the front of the plane,providing space for a lavatory and a largegalley. In fact, the new nose design creat­ed the most spacious two-crew flight deckin commercial aviation; it was 24in(60cm) wider at the pi lot stations than thefl ight decks on previous standard-body air­liner:. Despite all these advantages, how­ever, it was agreed between Boeing execu­tives that the most important feature ofthe 757's flight de k was its commonalitywith the 767.

Meanwhile, the combination of aft andforward body changes resulted in a reduc­tion of 20in (50cm) in 757 cabin length,while increa ing seat count by one. Thenew length wa about the same a that ofthe 727-200, but the new aircraft couldcarry 32 per cent more passengers at thesame comfort level, with 20 per cent lessfuel burn and nearly 39 per cent less fuelper passenger. In addition, the 757's aero­dynami and weight savings would beworth an additional 10 per cent in co tsavings.

With these changes, the 757 completedits progress from a modest derivative of the727 to an all-new aircraft, which deliber­ately shared a great deal of commonalitywith its larger sister. t the same time, the757 delivered the fuel efficiency requiredby the airlines. Although the 727-3 0,with re-fanned engines, would haveimproved fuel consumption by II per centrelative to existing 727 engines, this wouldnot be enough to offset development costs.The 757's new engines offered a 26 percent to 31 per cent improvement.

By March 1981, two years after the 757received the go-ahead, the Renton fa ilityemployed 11,000 people on the 757 pro­gramme alone.

The 'Glass Cockpit'

Long before the difficult cockpit layoutand de ign issues were resolved, Boeingwas preparing to put plenty of brains intoits new planes.

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS A D IMPROVEMENTS F RTHER DEVELOPME TS AND IMPROVEME TS

A close-up of the electronics found in the cockpit. Boeing

The 767/757 flight deck introducedcomputer technology to commercial avia­tion. Airline taking delivery of thedynamic duo were purchasing the mo tmodern cockpit of all time. It was loadedwith computers, which could virtually flythe plane on their own, from take-off,through approach and to landing. And allthe time, the computers were able toensure that flight crews operated the air­liners efficiently. The aim, simply, was tomeld the late t technology with a safe,spacious and comfortable place to work.New-generation avionics, automatic guid­ance controls, system monitoring andmalfunction alerting brought about a sig­nificant increa e in cockpit automation,

The 767n57 flight deck. Boeing

and a corresponding decrea e in work­loads. This permanently eliminated theneed for a flight engineer.

These two plane , developed at thedawn of the computer age, gave birth to anew term in commercial aviation - 'glasscockpit' - used to de cribe a flight deckboasting an array of video creens con­stantly displaying information tracked byth aircraft's computers. The concept wasso ground-breaking that later Boeing mod­els universally adopted the technologyintroduced on the 767 and 757. Likewise,Boeing's chief competitor, Airbus, alsomade cockpit autom:ltion - its 'fly-by­wire' system - a hallmark of its designs.

Boeing veterans agree that the digital

36

fl igh t deck was perhaps the planes' mostignificant contribution to aviation.

'It was a big jump to go digital, a realbreakthrough,' recalls Dean Thornton,former head of the 767 programme. 'It wasa natural evolution of technology. Ofcourse, one of the biggest challenges wa tomake all the computers work, and workwith each other. The greatest advantage tothe digital flight management ystem isthat it makes flight navigation more effi­cient and reduces the crew's workload ofall the things that go into flying an air­plane. There are fewer tasks and they areeasier to do.'

'The glass cockpit was at the cuttingedge at the time,' adds Everett Webb. 'Our

concern was that nobody had committedthat technology to a commercial airplane.In order to do that, we felt we had to havevery good specifications early in the gameto get some suppliers to put in their ownmoney and develop components.'

Although Boeing employed digitalequipment and ystems on earlier planes,the technology was nowhere near as per­vasive and interactive between subsy temsas on the 767 and 757.

Features of the flight deck, outlined inmore detail later, include:

• ix colour cathode ray tube (CRT) dis­plays;

• an electronic attitude director indicator(EADI), providing a multicoloured dis­play of information - artificial horizon,flight path, flight control, groundspeedand windshear detection;

• an ele tronic horizontal situation incli­cator (EHSI), offering an integratedmulticoloured map of the airliner's posi­tion relative to VHF stations and in tru­ment landing ystem (IL ) beams.Wind direction and velocity are hownat all times. The airliner' horizontal sit­uation, pre ent and predicted, and theaircraft's deviation from a planned ver­tical path are provided. A colour radardisplay can even be uperimpo ed onthe map, to how the location of badweather;

• a flight management computer system(FM ), which integrates navigation,guidance and performance data fun ­tions. When matched with the automat­ic pilot, the system provides accurateengi ne-thrust setti ngs and fl ight-pathguidance during all phases of flight, fromimmediately after take-off to finalapproach and landing. [t can predictthe speeds and altitudes that will resultin the best fuel economy, and commandthe aircraft to follow most fuel-efficientor shortest-time flight paths. Flightplanning, terminal area procedure androute information can be stored andretrieved;

• the Engine Indication and Crew Alert­ing y tem (E[CAS). Thi providefull-time monitoring of engine parame­ter and aircraft sy tems through the useof a computer and display system.

The 767/757 flight deck evolved from con­cept developed by Boeing and leading ele ­tronic firm in the late 1960 and 70s. [nthe early 1970s, Boeing conducted studies

of various systems di play alternatives, cul­minating in a research project called theAdvanced Systems Monitor (ASM). TheASM used a 737 simulator with two cen­trally located CRTs that displayed engineand subsystem information, and flightcrew procedural cues, in the form of check­list data. While that proved to be aremarkable tep, the A M study foundthat the absence of colour in the mono­chrome CRTs of the 1960 was a seriouhandicap; without different colours, pilotscould not accurately and, therefore, safelyassess operating conditions.

Quickly developing technology thenintroduced two key elements that wouldmake the glas cockpit feasible: the micro­processor and the colour monitor. Themicroprocessor made possible the high­tech wizardry. olour screens made thesystem usable.

37

'When we decided to use TV screen ,the initial decision was to go with bla k­and-white tubes because colour was notyet available,' says Joe Sutter. 'We werescared we'd come out with thi new planeand then have to replace all the tubes withcolour. We put pressure on de igners. \Vhad some sleeple s nights.'

RT technology was moving so fastthat the 767, five months ahead of the757, almost mis ed the chance to incorpo­rate the new glas cockpit. The 757 waactually the first of the two to fly with agla co kpit; the fir t 767s, those used onearly te t flights, actually incorporatedonly a few features of the new flight deck.

'Thank goodne the technology for thegla s cockpit was moving fa ter than wecould move 0 it developed in parallel withus,' ays John Armstrong, the 757's chieftest pilot.

Designing and Developing theGlass Cockpit

In designing the glas cockpit, Boeing wasable to benefit from its broad militaryknowledge. Much of the technology beingcon idered for future airliners was alreadybeing implemented in the company's radarand missile products and military jets. 'Myproposition was that we take some of theelectronic people on the military side andmake them part of the design team,' Taylorsays. 'There was only a small group of peoplewho did thi . We needed electronic peoplewho understood physical databases, andthey weren't that prevalent at the time.'This military savoir-faire led to the 767/757'sflight management computer system.

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND IMPROVEME TS

Taylor recalls the trials and tribulationsof developing an all-new concept: 'It was atypical engineering effort with somethingbrand-new. There were arguments overthe arrangements, technical problems,' hesays. 'We argued over where to put the keyarrangements and then there was a big dis­cus ion over what colours to use in thetubes. The process went on for months.'

The burgeoning system was not withoutits troubles, Sutter remembers. 'It was trialand error,' he ays. 'But if you do trial anderror with very smart people, they knowhow to fix the problems.'

Early designs of the glass cockpit tookinto account the views of major airlinesand their pilots, as well as the experiencegained from operating two-crew 737s.

'There were lots of meetings held wherewe were getting input from airlines andsupplier " says Webb, who, along with JoeSutter, Ron Brown and Ken Holtby, iscredited with developing the glass cockpit.'Our biggest problem was that we thoughtit was easier than it really wa . The reasonis we didn't have the experience to learnhow rough it was. It took a dedicated effortfrom supplier and our folks internally toget through that. In the long run, lookwhere it's led. It seem like it was worth it.'

The 767 project test pilot, TomEdmonds, had worked with Boeing design­ers since 1972 on a new generation of cock­pits, consulting with airline pilots and flightengineers. He spoke with them at variousstages of the design proce to en ure that

developments met the requirements ofthose who would be flying the plane.

The glas cockpit survived the manyevolution of the 7X7 programme. Even in1972, while the aircraft was constantlyundergoing revision, Boeing had devel­oped an advanced fl ight deck concept thatlooked remarkably imilar to the cockpitthat was finalized a decade later.

EICAS

One feature in the gla s cockpit that hadalways stood out was EICA , the EngineIndication and Crew Alerting System. Thedevelopment of this system, which inter­faces with many aircraft components and

F RTHER DEVELOPME TS AI D IMPROVEMENTS

evident that the increased sy tems-to-crewinteraction provided by the displays andcomputers would have to be arefullyimplemented. The objective of such a sys­tem was to enable the flight crew to oper­ate the aircraft systems as efficiently andsimply as possible, with a minimum ofhuman intervention, and to provide maxi­mum knowledge of system status andhealth. It also meant that the systems mon­itor hould not demand pilot attention forminor trends, only for system malfunctionsthat required pilot action during flight.'This was developed so that we can showthe pilot on a creen what the malfunctionis, so that he can take action,' Taylor says.

In early 1979, bolstered by support frominitial customers, Boeing management

that took place during the development ofEICA.

One of the most difficult projects wasassuring avionics reliability in the 767'sdigital cockpit. 'All those black boxes hadto talk to each other,' Holtby says. 'Wespent a lot of time in the lab trying to makeall the un it play together, and the prob­lem was that there were about six differentvendors involved. etting all the systemsto function together was a major problemwith the 767. By the time the 757 camealong, we had the bugs ironed out.'

Old-school pilots initially had some trou­ble a cepting the new technoloi,»)'. 'Thebiggest obstacle was convincing pilots inthe airlines that these modern things, likeCRTs in colour, were an advantage to them,'

United Airlines was the launch customer of the 767. The airline played a key role in the definition of the.aircraft. Ed Davies

The flight deck is both a comfortable working environment and a high-tech array of computers that can

virtually fly the aeroplanes automatically. Boeing

38

subsystems, benefited from a number ofre earch project undertaken in the decadebefore its introduction. It played a majorrole in the development of the 767 and 757flight deck, both technically in the config­uration and politically in the debates thatsurrounded two- vs. three-member co k­pits. EICAS was the single most importanttechnical advance rowards allowing the eplanes to be flown without a fl ight engineet.

Boeing quickly learned more about CRTdisplays and systems-monitoring tech­nique , particularly the importance of min­imizing required crew a tions. It hecame

authorized EICA to pro eed, as an inte­gral part of the 757 two-crew flight deck.The 767 three-crew programme was, at thetime, too far advanced for a change toEICAS. However, after two-crew cockpitswere allowed, all 767s received an EICAtwo-crew configuration as part of thethree-to-two cockpit switch.

Since the 757 was planned with EIC ,the attitudes of the first two 757 customers- Eastern and British Airways - had a sig­nificant effect upon how it was imple­mented. Both airlines were positive andencouraging during the many meetings

39

Armstrong says. 'We tried to keep the basicphilosophy so that people who flew the oldanalogue cockpits could fly these planes. Wemade it a plan to keep it very logical andmake the flight deck instrumentation looklike the older plane so a pilot could under­stand the instrumentation.'

Customer Input

As the 767 and 757 programme progressedfrom design into production, Boeing con­stantly sought feedback from potential

Completed 767s on the flight line in 1982, featuring the model's first two customers - United Airlines and

Delta Air Lines. Boeing

customers. nlike today, when manufactur­ers gather input from dozens of airlines, thedecade of the 1970s was a time when just ahandful of industry leaders decided the char­acteristics ofa new aircraft. The 767 and 757were configured around comments fromsuch industry leaders as Dick Ferris of Unit­ed Airlines and Frank Borman of EasternAirlines. Both would later place the firstorders for Boeing's new aircraft. 'In thosedays, when it came around to the basicdesign, the airline defined the requirementsand helped u to achieve it,' Sutter says.

While Boeing's family was still in devel­opment, airlines throughout the world, inparticular in the USA, reacted positively.They liked the low fuel burn per seat, themodern flight deck, the commonalitybetween the 767 ~lnd757, and the new inte­rior. till, elling an all-new aircraft was noteasy. Boeing was competing with the MO-

O, a derivative of the DC-9, and cheaper toproduce, and the A310, also a derivative,funded by four European governments.

United Airlines

United participated actively in defining the767 design, a it had done on the 727 pro­gramme.ln one of the most dramatic exam­ples of how Boeing were prepared to caterto customer demands, the maximum grosweight of United's first 767 was increased byabout 10,0001b (4,536kg). Boeing veteranssay that Boeing and United worked out theairline's needs in greater detail than hadever been done on a new aircraft pro­gramme. 'We knew exactly what to build,'

utter says. 'They had defined their missionrequirements more precisely than everbefore. This was the most complete aircraft,the most thoroughly tested, the most com­plete specifications wi th a fi rst customerthat we had ever accomplished.'

Ferris, United' chairman from 1976-87,says that the 767 was created to fulfill amission. Before buying, the airline under­took extensive research, focusing on themarket, flight frequencies and optimal

size. United collaborated with Boeing onthe design, constantly discussing whatUnited needed in its next new plane to fillthe gap between its DC-lOs and 727s. 'Wewanted a Chevrolet, not a Cadillac,' saidFerris, referring to United's quest to keepcosts down in an era of some austerity.

While United was involved in broadlydefining the 767' dimensions and capabil­ities, the company contributed in evenmore detail to decisions on the cabin inte­riors, including size and locations of galleysand toilets. During one meeting, Ferris sawa demonstration of an old-fashioned toiletand the 767's vacuum toilet. He picked thevacuum toilet.

United's biggest hallenge in the 767programme was to convince the powerfulpilot's union to accept the planned two­crew cockpit. United was still staffingsmaller 737s with three crew members, ata time when other airlines were opting fortwo. 'We had to convince them it wasacceptable and safe,' Ferri says.

Even as United was working with Boe­ing to define the specifics of the newplane, the airline was entertaining offersfrom both Airbus and McDonnell Douglasfor new wide-bodies. In the end, Ferrispicked the 767. 'It was fa tel', more fuel­efficient and had a bunch of new technol­ogy,' he says today.

United was not the only airline to showconfidence in the new model. The 767programme received a huge boost on 15November 1978, when the second- andthird-largest U carriers, American Air­lines and Delta Air Lines, set a single-dayBoeing ale record. In an order worth 2billion in total, American ordered 30 air­craft and Delta 20. Both airlines neededthe new aircraft to expand their U coast­to-coast service and to replace 707s andDC-8s. Each aircraft cost 25 million in1978 dollars. The order - combined withUnited' launch - gave Boeing 0 firmorders and 79 options for a backlog of 3.1billion; it wa enough to recover the devel­opment co t . Assembly on the first 767was able to begin in April 1980, with finalassembly being ompleted a year later.

Eastern Airlines

The 757 became a fully-fledged produc­tion programme when Eastern Airlinesand British Airways igned, on 23 March1979, contracts for 21 planes, worth 1 bi I­lion. The airlines had agreed in August197 eventually to take delivery of a totalof 82 models of the type.

Eastern irlines (now defunct) hadshown an early interest in the 757, evenwhen it was known as the 7 7, wi th aview to replacing its ageing fleet. In thelate 1970 , Eastern had the oldest fleet inthe bu iness, with fir t-generation DC-9and 72 7s, and even a few Lockheed Elec­tras. 'We desperately needed to upgradeour fleet,' recalls Frank Borman. 'We werecompeting in dense markets. We neededan airplane that combined low eat-milecost with low overall airplrllle cost.' Sixtyper cent of Eastern's fleet was inefficient,and the airline was competing with Delta,which was in the middle of a fleet-mod­ernizing programme. The airline alsoneeded to bridge the seating capacity gapbetween it 727s and the irbu A300.'We went to Boeing and said, "Hey, weneed a new plane",' says Borman.

The first plane offered was the 727-300,but, when that proposal was dropped,

Boeing came to Borman with what wouldhave been the 160-passenger 757-100.'We said we didn't want it,' Borman says.'It wasn't big enough. We gelled theirdesign team and told them to try again.'Eastern consulted a great deal with Boeingduring the 757's design evolution. 'It's agreat tribute to Boeing,' say Borman. 'Wewanted the cheapest plane we could getand they accommodated us.'

The 757's greatest feature - the all-newdigital flight deck - was not on Ea tern'wi h Iist, partly because of the airl ine'sneed for thrift. Eastern was planning for aconventional flight deck before the deci­sion was made to give the 757 the glasscockpit. As Borman recalls, '''T'' Wilson[Boeing president] called me one day andaid, "Hey, you've got to come out here,

I've got a deal for you." [ was in no rush totravel. [ had just had hand surgery, and myhand was hurting.' The trip to eattle wasworth it, though. Boeing howed Bormanthe plans for the newly designed cockpit.The technology-loving Borman, an ex­astronaut who had commanded the Apol­lo 8 mission that had orbited the moon in1968, and an Air Force test pilot, washooked. Wil on, eager to pleas the 757'sfirst customer, made a deal with Borman:Boeing would put the glass cockpit in East­ern's batch of planes at no extra cost.

Months later, Tex Boullioun, president ofBoeing' commercial aircraft group, wasattempting to close the deal with Frank Bor­man after several days of meetings in Miami.They had reached an impa se. Bormandecided to go the airport with Boullioun.The car bounced over some railroad tracksand Boullioun suddenly said, 'OK, Frank,you've got a deal.' It was as if the bump hadjolted him finally to make the agreement.

The agreement for the first 757s wasbased on what was known as afe HarborLeasing, a new tax bill that enabled com­panies heavily in debt, as Ea tern was, tosell tax write-offs to profitable firm. Bor­man planned to finance the 757s with cashraised from afe Harbor income, but, afterthe ontraet was signed with Boeing, themedia began to criticize Safe Harbor as arefuge for inefficient companies. By 198[,

ongre s revised the law, putting Eastern's560 million order in jeopardy. After a

meeting in Seattle, Borman left with Boe­ing's promise to provide ufficient financ­ing for the new planes.

At the contract igning, Borman con­firmed how pleased he was with the newaircraft: 'With this order, Eastern takes

another major tep toward compiling thefleet of fuel-efficient, environmentallyacceptable, highly productive aircraftessential to any successful airline betweennow and the end of the century.' (Unfor­tunately, his statement was to prove to beironic, with Eastern ceasing operations in[991.) He went on to say, 'The 757 is aclassic example of how airl ines are co­operating with aircraft designers and man­ufacturers to make the mo t of technologyin conserving fuel and maintaining thelowest possible fare through operatingefficiency.'

Like United on the 767, Eastern wasclosely involved in designing the new plane.The airline's flight attendants, for example,played a role in selecting galley locationsand participated in mock-ups at Boeing.'Everyone wa looking forward to the air­plane,' Borman says. 'It was customer­fri ndly and the cabin crew ju t loved it.'

By 19 0, after British Airways had signedup for 757 ,Boeing tarted to feel pre ure.[t had only two customers a little morethan a year before the plane was scheduledto roll out of the Renton fa tory. Boeingbegan to focus its marketing efforts onanother large carrier, Delta Air Lines,which, as Eastern's prime competitor, wasreluctant to buy the same plane. [n anoth­er good example of how airl ines can influ­ence the make-up of new aircraft, Boeingworked with Delta to de ign a version totheir liking; they came up with one thathad new overwing exits, and a number ofgalley amendments. By this time Pratt &Whitney came out with its PW2000engine to power the 757, and this broughtDelta on board. The airline agreed to buy60 planes in 1983, giving the programme ahuge shot in the arm.

[n launching the new planes, Boeingspent 2.5 billion on new machinery andbuilding, including 500 million on com­puters and computer-controlled manufa ­turing. The Everett plant, designed toassemble the mammoth 747, was expand­ed to accommodate the 767. At the sametim ,the Renton faCility gr w to make the757. Understandably, laun hing twoplanes at once affected Boeing's ash flow.The big challenge for Boeing managementunder president 'T' Wilson (ThorntonArnold Wilson, known to everyone a 'T')was to develop the 767, while planningimultaneously for the 757 programme,

and keeping production lines humming forthe 707, 727, 737 and 747.

40 41

FURTHER DEVELOPME TS AND IMPROVEMENTS FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS

Fuel Efficiency

Both the 767 and 757 were a result of eco­nomic necessity as much as technologicalinnovation. Rising oil prices, environ­mental concerns and inflation had airlinesscrambling for solutions in the 1970s. In1973, fuel represented 24 per cent of theoperati ng budget of every aiI'I ine. By 1982,the year the 757 was rolled out, fuel madeup 56 per cent of the budget, before costsfinally eased. Clearly, carriers neededquiet, fuel-efficient and cost-effective jets.

.. /F!!fJ300..... "'" ', ....

Porsche. This model, the A300-600, waslaunched in 1980 and delivered in 1984.Besides offering total commonality withthe A310 cockpit, the A300-600 featuredincreased use of composites, a major aero­dynamic clean-up to reduce drag, and com­mon brakes and wing tips. Today, orders forthe A300-600 and A31 0-300 continue tobe placed, but they trickle in. While theseplanes combined have sold less well thanthe 767 (about 240 A310s and 440 A300s),they greatly influenced Boeing's decisionto launch and continually refine the 767.

The Airbus A310 followed the A300. Althoughsimilar to the 767. it has not sold nearly as well asthe Boeing model. Airbus

longer-range version, the A31O-200, wasgiven the go-ahead in March 1983, andentered service in December ]985. It wasfollowed in 1987 by the A31O-300.

Meanwhile, Airbus decided that thetechnology in the A310 should be includ­ed in the A300 in much the same way asBoeing decided that the 757 and 767should share common technology. Theresult was an aircraft with at least twice theproductivity of the original A300, featur­ing the improvements from the A31O, anda new, ergonomic co kpit designed by

for its function than any previous design,addressed two important requirements - a4,300-mile (7,000-km) range and efficientshort-range performance. However, unlikethe 767's wing, the A310's small wing hin­dered the aircraft's ultimate long-rangecapability. 'In hindsight, I think we shouldprobably have put a larger wing on theA310,' says Adam Brown, Airbus vice­president of strategic planning. 'Thesmaller design lacks the fuel volume andarea needed to provide the very long rangesought by customers in recent years.'

Boeing'sjoe Sutter agrees. According tohim, one of the main reasons why the 767was more popular than the A3] Os wasbecause of its larger wings. The smallerwings have contributed significantly tothe fact that the A3] 0 is virtually out ofproduction today.

Other innovations on the A310 includ­ed new, smaller horizontal tail surfaces witha carbon-fibre composite main structure,carbon-fibre composite fin and commonengine pylons, which were able to accom­modate for the first time both GE and Pratt& Whitney engines. The A310 also wentinto service with a digital flight deck basedaround six screens, just like in the 767/757.New, push-button technology was intro­duced, combining many of the tasks previ­ously needing separate operations. A

by Indonesia's Garuda in 1982. Eastern,which had ordered the first 757, also gavethe A300 credibility in Boeing's backyardwhen its first A300 entered service, in july1977.

By the mid-1970s, Airbus was consider­ing three derivatives based on the A300fuselage, called the B9, BI0 and Bll. Thefirst was a major stretch of the A300, thesecond a short-fuselage version, and thethird a four-engine, very long-range air­craft. It was decided that the BI0 would befirst, and, following a failed attempt byBoeing to convince Airbus to develop theaircraft jointly (when the BI0 became,briefly, the BBI0), th A300-BI0, laterknown as the A310, was launched in july1978. The A31 O's wing, which featured ad isti nct twist at the root, and was smaller

Concordes, which was grabbing headlinesaround the world. Yet, while the sleeksupersonic may have turned heads, it wasthe A300, the world's first wide-bodytwin-jet, that heralded a new future forEurope's civil-aircraft industry.

just as Boeing opted for two engines onits new 767, Airbus made the strategic cal­culation that a twin was essential for meet­ing tough airline requirements on operat­ing economics. The A300 included thefirst two-person flight deck for a high­capacity airliner, introduced into service

The 767 initially competed in the marketplace with the Airbus A300. the world's first wide-bodiedtwin-engined commercial aircraft. Airbus

In many ways, the 767 was a competitiveresponse to Airbus Industrie's growing lineof wide-bodied, twin-engine aircraft.

When the first A300 took off, on 28October 1972, the term 'air bus' was ageneric one adopted by the 'industry todescribe a short- to medium-range airlinerproposed to meet increasing demand onbusy European routes such as London-Paris.No European manufacturer could competewith Boeing or McDonnell Douglas. In

late 1965, a French-British group pub­lished the specifications for a 200- to 225­seat aircraft. By December 1968, thedesign of the A300 crystallized, with con­struction beginning in September 1969.The first A300, dubbed the A300B,entered service in june 1975 with Ger­manair. Airbus followed the A300 bylaunching the A31O, a shorter version, on6 july 1978, just eight days before UnitedAirlines announced its launch order forthe 767. The first A310 flew on 3 April1982, just behind the 767, which first tookto the skies on 26 Septem ber 1981.

When the first A300 rolled out atToulouse, France, in September 1972, itreceived less attention from the assembledcrowd than it perhaps deserved. Parkedopposite it was one of the prototype

The Airbus Factor

42 43

Wings of Fancy Wings of Fancy (continued)

In more than 30,000 hours of wind-tunnel testing, from 1970 until the 767's rollout. in1981, 80eing had refined anew cross-section for subsonic wings. It is slightly fatter onthe lower surface and thicker through the centre, changing the air flow over the wingfor better distribution of lift.

In a break with Boeing's tradition of using relatively small wings, with sophisticatedleading and trailing edges, the 767 and 757 are built with the all-new oversized wings.(The 767 wing is larger than that of the L-l 011, aplane which seats at least fifty morepassengers.) The 757's are slightly more swept back, and about two-thirds the area ofthose of its larger sibling. While the wings may not look very different from the wingson earlier Boeing aircraft, their design helps to make the 767 and 757 among the mostfuel-efficient commercial jets.

Most notably, the 767/757 wings are more than 20 per cent thicker than a727's, pro­viding an efficient structure, increased fuel volume, more lift and a substantial reduc­tion in drag. With more fuel capacity, the aircraft are able to fly further, or to use extrafuel to reach airports with special conditions, such as high altitude, high temperature,or both. Athicker wing also enables Boeing to lengthen the wing span. The longer spanworks on more air, producing less drag (the force acting against the wing surface) toslow the aircraft.

The family's wings are also designed differently in respect of how the air passes overthem. All wings generate lift because of the way they are curved. At some point as theair passes towards the back of the wing, the air no longer flows in streamlines, butbreaks away in eddies. These cause aerodynamic drag. The higher the drag level, theless efficient the aircraft. Less drag means higher speed for the same amount of fuelburned. Alternatively, it means a combination of more payload carried further on less

fuel at the same speed. Less drag also means the wing can be swept back less for anyspeed. Besides being amore efficient fuel tank, a fatter wing that is less swept is eas­ier to design.

Another feature of the family's wings is asharper leading edge, forcing on-rushing airto turn less as the wing cuts through it. This, along with a simple wing-flap system,means less drag and lower engine power requirements, and, therefore, less noise ontake-off and approach.

The advanced-technology wing design enables the 767, in particular, to climb morequickly than any other medium-range jetliner to cruising altitude, where the thinner airimposes less drag on the aircraft, allowing maximum efficiency. This accounts for apor­tion of the aircraft's fuel savings - the time required from take-off to cruise is key to ajetliner's fuel consumption. The new wing shape accounts for about 5 per cent lof 35per centl of the 767's fuel-saving advantages over airliners of earlier design. In addi­tion, using composite materials on the wings leads to an 8 per cent improvement instrength and fatigue characteristics over previous wings.

Unlike the 727, the 757 was initially designed for economical. short-haul routes,where speed was less vital. Boeing calculated that climb consumed 60 per cent of thefuel that the 757 would use on a 575-mile (920-km) trip. It was therefore expected tospend almost as much time climbing and descending as cruising. As a result, the wing

To test the wing, Boeing put it through rigorous testing. During the final static test of

the 767 airframe, a load test was conducted that pulled the wingtips up 15.5 feet (4.7 m)

over the top of the fuselage at a pressure of 1.2 million pounds 1544,320 kg). The wing

did not break. Boeing

44

was optimijed for a Mach .80 cruise. The 757's big wing houses double-slotted flapson the rear and a series of slats that run the full length of the front. These flaps com­bine to produce outstanding take-off and landing characteristics, which are virtuallyunmatched, even today. The wing is slanted upwards at 5degrees.

The 767/757 wings are made up of the following components: outboard low-speedailerons; inboard high-speed ailerons, which droop in unison with flap extension toreduce fuselage angle of attack during approach; flight and ground spoilers on the wing;and conventional rudder and elevators. The leading-edge flaps are in six sections on

each half-span, and can be set at varying positions as a function of the trailing-edgeflap position, in order to achieve best performance throughout take-off and landing.Single-slotted flaps occupy the trailing edge between the two sets of ailerons, andbetween the inboard ailerons and the fuselage. The spoilers are electrically com­manded; other control systems are conventional.

The 767's revolutionary wing is a key to the model's fuel efficiency. Boeing

45

F RTIIER DEVELOPME TS A 0 IMPROVEMENTS

CHAPTER FIVE

61ft lin(18.62m)

52ft(15.85m)

681n(172.7cm)

681n(l72.7cm)

~ 18.01n (45.7cm)

~ 19.0In (48.3cm)

... 0

that did not ju tify the services of a 747.The extended-range versions made it

possible for the model to fly the same routesemployed by larger, more expensive aircraft

159ft 21n(48.51m)

0 ....·........ ·· ....e......•..

181 passengers

767-200 aircraft characteristics. Boeing

200 people. ome at Boeing felt that along-range 767 would cut into 747 ales,but, as it turned out, the ER was ideal foroverseas routes with an amount of traffic

A Closer Look at the 767

Individuality and SiDlilarities

The 767 is not a 'fla hy' plane. It is not asdistinctive a~ the 747, nor docs it stand outlike the 777. It may even be confused withan Airbus model. However, it is a provenperformer, and a valuable addition to anyairline's fleet.

The 767 makes use of new-generationtechnology to provide maximum efficiencyin the face of ri~ing operational costs, whileextending twin-aisle cabins to routes neverbefore served by wide-body airliner. Itscabin follow~ the tradition of spaciousnessestabl ished hy the 747, the fi rst wide-bod­ied airliner. In addition, thanks to the iden­tical flight decb, airl ines that operate boththe 767 and the 757 can save in trainingtime and costs by having their cockpitcrews qualified to fly both.

The first 767, the -200 model, was com­pleted and rolled out of the Everett planton 4 August 19 I, just three years after

nited ordered thirty. It made its initialfl ight on 26 eptember of that year. Thatfirst 767 is still owned by Boeing.

Following the company's tradition ofstretching existing models to provide morecapacity and range, the company launchedthe 767-300 programme on 29 September19 3. The 767-200's fuselage was extend­ed by 21ft Iin (6,43m), increasing capaci­ty by 22 per cent (an extra forty passen-

• gers), and cargo volume by 31 per cent,with just 10 per cent in additional costs. Afreighter version followed in 1995.

Early 767s were hampered by their lackof range. Large S carriers, includingDelta and Ameri an, convinced Boeing totake advantage of the 767's growth poten­tial. Even Boeing's marketing people urgedthe company to give the model extra legs,so that it could fly the lucrative We tCoast-Hawaii route. This resulted in thedevelopment of the 767-200ER ('extend­ed range') and, later, the stretched 767­3 OER. These versions gave airlines awille-body with intercontinental range,generous cargo space and twin-engineeconomy in a plane carrying more than

The Magic of Flight

When a plane barrels down a runway. looking as if itis straining to get off the ground. the opposite is actu­ally happening - at take-off speed. the plane can onlyleave the ground. The strain is the force of gravitypulling the weight of the plane towards the ground.as it rises in response to the upward pressure fromthe flow of air around the wings.

Providing an aircraft has wings. flying it is simply amatter of pushing it along the ground until it is goingfast enough; this is always the case. no matter whatits size. The groundspeed necessary is determined bythe weight of the plane. and the area and shape of itswings. As speed increases. an upward force is gen­erated on the wings. which should eventually over­come the weight and lift the plane off the ground.

Asuccessful wing. like that of the 767 and 757. isone on which the top surface is longer than the bot­tom. looking at the wing in cross-section. As the wingis pushed along. the front edge slices through the air.forcing the air flow to be split in half. The flow overthe top of the wing meets up again with the flowunderneath at the back of a wing. The top flow trav­els farther and faster than the bottom flow. and thisdifference in speed generates negative pressure. orsuction. over the top of the wing.

The result is a force that lifts the whole aircraftsymmetrically into the air. Both of these forces areproportional to speed. so. when the plane reachesthe speed at which the upward forces are greaterthan the weight of the plane. the plane begins to liftoff the ground.

management ystem may be as high as 6per cent.

3. Both plane had new, more fuel-effi­cient powerplants.

4. Both models had improved aerodynam­ics, combined with new wings.

The efficiency of the new airl iners, com­bined with their seating capacity, gave air­lines the ability to turn money-Io ingroutes, previously served with larger air­craft, into profitalle ventures. The 767'sfuel efficiency - and lower long-term oper­ating cost - was it greatest appeal, and amajor factor in United's decision to be thelaunch customer for the type. Next toother wide-bodies, the 767-200 has a 5 percent lower seat-mile cost advantage overthe Airbus A300, and is 3 to 4 per cent bet­ter than the D -10 or L-IO 11. (The seat­mile cost i the tandard indu try measurefor an aircraft's efficiency, representing theco t of tran porting one aircraft scat onemile.) Deciding on the 767 helped Unitedto increase profits, as the modern, morecost-efficient aircraft replaced their fifteen­to twenty-year-old DC-8s.

l. Both planes were built using lightermaterial. A relentles search for suchmaterials is an important part of buildingan all-new aircraft. The goal is to carrythe mo t people in the lightest aircraft, soa great deal of attention need to be paidto structural concepts, technique andmaterials. Boeing's biggest weight sav­ings came through close attention tostructural requirements, and diligentmonitoring during the design process.For the 767 and 757, Boeing substitutedmetal with reinforced plastic or gla sfibres, and used lighter alloys extensive­ly. The 767 wa the first Boeing aircraftto replace 3,5001b (I, 716kg) of alumini­um with 1,2001b (544kg) of graphite andgraphite/Kevlar composites; these mate­rials were lighter and stronger than thetraditional aluminium or fibreglass, andfuel consumption was reduced throughweight savings. On the 757, advancedgraphite or hybrid composites were usedin virtually all areas that were not prima­ry structure, saving almo t 1,1401b(513kg). An additional 650lb (292.5kg)were saved in the wing through the useof new, improved aluminium alloys. Car­bon brakes save another 650lb (295kg)of weight, and have the added advantageof lasting longer than conventional steelbrakes. On the 757 alone, state-of-the­art composite materials and improvedalloys produced a weight saving of2,0001b (900kg) over an identically izedaircraft of the previous generation, sav­ing about 30,000 gallon -of fuel (113,550litres) a year for an aircraft making 1,4 0trip of 1,150 mile (I, 40km). On bothaircraft, advanced composite uch agraphite/epoxy ar used in control sur­faces (including rudder, elevators andailerons), aerodynamic fairings, enginecowlings and landing-gear door. Thiswas the mo t extensive use of compositesever on a commercial aircraft.

2. The new electronic in the glass cockpitcontributed to fuel efficiency. omput­er-guided avionics are able to controlfuel burn by plotting the most efficientflight plan. Estimated fuel-burn savingsderived from the fully automatic flight

stay at or below projected pecificationweights. This amounted to savings to air­line of more than 1.2 million per air­craft, in fuel alone.

Below are more details of how improvedtechnology was able to give the 767 and 757their revolutionary fuel efficiency:

As fuel prices rose, older jetl iner, uchas the 727 and 737, became increasinglymore expensive to operate. World-wideconcern over noise pollution also requirednew jetliners to be quieter. (Both the 767and 757 are among the quietest in theworld; the sound of one of them taking offis equivalent to average street-cornernoise.) Boeing now had two aircraft thatcould help cut fuel bills and add to the air­lines' bottom line. When sale men beganto show the planes to the airl ines, fuel effi­ciency was the biggest selling point: the767-200 could replace the 727-200 andoff: r a 50 per ent increase in payloadwithout burning any more fuel. The 767would be 54 per cent more fuel-efficientthan the 727-100, and 29 per cent morefuel-efficient than a 727-200. Replacingolder 707s and DC-8s with the new twin­jet would lead to even more savings.

The 757 was also an easy ell. It couldcarry I 6 passenger' on 15 per cent lessfuel than a 143-seat 727-200. In otherwords, an airline operating twenty 757scan carry the same number of passengers astwenty-six 727s. The combination of extraseats and improved fuel efficiency resultsin savings of 850 million gallons (3.21 bil­lion litres) of fuel over 20 years, or ahout 2million gallons (7.57 million litres) a yearper aircraft. Tho e savings can certainlypayoff over time. Of course, the aircraftthemselve are not cheap. When itdebuted, a 767 cost 46- 52 million,while the 757 cost 36- 42 million. Thelast 727, delivered in April 19 ~,cost ju tunder $20 mill ion. By 199 , the stickerprice on new 767s ranged from 83 millionto 108 million; for 757s, between $62million and 76 million.

Cutting weight from an aircraft is themost effective way to trim cost anden ure fuel efficiency. As the 757 wasde igned, Boeing created a weightimprovement campaign, calling the 757its 'Lean Machine'. In 19 0 alone, thecompany's employees came up with5,0001b (2,250kg) of reductions. To pro­mote the campaign, Boeing created alogo showing a tan and black spottedcheetah and a silver, maroon and yellow757 against a yellow sun. The 767 had asimilar programme, aimed at deliveringthe lowest possible empty weigh t consis­tent with established design criteria.More than 500 proposals were approvedfor incorporation into the aircraft, lead­ing to a weight reduction of more than6,0001b (2,700kg), enabling the 767 to

46 47

I DIVIDUALITY A D IMILARITIES

A Closer Look at the 757

(310km) per hour, and its landing speed is178 miles (287km) per hour.

Two engine models are available for allversion of the 767, ranging in thrust rat­ings from 50,000-62,000Ib of thru t(222.4-274k ) - the Pratt & WhitneyPW4056 and General Electric' F6­80C2. Early 767s were powered by Pratt &Whitney's JT9D-7R4 engine or GE's CF6­80A. All three major engine manufactur­ers provide engines for the 767-300 - thechoice i between Pratt & Whitney'PW4056, GE's CF6- C2, and the Roll ­Royce RB211-524G/1 .

At 155ft 3in (47.32m), the 757-200 is thelonge t ingle-aisle aircraft Boeing hasever produced (although its stretched ver­sion, the 757-300, has beaten that record).The 757-200 shares the same fuselagewidth (lift 7in, or 3.5m) as the 707, 727and 737, but any similarity to previousBoeing narrow-bodies ends there.

Soon after it introduction, the 757achieved a reputation as the most fuel-effi­cient plane the company had ever l uilt.Engineers had set two goals for the plane ­40 per cent more eat-miles per gallon thanthe 727-200, and a range of 2,500 miles(4,OOOkm). As it turned out, the plane was76 per cent more fuel-efficient than the 72 7­200, with a range of 4,000 miles (6,400km).

Although the 757-200 i just slightlylonger than the 72 7-2 0, it can carry morepassengers ( 17 instead of 143), because ofthe extra 26ft (7.92m) in cabin space. Thisextra space is made available by movingthe engines from the tail and alongside thefuselage to the under-wing position. Theextra capacity provided carriers withadded value on growing routes previouslyserved hy 727s and 737s.

The 757-200 has a maximum grossweight of255,500lb (115,900kg). Its initialgross weight, derived by analysis, was220,0001b (99,000kg), but after stress tests,Boeing increa ed the weight on the wingcentre ection and landing gear. Along withmore powerful engines and weight saving,this change increased the aircraft's range.

DeSigned to carry 194 passengers in atypical six-abreast layout, the 757-200 cancarry up to 239 passengers in charter er­vice, putting its capacity between that of a737-400 and a 767. Like the 767, the 757is also available in an extended-range,package and freighter version.

49ft 11in(15.21m)

44ft 6in(13.56m)

66.4in(168.7em)

53.9in(136.gem)

~-------- 17.0in (43.2em)

The 767 was the fir t plane with a sewersystem; in it, an electrically driven pumpprovides the suction that is needed to keepthe system moving. The system, alsoinstalled in later-generation 747s, was thefir t major improvement in lavatories incecommercial jets first took to the skies. The767 was also the first aircraft equipped withlavatories that were accessible by wheel­chair users.

The 767 has a cruising speed of 542 mileper hour ( 7 km) or O. Mach at 35,000ft(10,66 m). Its take-off speed is 192 miles

_____:::::;;z:::=:::::--.. /------- 20.Oin (50.8em)

155ft 3in(47.32m)

counterbalanced, so that it can be raisedusing just the slightest pressure. Pressureforces the door to conform to the bodyshape, doing away with the adjustmentrequired for conventional doors.

Lower-deck volume available for bag­gage and cargo on the air raft totals 3,07cubic ft (85.9 cubic m) for the -20 , and4,030 cubic ft (112.8 cubic m) for the-300. This capacity is mor than 45 percent greater than the lower-deck capacityof a Boeing 707, and greater than anyother commercial transport in it class.

757-200 aircraft characteristics. Boeing

Economy-classseating

Inclusive-tour seating

Business-class seating

First-class sleeperseating

passengers into the available space afterthe aerodynamicist had fini hed shapingthe body. That is why the 767 has a rec­tangular pa senger cabin with straightaisles. The flexibility of this de ign waslearned from the successful 727. It is alsothe reason why there is adequate width forthe -shaped galley at the aft pressurebulkhead. In the initial configurationdevelopment, the aft body geometry wadesigned around the space requirements ofan efficient and spacious galley, whichminimizes the use of valuable passeng r­generating floor space.

One intere ting feature in the 767 isthe technical advance of it main entrydoor. The overhead door is mechanically

Interior dimensions are in inches

~42- 19 ....--62- 19 .....-42-

- - - - - - -II ~ U I

~38-< '" 75 '" ~38-<0 <0

U U U U \

8 ABREAST

7 ABREAST

6 ABREAST

5 ABREAST

compared with 2 cubic ft (56 cubic cm) forthe DC-I 0 and L-I 11. This, along with theshape of the pres ure bulkhead, resulted inanother key selling point - a large, U­shaped galley at the aft of the cabin. Thisgalley provides a large amount of work spacefor the flight attendant, removes the workarea from passengers, and allows maximumuse of the constant section of sem rows.

Boeing's objective was to design an air­craft with low operating costs that wouldbe attractive and comfortable for passen­ger , in order to timulate high load factors(in other words, the percentage of seatfilled on a flight). The passenger cabin wasthe starting point, and the aircraft wasdesigned around it, rather than squeezing

Interior view of the 767. Boeing

such as the DCl 0 and L-I II. To allow forlong, over-water flights, new features wereadded. These included an advanced propul­sion system, an auxiliary power unit withhigh-altitude tart capability, a fourth gen­erator driven by a hydraulic motor, in­creased cargo compartment fire-suppre­sian capability, and cooling sensors for theelectroni flight instruments.

Boeing's investment paid off: since Feb­ruary 1994, the 767 has crossed the

tlantic Ocean more often than any othertype of aircraft.

The basic 767-200, at a maximum grossweight of 300,0001b (136,0 Okg), can takeoff with just 5,600ft (1,707m) of runway.Even the highest gross-weight version, the767-200ER model, with a maximum take­off weight of 395,0001b (179,I72kg), cantake off in about 9,400ft (2,865m). It canreach up to 7,660 miles (12,330km), mak­ing non-stop flight such as ew York­Beirut, London-Bombay and Tokyo­Sydney possible, with 181 passengers in athree-class configuration.

The basic 767- 00 has a maximumtake-off weight of 345,0001b (156,492kg)and can carry a two-class load of 269passenger for 4,560 miles (7,340km).The highest gross-weight 767-300ER, at412,0001b (186,883kg) maximum take-offweight, can carry 218 passengers in athree-class configuration for 7,080 miles( 11,400km).

The -200 cabin, more than 4ft (1.2m)wider than that of a single-ai Ie jetl iner,eat about 224 passengers in a typical

mixed-class configuration (six abreast infirst class in a two-by-two-by-two set-up),and seven abreast (two-by-three-by-two)in economy class. Other arrangements arepossible, including up to 325 passenger ineight-abreast eating for charter flights inthe 767-300.

The extended-range models typicallyhave three-class seating of 181 to 218 pas­sengers, using five-abreast, 747 -sized first­class eats, six-abreast business-class s ats,and seven abreast in the economy section.Boeing says that seven-abreast seating ispreferred because it means that 7 percentof the seats are next to a window or theaisle, and centre seats are only one seatfrom an aisle. Passenger studies conductedby Boeing also rate the 767 equal to the747 in passenger comfort.

This seating arrangement had the effectof opening up the cabin, re ulting in moreusable overhead storage - 2.6 cubic ft (72cubic cm) of bin space per passenger,

48 49

I DIVIDUALITY A D SIMILARITIES

(Above) A 757 interior. Unlike the wide-body 767. the 757 shares the same interior setup - two sets of threerows - as the narrowbody models that preceded it: the 707. 727 and 737. Boeing

50

(Below) The 757 in a cutaway view showing the

interior makeup. Boeing

Thanks to its versatility, the 757 is athome at just about any commercial air­port in the world. It can Fly on to thehottest plateaus, or into colde t valleys. Itcan Fly long distances or short stages withequal aplomb. Whether as a trans­continental US aircraft, or as a quick-hop'huttle, the aircraft offers unmatched fueleFFiciency. It can climb Faster and higherthan any other single-aisle twin-jet ­From sea level to 35,000Ft (11 ,000m) in19 minutes. The fact that the 757 can getinto the air so quickly is one reason whyit has been approved For operation atsome of the mo t noi e- ensitive airportin the world.

High bypass-ratio engines give theplane its quiet, Fuel-efficient reputation.The engines have large-diameter Fans thatmove mol' air outside and around the hotcore, boosting efficiency, while reducingnoise. Noise containment is further aidedby acoustic linings in the engine nacelles.Engines For the 757 are available fromRolb-Royce (RB211-535) or Pratt &Whitney (PW2000), in thru't ratings from37,000-43,000Ib (I64.7-191.3k ).

The wing on the 757 is less swept andthicker through the centre than those onearlier Boeing aircraft, permitting a longerspan. The lower wing sLllface i slightly Flat­ter, and the leading edge ~omewhat sharper.This improves lift and reduces drag, leadingto improved aerodynamic efficiency andlow fuel consumption. With its efficientwing design, the 757 needs Ie s engine~ ower for take-off and landing. Even withfull passenger payload, the 757-2 0 canoperate from runways as short as those usedby the much smaller 737-200 - about5,500ft (I ,675m) for trips up to 2,000 miles(3,22 km). The versatile 757 can use air­10rts limited by runway length, high alti­tude, hot weather and weight restrictions.In bad weather, it is capable oFlanding withrunway visibility of just 300ft (100m).

Boeing offers a virtually unlimited arrayof interior features, and every plane is cus­tomized to the needs of each airline.

The first 757-200 rolled out of theRenton plant on 13 January 1982, andmade its First Flight on 19 February 19 2.Fir t delivery was made, on 22 December19 2, to launch customer Eastern Air­line ; the a ircraFr proud Iy carried the des­ignation '757' on its silvery tail. Easternput the aircraFt into service on I January19 3. On 14 January, the British CivilAviation Authority certified the 757 toFly in the nited Kingdom, and Briti h

INDIVID ALiTY AND SIMILARITIES

Airways began to operate it on its high­den ity, intra-European routes.

Boeing had hoped that the 757 wouldbecome a proFit-making workhorse.Although it has sold less well than expect­ed over the years, it has, none the less, theenvial: Ie honour of being the world's mostFuel-efficient airliner in the short- to medi­um-range market.

Similarities Abound

In addition to the Boeing name, the 767 and757 have a number of features in common.Both models retain what Phil Condit, thechieF 757 engineer who became chairmanof Boeing in 1995, calls the 'three invio­late rule " as de cribed in the book aboutBoeing, Legend and Legacy:

Rule number one was tCll11cncs...,: when <l pilot

lo~c~ (Ill engine Oil any Boeing airplane, he must

hc ahlc to conrml [hc aircraf[ \\',[h hIS ICCI' on

[hc flom, n,)[ w,[h [hc ruJJcr pcJals - no ruJ­

dcr application ,houlJ hc nccc"ary, anJ hc can

m,"nrall1 ,[ahil,[y wi[h ju,[ thc yokc h[ccring

coillmni. Rulc numhcr two involvcJ ,rail rccov­

cry. No Bocll1g airplanc shoulJ hc pU[ in a 1'0"­

tIon 111 \\'hlch dC\'arm conrrnl IS 10'[ hcc<1u,c

[hc all' flm\ to [hc rail IS hlockcJ our. Rulc [hrcc:

cvcry Bocll1g ,"rplanc mu,[ hc ahlc to rcc,l\'cr

from it vertical or nCi.u#vcnic:11 dive.

Since the 767 and 757 were developedconcurrently, they are very imilar to eachother.

Both aircraFt are powered by twoengines and both were designed with Fuel­efFiciency as a priority. Both boast thesame electronic Flight deck, so that a pilotwho learn to Fly one type is al 0 qualiFiedto Fly the other. Within the cockpit, theadvanced Flight-management system,including the inertial reference system,caution and warning system, thru t man­agement system and electronic display,and, where equipped, the wind hearwarning system, are the same. Thehydraulic system, electrical system com­ponents, Fu I y tem, air-conditioningpacks, auxiliary power unit, and anti­skid/auto-braking ystems of the 757 and767 are also all essentially identical. Thesame fasteners are even used in theirconstruction. Both planes share similarhandling characteristics, hecklists, andvisual alerts, and have the same crew pro­cedures, oral warnings, windshield, panellocation and controls.

57

OF 1,066 non-engine replaceable unitsused on the 757, 63 per cent use the amepart number as the 767. eventy-Five percent of the mo t expen ive items on theplanes are identical, and the rest are simi­lar. Considering that the two planes arestill very different in ize and capabilities,this commonality i quite remarkable.

Cost savings can obviously be madeFrom operating both the 757 and the 767.The common cockpit and systems permittraining and qualiFication of pilots Forboth aircraFt. (The fact that pilots may Flyand remain current on both plane alsoallow Flexibility in crew assignment .)The interchangeability of parts For bothaircraFt also saves money, as does com­monality in training and in procedures Formaintenance.

Flying ix 757s and six 767s in one Fleetresults in initial savings to an airline of

2.4 million per aircraFt; these areachieved through reducing amounts ofFlight-crew training, ground supportequipment, airframe pares and Fl ight andmaintenance simulators. Airline~ also canachieve recurring savings of 2.7 million ayear per aircraft; this is achieved throughreducing Flight-crew training, mainte­nance overhead , spares overheads, andFlight-crew salarie and expen es. In addi­tion, operational cost' are reduced becausea single Flight-crew roster gives airline' theworry-Free ability to interchange 757s and767~ within route structures, and theymay even make la't-minute equipmentchanges at the gate. Thi Flexibility alsoincreases revenue opportunities, sinc air­lines operating both aircraFt an serve awider variety of markets, and can moreclosely adjust capacity to demand in themarket they already erve.

Below is a closer look at the commonal­ity Found in the dynamic duo.

The Flight Deck

Technology may dominate the 767/757cockpit, but Boeing did not Forget aboutthe people.

Development of the cockpit made u e ofhuman evaluations that considered legi­bility of equipment, con istency of proce­dures and logic of control and switchingapplications. Colours for use in caution,warning and advisory messages were stan­dardized. Pia ement of cockpit items hadto be compatible with acceptable proce­dures for normal and abnormal conditionsduring various phases of Flight. In addition

Both aircraft models were envisioned with modern flight decks. Here is a schematic of the flight deck that

would be used in both the 767 and 757. Boeing

frequency as the fl ight progresses. Theflight-management computer can sroredata on flight plans, checklists, routes,navigation aids, aircraft performance, per­forman e optimization and flight guid­ance. This information may easily be dis­played at any time during the flight.

One time-saver is the computer's abilityro compute top-of-climb and bottom-of­descent points. It does this auromaticallyduring altitude changes, and displays agreen arc on the monirors to indicatewhere the aircraft will reach a new altitudeat its current groundspeed and rate ofclimb or descent. If the ar falls beyondwhere the new altitude must be reached, athrust or pitch adjustment can be made toincrease the climb or steepen the descent.Adjustments are I' fleeted almost immedi­ately on the screen with the movement ofthe green arc repre enting the target alti­tude. Also, with a vertical navigationmode, the computer is able to determinethe best point to start the de cent and therate of descent from ruise altitude, initialapproach altitude or any other altitudeelected in advance.

The autopilot ystem in the 767 and 757is known a the autopilot flight directorsystem (AFD ). It provides flight-pathcon trol selected by the fl igh t crew. Itsoperation is controlled from the modecontrol panel, and it tatus i displayed onthe electronic airborne data indicators(EADI). Each aircraft has three flight­control computers, controlling pitch, rolland directional control. Autopilot operat­ing modes are selected on the autoflightcontrol system (AFCS) mode controlpanel. The flight-control computers uscselected mode, navigation sensor inputs,and flight-management computer inputto generate output signal. The e signalscan be u d for flight director display only,or may be used actively ro ontrol the air­craft. The auropilot flight direcror systemprovides automatic control of the aircraftin all phase of flight.

Autopilot sy tems on the 757 and 767 arefundamentally identical; both use the sameflight-management computer, with softwarespecifically tailored to each configuration.Both aircraft feature the same CAT !lIbauroland system as basic equipment. Withthis advanced function, the planes can landin visibility as Iowa 150ft (45.7m).

The captain and first officer each has apair of di plays for primary flight instrumen­tation: the ele tronic attitude directorindicaror (EAD!), and electronic horizontal

just a roo I for pilots. It provides animproved level of data for maintenancecrews, who can tell immediately whatneeds fixing. During flight, pilot can cre­ate a recording of ubsystem parametersthrough the use of a single push-button,eliminating the need for extensive hand­recording of malfunctions and perfor­mance data. These features increase thequality and a curacy of maintenance,improve ommunications between flightand ground crews, and reduce the flight­crew workload.

The 767/757 flight deck is designed ro bequiet. Indicarors are reserved for onditionsthat require such a tion as an evasivemanoeuvre, ro avoid a ollision. The cau­tion and warning system decreases thenumber of sound warnings - bells, hornsand rones - by up ro 75 per cent comparedwith previous aircraft. ound alerts are cat­egorized according to the level of crewa tion and awareness required - warning,caution and advisory. The reason for analert is immediately posted on the screens.In general, flight-deck instrumentation isde igned ro present information ro the crewin the be t way, in order to achieve accurateand rapid interpretation. Thi reduce thechance of a misdiagno is of a problem.

One key ro the improvements in flightinstrumentation is an inertial referencesystem, which makes usc of laser gyro­scopes rigidly fixed ro the airliner' struc­ture, rather than gimballed gyros, as onprevious airliner. Thi system providesmore accurate data - related to verticalspeed and fuel quantity, for example - toother flight-deck systems.

fully integrated flight-managementcomputer system (FMCS) provides auto­matic guidance and control of both the757 and 767, from immediately after take­off ro final approach and landing. Alongwith digital proce SOl'S, which control nav­igation, guidance and engine thrust, theflight-management system ensures thatthe aircraft flies the most efficient - or'lea t time' - flight path, ro achieve re­duced fuel consumption, flight time andcrew workload. The system is able ro pre­dict speeds and altitudes, resulting in thebe t fuel efficiency. The flight-manage­ment system tracks the aircraft' positionat all times. Position, heading, track,flight-plan route, location of navigationalaid, and distance and time ro destinationare continuously displayed. The computeral 0 auromatically tunes the aircraft'snavigational receivers ro the appropriate

ro help the pilots. When a control iswitched on, the 'on' light is visible even

with bright unshine filtering inro theflight deck. The 'on' indication operatesseparately from the light that indicate anabnormal condition.

The ix cathode ray tube video displaysare th dominant feature in the cockpit,easily recognized by passengers peekinginto the flight deck. Each pilot ha threeCRTs, which di play the lectronic alti­tude direcror indicaror, electronic hori­zontal situation indicaror and flight-man­agement system control unit.

To make sure that all gauges and switch­esare within the reach of both th captain'sand first officer's seats, Boeing automatedthe operation and monitoring of many ofthe air raft's systems. A typical example isthe auxiliary power unit - used ro start theengines and provide power in the plane ­which consists of one three-pOSition knobabove the captain. Turning the knob ro'start' initiates the start process; the rest isautomatic. The sy tem monitors it elf andauromatically huts down if any operatingparameters are exceeded.

Previous Boeing models used electro­mechanical indicarors, which requiredconstant moniroring by the flight crew.The many dial and gauges also used up

onsiderable space on the flight deck.These systems did not offer the versatil ityof modern digital technology.

The 767/757 provides full-time moni­roring of engine and aircraft systems,through the use of a computer and displaysystem known as the Engine Indicationand Crew Alerting System (EICAS).EICAS, found on the centre instrumentpanel, improves cockpit management byreducing the amount of panel spacerequired for engine instrument display. Itreduces crew workload by effectively mon­itoring engine parameters, and displayingsystem status messages through all phasesof flight, from engine start to post-flightmaintenance. EICAS also displays colour­coded alert mes ages that communicateboth the type of failure and the urgency ofthat failure. Only the parameters requiredto set and monitor engine thrust are dis­played all the time.

With EICA , pilots are alerted to anyproblems with th ngines or the plane,from before take-off, through the flight, toafter the landing. The system makes avail­able pre-flight data, which is helpful in di ­patching the aircraft, and maintenancdata for ground personnel. EICAS is not

Lighting control

Clock

aerodynamic sound levels are lower thanthose of older aircraft.

Pilots are required to sit for long periodin a relatively small space, 0 the cockpitscats can be raised or lowered to the correcteye level for pilots. heared-Iambskin seatcovers arc standard, as a result of a Boeingcat-comfort evaluation. In the tests, in­

strumented seats of variou types of cover­ings were used during simulated flights;levels of fatigue were measured by record­ing pilot movement. Lambskin proved to

be the least tiring scat surface, and alsoallowed for better air circulation. Studiesusing crew member of a variety of sizes andheights allowed Boeing to ensure that con­trols, instrument and warning lights werewithin the reach and vision of everyone.

The glare shield over th forward instru­ment panel provide a clear view of theinstruments for pilors and for those inobserver cat. The pilots' control columnsand wheel were designed and ituated soas not to interfere with the pilot' view ofthe flight instruments. Even standardpush-buttons were changed in an attempt

HSI

Magnetic compass

ROMI

Legend:AOI Attitude director indicatorEICAS Engine indication and crew alerting systemHSI Horizontal situation indicatorROMI Radio distance magnetic indicatorVOR VHF omnidirectional range

controls and instruments were finali:edfollowing human-engineering studie .

djustable eats, lower noise levels,more efficient air-conditioning, better vis­ibility, simplified procedures and accessi­bility of all controls to either pilot arc justsome of the ways in which the cockpitcater' to crew comfort. The cockpit itselfis more spaciou than that of any carl ierBoeing jerliner. The cockpit's inward­opening door is offset to the left, so that apilot can enter or leave the flight deckwithout disturbing the observer on the leftside behind the captain, or the occupant ofthe observer eat on the right. Inside, thecockpit is wider than the 747' at thepilot' shoulders. The windshield is flatand the side windows are curved, using ade ign that ha been shown to decreaseaerodynamic noise in the cockpit. Even attop cruising speed, noise levels in thecockpit and passenger cabin are low. Boe­ing's own measurement of flight-deckound level, taken in order ro ensure

that cusrom I' guarantees have beenmet, indicates that air-conditioning and

Autobrake Alternate flap

Standby airspeed and altimeterClock

Vertical speed

Instrument source select switches

Glareshield

VOR (L)Master caution and warning

Roeing was able to prove that the newcockpits led ro lighter crew workloads;studies on flight-crew hand-eye morionshowed that the 767/757 required lesswork than previou jerliners. This wasdone parrly by leaving as many systems aspossible in the 'on' position, so that con­trol panels do nor have to be scannedrepeatedly before and after engine start.As a result, the pre-flight checklist isrelatively short. The 767/757 flight deckoffers increased reliability and advancedfeatures, compared with older electro­mechanical instruments.

The fl ight deck has a low-profile controlcolumn, designed to give pilot a full viewof the in trument panel. Pilot also enjoyexcellent vi ibility, with a front wind­shield that is considerably larger than thaton previous Boeing aircraft, allowing forgood downward vision. This gives theflight crew a better view of runway lightson approach in poor weather.

All of the flight deck's systems controlsare also within reach of either pilot. Theoptimum design and positioning of all

52 53

I DIVIDUALITY AND SIMILARITIES

Both the 767 and 757 have flexible cabins to allow for different classes of service ora one-class charter configuration. Bulkheads such as this one in a 757 serve to breakup the long fuselage. Bill Dellinges

757 seating diagrams. Boeing

All primary flight control are hydrauli­cally powered. The elevators and ru Iderare powered by three hydraulic sy tems,and each aileron is powered by twohydraulic system. Each spoiler is poweredby a single hydraulic system and is electri­cally commanded.

Flight-deck indications and ontrols forboth aircraft are almost identical, but dif­ferences in aircraft size, aerodynamics andmission requirements produce some differ­ences in flight controls. For example, the757 actuator have pres ure-reducers, andeach elevator is commanded by a singleload path linkage with centring prings;the 767 uses a linkage backed up by asleeve cable.

redundancy - if one fails, two more areready to take over.

The horizontal stabilizer is driven byan electrically controlled, hydraulicallypowered ballscrew actuator. Leading­edge flaps are mechanically controlledand hydraulically powered, using torquetubes and rotary actuators. Alternateoperation i by electric control and anelectric motor through the same torquetubes and rotary actuators. Trailing-edgeand leading-edge flaps are mechanicallycontrolled and hydraulically powered,using torque tubes and transmissions.Alternate operation is by electric controland an electric motor through the sametorque tubes and transmission.

larger in capacity, has ten: four cabin doors,four emergency exits and the cockpit win­dows. Interior and exterior lights are almostidentical on the 757 and 767.

Three class

767 seating diagrams. Boeing

• InclUSive tour

• Two class

Flight Controls

The 767 and 757 share the same flightcontrols: ailerons, which control the lon­gitudinal axi (roll); the elevators, whichcontrol the lateral axis (pitch); and therudder, which controls the vertical axis(yaw). The secondary flight controls arethe spoiler and speedbrake , horizontalstabilizer, leading-edge lats and trailing­edge flaps. All are controlled by electricaland hydraulic cables and wire with triple

door Jide into the ceiling. The overwingexit on both planes are similar to thoseused on the 707, 727 and 737 models.

The 757 and 767 passenger accommoda­tion and cargo systems are essentially thesame, except that the 767 has vacuum lava­tories - a feature incorporated on the newer757 -300. Minor systems differences, such asplumbing and compartmental quanti tie ,are required to accommodate differ nces infuselage size (single as opposed to twoaisles), and passenger counts.

The 757 has twelve exits: six cabin door,four overwing emergency exits and twocockpit window hatche . The 767, although

The two aircraft hare similar fuselagewindow, located in three distinct areas:the flight deck, the passenger cabin, andservice and emergency doors. Both offeraccess to various compartmen ts and serviceareas through different-sized entry, service,emergency, cargo and access doors. Thesetnclude passenger doors, emergency exits,cargo doors, landing-gear doors, externalground power receptacles, a toilet ervicedoor, water service door, hydraulic acce sdoors, APU acce door, elevator controlsaccess door and aft body access door.

On the 757, the passenger doors openon hinges in the usual way; on the 767, the

The Passenger Cabin

abin systems provide for the comfort andconvenience of passengers and crew mem­bers, for the handling and stowing of cargo,and for passenger and crew safety in anemergency. The y tems include furnish­ing , lighting, oxygen, galleys and lavatories.The 757 and 767 share many of the sameelement in the pas enger cabin, includingseats, towage bin, carpeting, eat racks,flotation device, and dozens of other items.When the aircraft debuted, both featured anew interior design with pleasing line andmore efficient stowage bins.

communication controls. Both planehave dual Very High Frequency (VHF)radios as basic equipment.

Boeing model that debuted after thedynamic duo, in luding the 737-300/400/500,747-400,777 and the new gener­ation of 73 7s, sport digital flight decks sim­ilar to that found on the 767/757, inte­grating hundred of software upgradefrom the earlie t 757 and 767s. oftwarein older models i' constantly updated, sothat a ten-year-old aircraft will carry thelarest technology. Likewise, newer 757sand 767s feature the most up-to-date con­figurations.

ituation indicator. The 767/757 EADI pro­vide a HllIlticoloured display of informationpreviously found on attitude director indi­cators. This gives attitude information usingan artificial horizon, and flight-path infor­mation showing the aircraft's position rela­tive to the Instrument Landing System. Inaddition, the EADI indicates the mode inwhich the automatic pilot flight control sys­tem is operating and presents a digital read­out from the radio altimeter. Groundspeed isdisplayed digitally at all times near the air­speed indicator.

The electronic horizontal situationindicator (EH I) provides an integratedmulticoloured map display of the plane'sposition, plus a colour weather radar. Thescale for the radar and map can be select­ed by the pilots. Wind direction and veloc­ity for the airliner's pre ent po ition andaltitude, provided by the Inertial Refer­ence ystem, is shown at all times. Boththe horizontal ituation of the aircraft andits deviation from the planned verticalpath are al'o provided, making the EH I athree-dimen ional situation indicator. Inpoor weather, the colour weather radar canbe displayed on the EI-ISI. Route, airportand other information can be superim­posed over the weather imagery to enablecrews to avoid severe weather, while stay­ing relatively on course. Thi also helpsflight crews steer clear of turbulence; byinserting the relevant coordinates, pilotcan outline the area of turbulence on theroute map displays, and that outline can beseen in relation to the route the aircraft istaking. (The crew in an aircraft without aglass cockpit is provided with a tear-offpaper map, and required to plot turhulencemanually.)

The 757 and 767 are available with awindshear-detection sy tem. Caused by aviolent down bur t of air that changes speedand direction a it trike the ground, wind-hear can interfere with a normal take-off

or landing, and lead to deadly accidents.The detection system alerts flight crews,and provides fl ight-path guidance so thatwindshear may be avoided.

The communications system allows forcontact between the ground and the air­craft, a well as from the flight deck to thepassengers. A voice recorder records thela t thirty minutes of flight-crew commu­nications and conversations, and this isretrieved in the event of an accident.

ommunication y tems on the 757 and767 are virtually the same, with both usingthe same line-replaceable units and

54 55

I DIVIDUALITY A D SIMILARITIES

Landing Gear

Fuel Systems

Fuel systems on the 757 and 767 operate ina imilar manner, and maintenance is vir­tually the same. Both aircraFt have thsame Fuel-system controls and displayread-outs on the fl ight deck, Follow thesame basic layouts and have many com­mon parts, but there are diFFeren es in tankgeometry and tubing sizes, and they havecompletely diFFerent boost pumps. Al­though both aircraFt have three separateFuel tanks, the 757 wing centre ection isan active part of the centre Fuel tank. Onthe 767, the centre section is used For Fuelon the extended-range models only.

The Fuelling panel For the 757 i locatedon the right wing; on the 767, the panel ison the leFt wing. Fuel capacity of the 767­200 and -300 is 16,700 gallons (63,216litres). Extended-range models have anadditional 7,44 gallons (28,163 litre) ina econd centre tank. The 757's Fuel capac­ity is 11,276 gallons (42,6 4 litre ); ERversions carry slightly more.

Wings

The wings on both the 767 and 757 storeFuel, house the Fuel-system equipment, sup­port the engines and contain the flaps,spoilers and aileron. The primary struc­tures are aluminium, and they consist ofthe Front and rear spars, upper and lowerspar chords, web, skin panels and stringer,and ribs. The upper and lower par chordextrusions attach to the Front and rear sparwebs. Chord, stiFFeners and web make upthe ribs. Conventional ribs are spacedthrough the entire wing. Shear tie ribs di ­tribute speciFic loads to the wing Frame.The landing gear is supported by the land­ing-gear support beam and rear spar.

The econdary structures onsist of theleading edge, trailing edge and wing tip.The leading edge i cantilevered ForwardFrom the Front par, and i made of alu­minium ribs and skin panels. The leading­edge slats atta h to the leading edge. Thetrailing edge is cantilevered aFt From therear spar, and upports the flaps, aileronand spoilers. The wing tip is an aerody­namic Fairing covering the outboard endsof the wing. avigation Iights attach toeach wing tip.

Auxiliary Power Unit (APU)

The auxiliary power unit supplies electri­cal and pneumatic power For the aircraft.

Distribution system component, such as Fit­tings, valve and tubing, are identical Foralmost all installations. Titanium tubing isused For pressurized lines. The Filtration sys­tem is similar For both planes, with pressureand case drain Filters For each pump andreturn Filters For each system.

Hydraulic system flight-deck indicationsand controls For both aircraFt are almostidentical. Minor diFFerences reflect the twodistinct hydraulic power sy tem architec­tures, which are based on subtleties in 757and 767 control surface requirements. Forexample, the 757 uses only outboardailerons, whereas the 767 employ inboardand outboard ailerons. The landing gearand high-liFt devi es are hydraulically pow­ered by the leFt hydraulic system on the757, and by the centre hydraulic system onthe 767. Power For the left hydraulic systemi supplied by an engine-motor pump, anelectric-motor pump, and a power tran Ferunit that is driven From the right hydraulicsystem iF power is lost on the leFt one.Power For the 767 entre hydraulic systemi provided by two electric pumps and anair-driven pump.

procedures For each landing-gear y tem,however, are almost identical.

Hydraulic Systems

Three Functionall y independent, Fu ll­time systems provide hydraulic power ForFully powered flight controls, landinggear, thru t reversers, high-liFt and brak­ing ystems. Hydraulic sy tem reservoirsare pre urized with bleed air From eitherengine, the <Iuxiliary power system orground air carts. Hydraulic systems Forthe 767 and 757 are basically identical;with only the size diFfering. Thehydraulic systems For both aircraFt aredesigned to operate in the same mannerwith Full redundancy.

The 767 and 757 use identical engine­driven and electric motor-driven pumps togenerate hydraulic power, and similar ramair turbines provide back-up hydraulicpower to the centre system For primary flightcontrol actuation. Hydraulic ystem servic­ing is very similar because both models haveparts in common, including Fill serviceselector val ves and ground connections.

The 767's landing gear and tyres are larger than a 757's to reflect its heavier weight.Boeing

inputs to the steering metering valve. Abroken cable compensator is in tailed, to

prevent a su tained steering input iF thecable Fails. The 757 incorporates the sameconcept used on the n 7, 737 and 747 to

prevent rudder-pedal steering when the air­craFt i flying. osegear For the 757 and 767is similar to that on the 737 but i larger.

Both the 767 and 757 have two unbrakedwheel For the nosegear and Four brakedwh els For each main gear, For a total ofeight. The 767 and 757 brakes, mainwheels, nosewheels and tyres are diFFerent,but certified the same. Maintenance

The 757 and 767 have two unbraked nosegear wheels. Shown here is a 757.Bill Dellinges

Landing gear on both aircraFt is retractedby the left hydrauli system, which con­sists of the leFt ngin -driven pump andone electric pump. IF the engine-drivenpump i inoperative, the right hydraulicsystem operates a power transFer unit toretract the gear.

The nosewheel steering sy tems providerudder-pedal teering and steering via thetiller. Hydraulic control consists of thesteering metering valve and steering actua­tors. A single-loop cable system provides

The main landing gear of the 757 has two sets of four braked wheels.Bill Dellinges

The 767 employ both inboard and out­board ailerons with boost actuators For thecontrol cables. The outboard ailerons arelocked out For high-speed flight, and theinboard ailerons are drooped, to supple­ment the flaps. The 757 has one aileronon each wing and no cable boost. The 767uses all twelve poilers in flight. The 757has ten spoilers, and spoiler number 4and 9 are used only on the ground. The767 has twelve lats, while the 757 hasten. The 757 has double-slotted inboardand outboard flaps; the 767 outboard flapsare single-slotted.

56 57

A full-scale 757 mock-up, used prior to assembly. Today, computers are used to design new planes,eliminating this time-consuming step. Boeing

On the ground, the APU make the planeindependent of support equipment. TheGarrett-made AP is controlled by anelectronic control unit located in the backof the plane. Th el ctrical control unitco-ordinates the starting sequence, moni­tors the operation and pneumatic outputof the APU, and ensures proper shutdown.The Engine Indication and Crew Alerting

ystem (EICA ) shows the flight crew theAP exhaust gas temperature, revolutionper minute and oil status. The AP is war­ranted to start up to an altitude of 35,000ft(I ,670m).

The APU supplies all the power neededfor air-conditioning on the ground. Eachof the three cabin zones in the aircraft hasa separate automatic temperature control.

onditioned air is mixed by air-condition­ing packs with recirculated and filtered airfrom two recirculation fan. Flight-deckair distribution i through ducting to vari­ous floor, shoulder and windshield outlets.Passenger-compartment air is distributedthrough sidewall risers and overhead ductto the passenger areas, lavatories and gal­leys. Exhaust air from the lavatories andgalleys is routed through a network ofducts, valves and fans, and is dischargedoverboard.

Air Systems

The 767 and 757 use basically the sameheating, cooling, pre surization and air­conditioning packs. Components for thecabin-pressure control system are identi­cal. Because of aircraft performance differ­ences, the climb schedules for the two air­craft vary and arc selectable for eachmodel. The 767/757 electrical and elec­tronic cooling systems are functionallyand operationally similar. Both systems usesimilar fans, ducting, valve and avionicsinstallations, and hoth have similar warn­ing and indication systems.

Pressure inside the cabin i controlledby regulating the discharge of air from theaircraft. Manual and automatic controlsfor this system are located on the pilots'overhead panel.

Composite Materials

Both the 757 and 767 were among the firstto take advantage of new-technology com­posites that are lighter and stronger thanaluminium, and this is a key factor in theirfuel efficiency. ignificant weight savingswere made by substituting carbon and

INDIVIDUALITY A D SIMILARITIES

aramid advanced fibre composite materialsfor conventional metal and fibr glass con­struction. These materials also provideimproved resistance to fatigue, orrosionand onic effects, and superior aerodynam­ic surfaces.

arbon fibre is used for the primarymovable surfaces, such as the ailerons, ele­vators, rudder, spoilers and aft flaps. Car­bon-reinforced aramid-fibregla hybridsare used for secondary fairing structure.High-strength cure carbon-epoxy rawmaterial is used for the majority of thecomponents. Large surface panels use hon­eycomb sandwich construction, with solidlaminate edge bands for attachment tosupporting structures. Each aluminiumcomponent is anodized, primed and enam­elled individually. An isolating sealant isapplied to all contact surface at assembly,and on all fasteners. Corrosion-resistantsteel or titanium fasteners are used exclu­sively with carbon components.

The use of titanium has greatly in­creased in both aircraft. Titanium alloyforgings are used in the main landing-gearsupport structure, and for various fuselageand nacelle strut fittings. Titanium is alsoused for high-pressure tubing and ducting,and for firewalls, door thresholds and scuffplate. The primary fuselage bulkheads arethe forward pressure nose and main-gearwheel wells, and the front -par and rearspar, main landing gear, aft pre ure andhorizontal tabili:er pivot bulkheads.

The pas enger floor structure is a built­up grid system consisting of floorbeams,stahilizing straps, scat or freight tie-downtracks, and floor panels. Seat tracks aremade of aluminium extrusions, anddesigned to allow placement of scats any­where along the floor. Galleys and lavato­ries are attached to the floor tructureusing pecial fittings. Tracks made fromstainless steel may be used when quickremoval and replacement of the galley isrequired. Floor panels are lightweight lam­inations composed of fibreglass skins withan aluminium honeycomb core.

Fire Protection

Both aircraft share the same potent fire­protection ystem. Two fire-extinguisherbottles can be directed to either engine.The auxiliary power unit also has two firedetectors, but only one extinguisher. Thelower cargo compartment have dualsmoke detectors, as do all lavatories,which activate the fire-warning system if

58

Suppliers

Bringing hundreds of thousands of parts together tobuild an aircraft requires support from hundreds ofsuppliers. Some of the contractors for the 767 includeBoeing Helicopters (wing-fixed leading edges);Northrop Grumman (wing centre section and adja­cent lower fuselage section and fuselage bulkheads);Vought Aircraft (horizontal tail); Canadair (rear fuse­lagel; Alenia (wing control surfaces, flaps and lead­ing-edge slats, wing tips, elevators, fin and rudder,and nose radome); Fuji (wing fairings and main land­ing-gear doorsl; Kawasaki (centre fuselage body pan­els, exit hatches, wing in-spar ribs); and Mitsubishi(rear fuselage body panels. stringers, passenger andcargo doors, and dorsal fin.)

On the 757, contractors include Hawker de Havil­land (wing in-spar ribs); Shorts (inboard flaps); CASA(outboard flaps); Boeing's Renton facility (leading­edge slats, main cabin sections); Boeing Helicopters(fixed leading edges); Boeing Military (flight deck);Northrop Grumman (overwing spoiler panels); HeathTecna (wing/fuselage and flap track fairings);Schweizer (wing tips); Vought Aircraft (fin andtailplane and extreme rear fuselage); Rohr (enginesupport struts); and IAI (dorsal fin).

smoke is detected. There are two extin­guishing bottles located forward of the aftcargo compartment, and either one orboth can be discharged into either com­partment. Halon is used to extinguish firesin the cargo hold, because the sub tancewill not damage sensitive equipment.

In freighters, the main-deck cargocompartment has a continuou air-sam­pling system for smoke detection, andthe lower cargo compartments have thesame systems as the passenger aircraft.There are no fire extinguishers for eitherthe main deck or lower cargo deck. Fireis extinguished by depressurizing the air­craft, wh ich reduce the oxygen neededfor combustion.

The 767 and 757 fire-detection andextinguishing sy tems are very similar inindication and operation. Wheel welldetectors and engine-fire protection sys­tems differ only in the routing and posi­tioning of sensing elements. Althoughthree different manufacturers supply fire­protection equipment, all operate in thesame manner and trigger the same indica­tors on the fl ight deck.

Ice and Rain Protection

To keep the wing free of ice during flight,engine-bleed air is directed to outboardleading-edge slats on each wing. Engine-

bleed air is also directed to the engine-cowlinlet lip to prevent ice formation. Flight­deck windshields are electrically heated tokeep fog and ice from building. The flightdeck's side windows are electrically heatedfor anti-fogging only. Electric heating isu d in the water and waste systems to pre­vent freezing during flight. Rain repellent isused with the windshield wipers to improvevisibility during heavy precipitation. Theice- and rain-protection system on the 767and 757 work the same, but differ in ize.

Computer Design

Boeing did not ju t put computers in thecockpit of it new plane. In 197 , thecompany started using a com~ uter designy tem to de ign some parts for some

aircraft, and it made extensive use of

II DIVIDUALITY AND SIMILARITIES

computer-aided design and manufacturingto design and build the 767 and 757. Morethan a dozen years later, this technologymade possible the 777, which was designedentirely by computers.

New planes were traditionally designedin two dimensions, by making drawings onpaper. However, the 767 and 757 werepartly designed by computer, so that engi­neers could ee how those drawings wouldfit together on a three-dimen ional air­craft. In this way, unpleasant discoverie

later in the manufacturing process - suchas finding a particular part impos~ible toinstall because a designer had failed toleave enough 'pace - are avoided.

In one example, Boeing introducedcomputers to treamline the manufactur­ing process. One programme to eliminate

59

the need for customized hydraulicwas called T BEND, a computer-aideddesign and manufacturing system devel­oped for the 757. The programme movedhydraulics design from the drawing boardand aircraft mo k-up to a computerizedmodel of the hydraulic system. It allowedengineers to see what would happeneverywhere in the hydraulic ystem whena hange was made in anyone I lace.

On the 757 alone, engineer designednearly 11,000 pa kage of drawings and

data to build the plane, and almost half ofthem were made with the use of computer­aided design. When a wing strut wasde igned for the 767 using the computerde ign system, Boeing found it cut in halfthe number of changes that it might expectto have to make during manufacture.

POWERPLA TS

Engine installation on a 767-300. Boeing

Thrust: 4 ,OOOlb (2J3k )

Diameter: 96.9 in (246 m)

Length: 132.7in (337em)

Weight: , SIb (4,029kg)

Air fl IV: 1,S8Slb (719kg) per e ond

Engine peeifieation - 767Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4 Engine

1987. Fewer parts and a simpler designmade it cheaper to operate than the JT9D.The PW4000 is also 7 per cent morefuel-efficient than it predeces or. ThePW4000 offer more power - 52,000­62,0001b of thrust (23\-2 76kN), com­pared wi th 43,000- 56,0001 b ( 191­249k ) - than the JT9D-7R4; productionof the latter ended in 1990.

10 and Airbus A300, in addition to the747. Its track record largely contributed to

its selection as the powerplant of th first ofBoeing's new twins. A Ithough not original­ly conceived for twin-engine aircraft, theJT9D was a natural choice a- widebodytwins grew in popularity. Major technolog­ical advance, including a wide-chord, sin­gle-shroud fan blade, single-cry tal turbineblades and an electronic engine ontrol,provided substantial fuel savings over ear­Iier JT9D models.

Many 767s built in 19 7 and later,including 767-300, are powered by thePW4000, a new-technology JT9D re­placement begun in 19 4 and certified in\9 6. The model is also found on uchwidebod ies as the 747-400, A3\a andM D-ll. Larger ver ions of the PW4000power the 777 and the A irbu A330. Themod I first powered a 767 in May 1986,and it entered revenue service in June

93in (236em)

l6 .9in (40 em)

60,690-61,34 Ib(27 27 k )

Engine peeifieation - 767General Eleetl'ic CF6-80CZ

Length:

Weight:

Diameter:

Air flow:

Thrust:

The first production 767s, and the firstto enter service, were powered by Pratt &Whitney's JT9D-7R4 engine, an upgradedver ion of the type that was first certified inJ969 and debuted on the 747 in 1970 topower first-generation widebodieJ aircraft.When the engine was selected to power the767, it had already proven itselfon the DC-

Engines for the 767

Alternative engines on the 767 are Gen­eral Electric's F6- OC2, Pratt & Whit­ney's PW4000 and the Roll -RoyceRB211-524/H (on the -3000nly), all ratedat between SO, 00 and 62,0001b of thrust(222-276k ). The 767-200, -200ER and­300 are available with Pratt & WhitneyPW4050 engines rated at 50,0001b ofthrust (222kN), the PW4052, rated at

52,0001b of thrust (231 kN), and the GECF6-80C2B2F, rated at 57,9001b of thrust(258k ). The F6-80C2B4F i availableon the -200ER, -300 and -300ER. ThePW4056, rated at 56,7501b (252k ), andthe PW406 and GE CF6- OC2B6, ratedat 60,0001b of thrust (267k ), are avail­able only on extended-range versions. TheRolls-Royce RB211-524G, rated at60,6001b of thrust (270kN), has beenavailable since 1990 on the -300.

aircraft. Boeing specifies the thrustrequir d, the engine ize and position onthe plane, then the major engine manu­facturers - Pratt & Whitney and eneralElectric in the United States and Britain'sRolls-Royce - offer the engines. Thedynamic duo req lired new or improvedengines. The 767 wa the first twin-jet tooffer all three engine choices, while onlyPratt and Rolls make engines for the 757.

The decision to pick one engine-makerover another is determined by many factor.Often, an airline chooses to go with a man­ufacturer that has already supplied enginefor other plane in the fl et, giving the air­line's mechani s an advantage in that theywill be familiar with the equipment. ome­times, the decision will follow a highlycompetitive bidding process as the airlinetries to get the best cost and conditions.( ften, new engines are sold es entially atcost, so that a deal may be achieved, andengine-maker hope to make up the lossthrough long-term maintenance and spare­parts contracts.) Airline will also take intoconsideration the fuel economy and themaintenance track record of an engine.

Engines and EngineManufacturers

Powerplants

CHAPTER SIX

The airline, not the airframe manufactur­er, selects the engines to be put into their

I bypass-ratio engine, ix parts of air pasaround the core compared with one partthat pa ses through it. In a high bypass­ratio engine, the fan at the front of theengine develops the bulk of the engine'stotal thrust. The air that passes through thecore is called primary air flow. The air thatbypasses the core is called secondary airflow. Bypass ratio, simply, is the ratiobetween secondary and primary air flow,and, the higher the ratio, the more efficientthe engine. It i more efficient to acceler­ate a large mass of air moderately throughthe fan to develop thrust than to greatlyaccelerate a smaller mass of air through thecore to develop equivalent thrust.

Jet engines made today are ten timesmore reliable than those produced ad cade or two ago. This ha commercialramifications for engine-makers - greaterreliability means that the engines mustproduce profit from their sale rather thanfrom pare part .

A engines have become more reI iable,twin-engine flight have become safer overtime. The 767, for example, had experi­enced just twenty-five in-flight shutdownsafter one million hours of engine service­a rate of .025 per thousand hours. By 10million engine hours, that rate haddropped below .02 per thousand hours.This is a huge improvement on pre-19 1airliners, when the engines had in-flightshutdown rate of.3 per thousand hours,or 333 time per thousand hours.

More than half of the in-flight engineshutdowns on commercial airliners havenothing to do with the core of the engine.They are more likely to be related to pneu­matic systems or electrical systems, or tofi re-detection systems vi brati ng. Forexample, an engine might be shut downbecau e of a simple faulty warning light.

Requirements, Reliabilityand Safety

There i a saying among those who work forengine-maker Pratt & Whitney: 'Withoutengines, aircraft are just flying Winnebagos.'

How do engines propel th aircraft?Think of it this way: an engine performsfour task with air - it sucks, squeezes,burns and blows. Air is sucked in by a largerotating fan and compres ed in severalstages until it enters a combu tion cham­ber under pressure. Here, heated by jetfuel, the air, bursting to expand, rushes outthrough turbine blades, which are rotatedat high speeds by the rush of hot air. Hugefan blade on the front of the engine -

7-94in (2.41-2.61m) in diameter for the767 and 78in (2.16m) for the 757 - gener­ate the thrust an aircraft needs in order totake off. The fans are essentially giant pro­pellers that pull the plane through the air.

The fact is, the contribution of an enginemanufacturer is greater than that of anyother supplier, and many aspects of enginetechnology are even more daunting thanthe design of the airframe itself. Someareas in the engine must withstand tem­peratures of 3,000 degrees centigrade dur­ing several hours of fl ight. Some parts trav­el at supersonic speeds, while others mu turvive hours of high-frequency vibration.

Powerplants for twin-engined aircraftface the additional demands of having toachieve flawless reliability; this i achievedthrough high-quality design and impecca­ble maintenan e. The amazing thingabout aircraft engines is that, generally,they manage to run hour upon hour, atvarious atmospheric pressures and temper­atures, and at extreme rotational speeds,without a single problem.

The reliability of today' high bypass­ratio engines has made long-range, twin­engine flights possible. Bypa ratio mea­sure the air ducted around the core of aturbofan to the air that passes through thecore of the engine. For example, in a 6-to-

60 61

POIVERPLANTS POWER PLANTS

Engine pecification - 767Pmtt & Whitney PW4000 Engine

/

The General Electric CF6-80C2 is offered on 767s. GE Aircraft Engines.

S9,3261b (264k

6.3in (219cm)

l2Sin (31 cm)

Diameter:

Length:

Weight:

Airflow:

Thrust:

Engine Specification - 767Rolls-Royce RB211-524H Engine

fleet. Their commonality with the RB211that power 747s benefits airlines operatingboth aircraft. In the three-way race, GE has62 per cent of the 767 share, Pratt 32 reI'cent, and Rolls just 6 per cent.

The new 767-400 will initially be pow­ered by an upgraded CF6, the CF6­80C2B7FI model. This version features a'boltless turbine' thar improves perfor­mance, and reduces part count, weight andcost. The engine was selected l y the -400'slaunch customer, Delta Air Lines. Pratt &Whirney is now working on an improvedPW4 00 to meet the higher-thrust needsof the newe t 767.

Pratt & Whitney's PW4000 is one of three models offered on the 767. Pratt & Whitney

Lines. While nired Airlines chose Prattfor its order of767s, both Delta and Amer­ican selected GE for their 197 order offifty of the planes. When the 767 debuted,Pratt signed ten customers with orders andoptions for 158 aircraft, while GE hadseven customers for 153 planes. Animportant advantage of both the JT9D­7R4 and the F6-80A was that both hadalready flown the 747, and were thereforebattle-tested. either was a totally newpo\\'erplant, unlike the engines of the 757.GE initi;:dly offered the CF6-45, a deriva­ti ve of the engi ne powering the DC-10.But it was quickly realized the enginewould not grow into enough thrust for awidebody twin. 0 GE developed theCF6-80A, which featured a new fan gen­erating more thrust.

Although Pratt and GE got off to a quicktart in engine orders, Roll -Royce jid not

become a player on the 767 until February1990, when the RB211-524H, a 5 ,0060,000Ib-thrust (25 -267k ) variant ofthe engine that al 0 powers the 747-400,was reconfigured for the 767-300ER. Theengine is found on only about thirty 767­300ERs, almost all in the British Airways

SO,000-60,OOOlb(222.4-270k )

96.98in (246.3cm)

l32.7in (337cm)

9,4001b (4,264kg)

l,70S1b (773kg) per second

Diameter:

Length:

Weight:

Air flow:

Thrust:

GE's CF6- OC2 engines, with 52,5 0­61,5001b of thrust (233-273k ), alsopower the 767. The engine family, like thePW4000, is found on other widebodies,including the 747-400, Airbus 300-600,

10 and A330, and MD-l 1. The CF6­80C2 provides a 7 per cent fuel consump­tion advantage over an earlier version ofthe engine, the CF6- A. The first 767powered by 4, OOlb-thru t (213k )

F6- OA engines took off for the firsttime in February 19 2; it was the fifth 767built. Certification followed on 30 Sep­tember, with the first delivery to Delta Air

62 63

Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4. This was the launch engine for the 757 - The first non-US made engine on a newBoeing. Rolls-Royce

had had terriblc expericnces with Rolls inthe past. But this was a derivative engine,and Rolls assured us it had fixed any prob­lems. 1t's a wonderfu I engi ne. It made a lotof sense for Eastern.'

The 757 became the first new Boeingairliner to make its debut with foreignpowerplants.

The 757 was originally offered withGE's CF6-32CI engines. However, GE

POWERPLA TS

wilh 36,6001b of thrust (163 k ), was areduced-thrust version of the alreadyproven RB211 used on other widebodies,including the 747. ince it was a smallerderivative engine, the Rolls programmehad an advantage over Pratt. The engine'strack record was a big factor in EasternAirlincs choosing Rolls-Royce for thefirst-evcr fleet of 757s. Frank Borman, thcairline's former chairman, explains: 'We

Engines for the 757

The 757 required a larger engine than the737 or 727, buta malleI' one than the 767.It was the first narrow-body plane de ignedwith all-new high bypas -ratio engincs,and it became the target of a spirited pow­erplant competition between Rolls-Royceand Pratt & Whitney. The first engine to

enter service, Rolls-Royce's RB21 1-535,

Although Pratt & Whitney and GE got off to a quickstart on the 767, Rolls-Royce did not become aplayer on the model until 1990, when the RB211-524was reconfigured for the 767-300. Rolls-Royce

POWER PLANTS

64 65

POWER PLANTS POWERPLANTS

Engine pecification - 757RoLLs-Ro)'ce RB211-535E4 Engine

later withdrew as a contender to power the757 when Pratt & Whitney designed anew engine, the PW2000, which wassele ted by Delta Air Lines. Delta tookdelivery of the first Pratt-powered 757 inOctober 1984. GE's engine was deemed tohave a larger core than the aircraft need­ed. Following Pratt's entry into the fraywith its PW2000, GE decided that thea Ivantages of developing an engine for the757 were minimal, and focused its effortsel ewhere. The 757 programme wa 25 percent complete when the CF6 pullcd out,forcing Boeing engineers to make somequick adju tments. In April 1980, Hawai­ian carrier Aloha A irlines was the only air­line to order 757s with CF6-32 engine.However, Aloha never took delivery of757 , and GE never powered the aircraft.

The highly fuel-efficient PW2000, fea­turing low noise and emissions, spans atake-off thrust of 30,000-44,000Ib (133­196kN). The PW2037 - the '37' indicat­ing the number of pounds of thrust inthousands - was the first in the series, andreceived FAA certification in December1983, four years after the programme'slaunch. Development of the engine, aswith the planes it powers, was a collabora­tive effort, with MTU of Germany sharingII per cent of the engine work, and Italy'sFiat 4 per ccnt. A higher-rated PW2000model, the PW2040, offering 41,700lb ofthrust (185kN) for all 757 models, was cer­tified in 1987, and introduced into servicethat year by United Parcel Service on its757 Package Freighter.

The PW2000's compres or and turbinedisks are made of a powder metal alloy.This technology allows operation at high­er rotor speeds and temperatures thanengines operating with disks made by con­ventional methods. The model also intro­duced commercial aviation to electronicfuel controls; this was an uncertain devel­opment that raised many questions. 'It wasa gutsy decision to make,' recalls Doug

The Pratt & Whitney PW2000 is one of two enginemodels powering the 757. Pratt & Whitney

37, 00-43,OOOlb(164.7-191.3 )

4. in (2lS.4cm)

146.8in (372.9cm)

7,3001b (3,31l kg)

Diameter:

Length:

Weight:

Air flow:

TllrU t:

Engine pecification - 757Pratt & Wltitney PW2000 Engine

The PW2000 Programme

additional applications for them. ThePW2000 also powers the Ilyushin IL-96, afour-engined Russian passenger aircraftsimilar to the Airbus A340, along with thefour-engined C-17 military cargo jet. TheRB21l powers the Tupolev 204, a Russian757100kalike.

Pratt' decision to develop an all-newengine for the 757 was a pivotal moment inthe engine business. Over the years, thecompany has made more than 14,000 ven­erable JT8D engines to power 727s, 737­100s and -200s, DC-9s and MD-80s, mostof which are still flying today. In the early1980s, Pratt decided not to design anengine for newer 737s - this proved to be apoor deci ion, considering that the 7 7would go on to become the most popularmodel ever made. Boeing advised Prattthat the new 757 would be an even biggerprogramme, so Pratt dropped plans to builda new engine for the 737 (the JT tOD), andfocused instead on the PW2 a itsfuture hope. 'Boeing said the 757 would bea replacement to the 72 7, which wa at thetime the be Helling airplane in the world,'say Ed row, senior vice-president of engi­neering at Pratt & Whitney. 'We wanted tobe on that airplane.'

Crow recalls how Pratt's parent compa­ny, United Technologies, was approachedfor the I billion needed to develop thePW2000, an engine that would decreasefuel burn in comparison with the 727. 'Wetold I-larry Gray [United Technologie 'chairman] that when this engine wouldgo into service, fuel prices would be 3a gallon,' row says. ' 0 fuel efficiencywas the name of the game. Unfortunately,the world changed. When it went into ser­vice, fuel prices were not 3 a gallon, but50 cents a gallon; consequently, airlinesmade a deci ion to keep flying their 727 .

Miller. 'We all put a game face on to makesure an electronic fuel control would work.But I said, "Show me a way to put a hydro­mechanical device on here if wc have to".'As a result of this suggestion, the plane didinclude the electronic fuel control, butthere was also room for an alternative ifnecessary.

Both 757 engine manufacturers im­proved their product over the years. Anupgraded Rolls version, the RB211­535E4, has proven to be 6.5 per cent morefuel-efficient than the -535C. It was builton to later 757s, or even retrofitted inome cases. Improvement included a

high-efficiency, wide-blad fan, a betterhigh-pressure module, and a single-nozzleexhaust system. The first 757 to fly withthe improved engine was delivered toEastern on 10 October 1984. Furtherimprovements to the -E4 included theintroduction in 1999 of a scaled combus­tor from Rolls-Royce's Trent engine series,leading to lower emissions. Prattimproved its PW2000 in 1994 with thePW2000 RTC (rcduced-temperature con­figuration), which offers better fuel econ­omy, lower operating temperatures andlower maintenance cost than previousmodels.

The new 757-300 is available with RollsRB211-535E4 and Pratt's PW2043 engines.

Boeing has given credit to both enginemanufacturers for their role in making the757 so fuel-efficient. According to Pratt &Whitney, a fully loaded 757 flying fromFrankfurt to New York can carry] 1,2001b(5,080kg) - or 55 passengers - more thanan RB21l-powered 757. This offers a year­ly revenue potential of up to $7.5 millionper aircraft.

Initially, five customers with firm ordersfor 55 planes ordered 757s with Rollsengines, while Pratt signed three airlinesfor 8l firm orders. The initial batch des­tined for Eastern, British Airways,Monarch Airlines and Air Florida werepowered by the Rolls engines. Anotherearly customer, Transbrasi I, opted for threeRolls-powered 757s and six Pratt-poweredplanes, giving the engine a idc-by-sidetrial from 1984-7.

Rolls leads Pratt in engines installed in757s (about 500 plane against 400, andthirty-eight customers against fifteen),although Pratt was selected by Delta,United and orthwest Airlines, three ofthe largest 757 customers.

Although the engines were developedfor the 757, both companies have found

7,1 91b (3,261 kg)

l,lSOlb (S22kg) per se ond

43,1001b (l9l.7k

74.Sin (1 9.2cm)

1l7.9in (299cm)

Diameter:

Length:

Weight:

Airflow:

Thrust:

66 67

POWERPLA TS

A Rolls-Royce RB211-535C is prepared for assembly onto a 757. Boeing

Testing the Engines

An engine is shipped to Boeing from the manufacturer's - Pratt & Whitney in East Hartford, Connecticut. GE in Even­dale, Ohio, and R'olls in Derby, England - having been fully tested and certified. Once mounted on to the wings of the767 or 757, these massive powerplants are put through additional testing before a plane may receive the green lightto fly. About 300 control and indication wires link the engines to the flight deck.

Like the flight-control test system, engines are tested with computer-controlled simulators. The computer is pro­grammed to simulate engine response to the flight-deck controls and instruments in a test sequence according toengineering requirements.

Once installed, engines have to be 'trimmed'. This means verifying that the engines are adjusted and operate prop­erly so that they can achieve their rated thrust for take-off and in flight. Engines are adjusted at the factories, butthey must be checked again after they are installed. During the engine trim, the engine is run up and throttles areset at certain power settings. Flight-test engineers then read the instrumentation. If the primary thrust rates are notto specification, adjustments are made to fuel controls, air inlet and bleed valve, and between the engine compres­sors, to bleed excess air.

767 Fun Facts

• The 767 has 800 suppliers world-wide.• The paint used on a typical 767 weighs 4001b

(182kg).• In a three-class configuration, the 767 has one of

the largest overhead baggage stowage volumes­3cubic ft per passenger, matched only by the 777­200.

• The 767 was the first Boeing aircraft to replace3,500lb 11,575kgl of aluminium with l,200lb(540kg) of graphite and graphite/Kevlar compos­ites, which are lighter and stronger. The weightsavings contribute to the plane's operatingefficiency.

• The 767 has about 3.14 million parts.• Each 767 has 56 miles (90km) of wiring and 3,800ft

(1.5km) of tubing for the hydraulic system.• The 767 is the first twin-jet to offer three engine

choices.• Eighty-seven per cent of the seats on the 767 are

next to a window or aisle. No seat is more thanone seat away from awindow or aisle.

• The plane has carried more than 740 million pas­sengers.

• The airframe was service-life tested for two life­times (40 years of airline service). It was cycledthrough 19 months of tests consisting of 10,000simulated flights over 100,000 hours.

• Punta Arenas, Chile, near the Antarctic, is the far­thest south a767 has ever flown.

• The 767 can cruise at an altitude of 43,OOOft(13,100ml.

• The 767 was the first plane to earn an extended­range twin-engine operations IETOPSI rating inMay 1985. Because of its reliable and redundantsystems, it may fly up to three hours from the near­est airport.

• The 767 is the most popular plane on transatlanticroutes. More than 30 airlines fly it across the northand mid-Atlantic.

• The 767 is 54 per cent more fuel-efficient than a727-100 and 29 per cent more fuel-efficient thanthe 727-200.

• Each 767 with a full passenger load equals two727s plus half a707 freighter, all for 2per cent lessfuel burn than a727.

• The 767 flies automatically, from take-off climb tolanding, with the help of 140 microprocessors andcomputers.

• The sound of a 767 taking off from a lX-mile13,OOO-ml runway is about the same as the aver­age street-corner noise.

how difficult it was to compete with Airbus,which at the time was subsidized by the fourEuropean nations making up the consor­tium - France, Germany, Britain and Spain.

CHAPTER SEVEN

Rollout

The 767 Rollout

With partners in place and orders in hand- United's launch, along with Delta andAmerican's 1.9 billion order in ovem­bel' 1978 - the manufacturing of parts forthe first 767 began, on 6 July 1979, at Boe­ing's Central Fabrication Division inAuburn, Washington. Final assembly ofthe first 767 began on 8 April 1981, inEverett. Once completed, the aircraftquickly achieved a series of major steps,which included standing on its ownwheels for the first time, and being movedfor the fi rst ti me.

When the 767 first rolled out of theEverett factory on schedule, on 4 August1981, Boeing said it was better prepared forthe programme than for any other effort inits history. The 767-200 was the first all­new Boeing aircraft in twelve years, sincethe 747 had ushered in the widebody era,on 30 September 1968. The 767 represent­ed the first increment of new planes thatincluded the 757 and 737-300, a re­engined and stretched version of the 737.For months before the rollout, workers cel­ebrated the impending event with a specialmotto: 'Day by Day We Make it Happen'.

The rollout ceremony was slightlymarred by an air-traffic controllers' strikein the United States, which reduced thenumber of invited dignitaries, includingthe scheduled keynote speaker, US Trans­portation Secretary Drew Lewis. It alsocame at a time when the financialprospects of the airlines were cloudy,despite signs of recovery from a recentdownturn, and strong forecasts for aircraftorders in the new decade. Airlines wereparticularly excited about Boeing'spromise that the 767 would produce a 35per cent improvement in fuel burned perseat, saving an airline with ten of the

Worldwide Partners on the767

Just one month after United's order for thefirst 767s, Boeing began to organize aninternational team of risk-sharing partici­pants and subcontractors. It was the begin­ning of a long partnership, through whichBoeing selected companies from all overthe world to furnish parts for the new air­planes. The 767 was the first Boeing planeto involve the efforts of overseas partners.

The Italian firm Aeritalia, a partner onthe original 7X7, became the first risk­sharing participant in the 767 develop­ment and production programme. A con­tract was signed on 14 August 1978, withAeritalia agreeing to manufacture thewing control surface areas, wing trailing­edge flaps and leading-edge struts, wingtips, elevators, vertical tail, rudder andradome. A month later, on 22 September1978, Civil Transport Development Corp.of Japan (now Commercial Airplane Co.,or CAC) also became a risk-sharing par­ticipant. About fifty Japanese engineersbecame involved in the design process,and Japanese subcontractors were subse­quently to playa significant role in themanufacturing. Three Japanese companies- Mitsubishi, Kawasaki and Fuji - manu­facture the entire 767 fuselage, with theexception of the cockpit, known as Sec­tion 41, which is built at Boeing's facilitiesin Witchita, Kansas. Fuji produces light­weight, aluminium and composite out­board trailing-edge flaps, located on therear of each wing. They serve as fl ight-con­trol devices, which, when extended by thepilot, create extra lift during take-off andlower the plane's speed when landing.Civil Transport Development Corp. alsoproduces body panels and doors, fairingassemblies and main landing-gear doors.

To allay the fears of its local employeesabout foreign work on the plane, Boeingexplained that, at the time, 60 per cent of itssales were going abroad, and that othercountries wanted to playa role in the pro­duction process. Boeing also told its workers

tion systems. Either one of these airplaneswith our engines on them will move onepassenger a distance of 100 miles 1160km]at a speed of 500 miles an hour 1800km/h]on a single gallon 13.75 litres] of gas. Theylargely introduced the world to flying.Look at flying now compared with thetime when they entered service, and at thenumber of people who fly today. It is way,way up. These airplanes have largely con­tributed to that.'

minute move led to the engine's certifica­tion on time. (Despite its unsuccessfulstart, Kevlar protection did succeed onlater engines.)

Crow confirms that Pratt is pleased tohave played a role in the development ofhoth the 767 and 757. 'These are tru Iygreat transportation systems. World class,'he says. 'The 767 has revolutionized trav­el over the north Atlantic. Both of theseplanes are very fuel-efficient transporta-

The 757 did not sell the way we expectedit to. However, today, when you look at it,every major US airline has 757s as areplacement for their 72 7 fleet. So by andlarge, the PW2000 has succeeded.'

Crow, who was responsihle for thePW2000 programme, recalls that onemajor problem almost kept the enginefrom flying on time - fan-containmentfailure. Fan hlades rotate at near-superson­ic speeds inside the engine. In case theblades come loose, or are damaged by anoutside source, such as a bird or stone, theengine must contain the broken blades;otherwise, they could slice through thepassenger cabin. Until the PW2000, everyengine used a steel casing to contain theblades in the event of fan disintegrationduring engine failure. The PW2000 wasthe first Pratt engine to use Kevlar, a lightbut strong synthetic material, to do thejob. With the first Pratt-powered 757scoming off the production lines in

ovember 1983, the PW2000's Kevlarcasing was failing the fan-containmenttests. As a back-up, engineers decided touse standard steel instead. This last-

68 69

ROLLOUT ROLLOUT

767 Chronology

Thousands gathered to watch the rollout of the first 767 on 4 August 1981. The 767-200 was the first all-newBoeing aircraft in 12 years, since the 747 ushered in the widebody era on 30 September 1968. Boeing

70

planes up to 25 million per year in fuelcosts, in 1981 dollars.

The 767 was rolled out with a backlog of173 fi rm orders and 138 options - morethan any other airplane in Boeing's historyat that point. All milestones for the 767programme were met on or ahead of sched­ule, and rollout came on the exact day thathad been chosen three years earlier.

On rollout day, the first-ever 767 wasmoved from the final assembly bay of the40-24 Building on to the apron, as 15,000employees, special guests and reporterslooked on. Eighteen other 767s, at variousstages of production, were inside the build­ing. By 1983, four planes were being madeeach month.

During the 45-minute ceremony, Boeingemployees heard from Washington Sena­tor Henry M. Jackson, Boeing chairman 'T'Wilson, Boeing Commercial AirplaneCompany president Tex Boullioun andUnited Airlines Chairman Richard Ferris,who spoke on behalf of the seventeen ini­tial customers that had ordered the 767.

'What [ remember most about the roll­out was the nostalgia,' Ferris says today. 'Itmarked the coming together again of thethree original companies [Boeing, UnitedAirlines and Pratt & Whitney] of UnitedAircraft. '

During the ceremony, Boeing's DeanThornton acknowledged 'outstanclingsup­port' from programme partners Aeritaliaam] Japan's Civil Transport DevelopmentCorporation, along with 800 other sub­contractors and suppl iers. These partnershad helped the 767 division meet everymajor production milestone on or ahead ofschedule.

The inaugural 767, registered N767BA,was dedicated by Grace Wilson, the wife ofthe company chairman, assisted by [0­year-old Rogers Summers, the son of two767 employees, who represented futuretravellers. With typical American brava­do, music at the rollout was provided bythe 126-piece Seattle All-City HighSchool Marching Band. Under blue sum­mer skies, the first 767 rolled out of thefinal assembly building shortly beforenoon, to the strains of Richard Strauss's'Thus Spake Zarathustra', the music usedin the film 200/: A S/Jace Odyssey.

The 767 'advanced the frontiers of tech­nology', United's Richard Ferris told thecrowd. 'The terrifically complex machineyou've built does things no other machinecan do. Th is mach ine performs its missionbetter than anything else humankind has

14 July 1978 - Production of the 767 begins when UnitedAirlines places a$1.2 billion order for thirty of the new air­craft equipped with Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4 engines.

14 August 1978 - Boeing and Aeritalia, Italy's largestaircraft firm. sign acontract; the Italian firm became arisk-sharing major participant of the plane's develop­ment and production programme.

22 September 1978 - Civil Transport DevelopmentCorp. of Japan becomes a risk-sharing partner.

15 November 1978 - American Airlines and Delta AirLines announce total firm orders for fifty 767s. The valueat the time, $1.9 billion, makes it the largest single salesday in Boeing history. American orders thirty and Deltatwenty, all with General Electric CF6-80A engines.

6July 1979 - Fabrication of the first 767 parts begins.

8 April 1981 - Final assembly of the first 767 begins.

4August 1981 - The first 767 is completed and rolledfrom the 767 final assembly bay at Everett.

26 September 1981 - The first 767 completes an ini­tial flight lasting 2 hours and 4 minutes, four daysahead of the first flight date scheduled in 1978.

27 May 1982 - The first 767 fitted with a two-crewmember flight deck makes its initial flight, and beginsthe test programme leading to FAA certification of theconfiguration.

July 1982 - The first 767 international demonstrationflight takes the new plane to cities in Europe, the Mid­dle East and North Africa.

30 July 1982 - Certification for the 767 is awarded bythe Federal Aviation Administration.

19 August 1982 - The first 767 is delivered to UnitedAirlines.

8September 1982 - The first commercial 767 flight ismade, from Chicago to Denver.

January 1983 - Boeing announces the 767ER.

6 June 1983 - FAA certifies the 767 for a maximumtake-off gross weight of 315,OOOIb (142,880kgl.15,OOOIb (6,800kg) heavier than the 767s delivered atthat time. The increased weight permits up to 760 miles(1.125km) added range and greater payload.

22 July 1983 - The FAA clears the way for pilots to flyboth the 767 and 757 after passing a type-rating test foreither of the airliners. This is made possible by the sim­ilarity of the 757 and 767 flight decks.

29 September 1983-Japan Airlines orders the 767-300.

27 March 1984 - The first 767ER with optional335,OOOIb 1151,950kg) gross weight makes the first 767commercial non-stop transatlantic flight the day afterbeing delivered to EI AI Israel Airlines.

1 June 1984 - The first 767ER for Ethiopian Airlinessets a twin-jet airliner distance record, flying 7,500miles (12,082km) from Washington, DC, to Addis Ababain 13 hours and 17 minutes.

77

14 January 1986 - The first 767-300 is completed androlled out from Everett.

25 September 1986 - The first 767-300 is delivered toJapan Airlines.

22 December 1986 - Extensive flight test of 767­300ER begins for certification with GE engines.

31 December 1986 - ETOPS-equipped (ExtendedTwin-Engine Operationsl 767s log more than 60,000flights, since May 1985. with 99.8 per cent successful­ly reaching their destination without turnback or diver­sion.

25 March 1987 - Rolls-Royce provides the third enginechoice, RB211-524H, for the 767 family Commonalitywith RB211-powered 747s benefits airlines operatingboth aircraft.

18 April 1988 - An Air Mauritius 767-200ER sets anewdistance record for commercial twin-jets, flying fromHalifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, to Mauritius - 8.727miles 114,042km) - in 16 hours, 27 minutes.

27 July 1989 - An Air Seychelles 767-200ER sets anew distance record for a commercial twin-jet, flying8,893 miles (14,309km) from Grand Rapids, Michigan,to the Seychelles, in 16 hours, 49 minutes.

8 February 1990 - The first 767 powered by Rolls­Royce is delivered to British Airways.

10 June 1990 - A Royal Brunei 767-200ER sets anewdistance record for twin-jet airliners, flying 9,253 miles(14,890km) from Seattle to Nairobi, Kenya, in 17 hours51 minutes.

15 January 1993 - United Parcel Service launches the767 freighter with an order for thirty aircraft and thirtyoptions.

February 1994 - The 767 becomes the most widelyused aircraft across the Atlantic, with more flights thanany other aircraft.

20 May 1993 - The 500th 767 rolls off the line at Everett.

12 May 1995 - The first 767 freighter rolls out.

18 May 1995 - EVA Air begins the first regularly sched­uled 767-300ER twin-jet operations across the NorthPacific.

21 June 1995 - The first 767 freighter makes its initialflight from Paine Field in Everett.

16 October 1995 - The first 767 freighter begins rev­enue service.

28 April 1997 - Boeing officially launches the 767­400ER, with an order for twenty-one aircraft from Delta.

31 October 1997 - Air New Zealand sets anew speedrecord with the 767-300ER. The aircraft flew fromEverett to Christchurch, New Zealand. a distance of12,272km. in 14 hours, 54 minutes.

11 March 1998 - Boeing delivers the first two of four767 AWACS aircraft to the Japanese government.

ROLLOUT ROLLOUT

757 Chronology

yet devised. You've enabled us all to takeour next step forward in the history ofhuman flight. You've advanced the fron­tiers of technology. The 767 you've built iseverything that is right with new technol­ogy. The 767 will bring consumers betterair service more efficiently than the planesthe 767 will replace.'

Ferris pointed out that the 767 wouldbring widebody comfort to travellers fromcities that have never had widebody ser­vice. 'The plane you've built will let ushelp airl ines give better service - and let ushold back the rise in fares at the same time.The 767 will help us compete effectivelyby giving our customers good service at agood price.'

Boeing's Thornton began his remarks bycommenting on the splendid, sunnyweather. 'Even God likes the 767,' he said.'I look at this plane as my baby, though40,000 other people do too,' he went on,referring to employees, partners, subcon­tractors and engine-makers. 'The 767 is along-term commitment with the underly­ing goal of producing a plane that will burnless fuel and better serve the travellingpublic of the world.'

In h is speech, 'T' Wi Ison told the crowd,'The 727 is a tough act to follow, but webelieve the 767 will measure up in allrespects. It was developed to meet the newequipment needs of the aviation industry,which is experiencing steadily increasingfuel and operating costs. The 767 wasdesigned with the co-operation of our air­line customer, who helped verify our con­cepts in size, payload, range and otherimportant areas.'

The first 767 carried red, white and bluemarkings, which ran the length of the fuse­lage and swept upwards along the verticalstabilizer, which was emblazoned with a blue'767' on a white background. The lowerfuselage was blue and the upper white, bear­ing the words 'Boeing 767' in blue. Theengine nacelles were similarly decorated.The fuselage bore the logos of the seventeencustomers that had ordered the plane.

The first 767 differed significantly fromthe first 747. It was missing only about adozen parts out of 3.1 million at rollout,compared with the several thousand thatthe first 747 lacked. The missing 767 parts,mostly related to the fl ight-managementsystem, did not affect the schedule. The first767, used on a vigorous static and flight-testschedule, never entered commercial service,and it is still owned by Boeing today. It wasthe second 767 that joined United's fleet.

The 757 Rollout

More than 1,300 companies in thirty-oneUS states and eight nations contributed tothe 757 assembly process. The launchcosts of the 767 were absorbed by Boeing,but other companies were directly in­volved in the development of the 757.

For the 757, Boeing contracted withShort Brothers of Belfast, Northern Ire­land, for inboard trailing-edge flaps, withHawker de Havi [land of Australia for wingin-spar ribs, and with CASA of Spain foroutboard wing trailing-edge flaps. Thesepartnerships led to dozens of Boeingemployees and their families being sentabroad to supervise the progress of foreignsupply chains.

Boeing typically awards 50 per cent of aplane's value to contractors. This was high­lighted on 11 October 1979, when Boeingsigned contracts for $1 billion relating to the757; this was the largest single-day award ofsupplier contracts in civil aircraft manufac­turing history. Up to five billion dollars'worth of work on the 757 programmes wentto non-Boeing manufacturers.

From the official programme go-ahead,on 23 March 1979, Boeing had just 45months to design, build, test, certify anddeliver the first 757. A decision was made to

757 Fun Facts

• More than fihy operators from more than twentycountries have ordered more than 900 757s.

• 757 has carried more than 825 million passengers.• The fleet has flown the equivalent of 14,000

round-trips to the moon.• The fleet has produced more than 13.5 million

hours of revenue service, equivalent to 1,541years of continuous service.

• The 757 freighter can hold more than 6million golfballs.

• At 225,0001b (102.060kg). the 757 weighs as muchas adiesel train locomotive.

• The surface area of a pair of 757 wings is 1.951square ft (181 square mI.

• There are 626.000 parts in a 757. About 600,000bolts and rivets fasten those parts together.

• The length of wires in the plane is about 60 miles(96km)

• Airlines fly the 757 on a variety of routes. Thetwin-jet serves routes as long as 4,133 miles(6.612km). or as short as 68 miles (1 09km).

• The common cockpit type rating permits flightcrews trained on the 757 also to fly the 767.

• A typical 757 uses more than 1,800 fibreglassblankets to help insulate passengers and cargofrom sub-freezing temperatures at high altitudes.

72

build the plane at Renton, where Boeingcould take advantage of a labour pooltrained in building narrow-bodies - the 707,727 and 737 - ::lIld used to turning out highnumbers. An area was carved out of thefacility to accommodate the 757. BecauseBoeing was not hiring any more employees,its key suppliers lent engineers to design theplane. The same people then returned totheir firms to build parts and sections.

Parts fabrication for the 757 began on10 December 1979. Assembly started on 5January 1981, when the front spar of thewing was loaded into its major assemblytool. Eight days later, wing assembly beganas the lower wing panel was loaded into awing jig. It was the first totally new aircraftto be built at Renton since 1966, when thefirst sections of the 737 started comingtogether on the production line. The first757 was completed on the same day inSeptember 1981 when the first 767 forUnited Airlines received its paint job.

The 757 was rolled out of the factory on13 January 1982, representing Boeing's sec­ond weapon in a double-barrelled assaulton commercial aviation in the early 1980s.It was the company's second new plane infive months, and it arrived amid anxietyresulting from the financial squeeze in theairline industry. The 757 had a solid orderbase of 136 firm orders and 7 I options fromseven airlines, exceeding (by nine) thenumber of firm orders for Boeing's 727when it rolled out of the Renton plant in1963. Still, some carriers warned of delaysor cancellations due to the uncertain econ­omy. The world's aviation industry lookedto be in trouble, as a result of a soft econo­my, poor traffic, constraints on airlineschedules and a fuel outlook that created apoor market for new planes. While buyingdecisions were delayed, and airlines nego­tiated with manufacturers to alter deliveryschedules, other carriers proceeded withlong-term plans to capitalize on the com­petitive advantage of new aircraft.

The 757's debut - an hour-long ceremo­ny witnessed by more than 12,000 employ­ees, airline representatives and reporters­resembled a Hollywood production. Theceremony was held indoors, with the air­craft hidden behind a huge curtain. Festiv­ities included a disco-like light show andslides projected on to a huge screen. Thelights formed a gigantic '757' on the cur­tain. The curtain lifted, revealing theplane in a cloud of artificial smoke, whilethe 'Music for the Royal Fireworks' filledBuilding 4-82 in Renton.

31 August 1978 - Eastern Airlines and British Airwaysannounce their intention to order 757s.

23 March 1979 - The 757 programme is authorized.

15 May 1979-The 767 nose incorporated into the 757.

11 October 1979 - Boeing signs $1 billion in contractsfor work on the 757. the largest single-day award of sup­plier contracts in civil aircraft manufacturing history.

10 December 1979 - Fabrication begins.

12 November 1980 - Delta Air Lines announces orderof first 757s with Pratt & Whitney engines.

5 January 1981 - Fabrication of the first 757 begins.

13 January 1982 - The 757 is rolled out.

19 February 1982 - First flight of the 757.

21 December 1982 - Federal Aviation Administrationcertifies the 757.

22 December 1982 - The first 757 is delivered to East­ern Airlines.

8July 1987 - The first 757ER is rolled out.

14 August 1987 - First flight of 757 freighter/packagefreighter.

1May 1988 - First 757 ETOPS flight.

15 June 1988 - The first 757 Combi is rolled out.

18 July 1988 - The first 757 Combi conducts its firstflight.

31 July 1990 - The FAA grants l80-minute ETOPS cer­tification for 757s equipped with Rolls-Royce engines.

2 September 1996 - Boeing launches 757-300 pro­gramme at Farnborough Air Show.

9 September 1997 - Assembly begins on 757-300.

31 May 1998 - The 757-300 is rolled out of the factory.

2 August 1998 - The first 757-300 completes its firstflight.

22 January 1999 - 757-300 certified by FAA.

73

The 757 was rolled out on 13 January 1982. Boeing

ROLLOUT

The 757's debut resembled a Hollywood production during an hour-long ceremony witnessed by more than12,000 employees, airline representatives and reporters. Boeing

How the Birds are Born

large commercial aircraft is among themost complex in the world. Yet, to a visi­tor, the process can seem as smooth asmaking a household item.

Everett

The building where 767s are built is thelargest on earth, by volume. The aircraft areassembled in the same cavernous structure

throughout the world - roar above down­town on their way to Boeing Field after aflight test. Visitors to the Museum of Flighteven can spot aircraft ready for delivery.

Just to the north and south of the ci tyare Boeing's two commercial aircraftassembly plants, where the long road torollout comes together with lots of brains,plenty of brawn and a healthy dose of goodmanagement. The task of constructing

CHAPTER EIGHT

The 767 is assembled in Boeing's Everett plant, the largest building, by volume, in the world. Boeing

Metropolitan Seattle is an aviation enthusi­ast's dream. The area is ringed with airports.Float planes take off from the city's water­front for nearby islands. Airliners alignthemselves for arrival at Seattle-TacomaInternational Airport. And a steady streamof brand-new, gleaming Boeing aircraft ­in vibrant colours, representing airlines

The Factories

fill the capacity gap between the 737 andthe L-I 0 I I.

Fortunately for Boeing, both the 767and 757 made it into service within budgetand right on schedule. Both aircraft boast­ed performance figures ahead of the mini­mum guarantees offered to the airlines, thefi rst ti me th is had happened si nce the 72 7.This was crucial; if a plane does not meeta performance target, such as weight, thesupplier is obliged to compensate the air­line, since the airline will certainly seereduced revenues if an aircraft weighsmore than guaranteed.

'The 757 should be a money-makingmachine for our airline customers,' 'T'Wilson told the crowd. Some of the cus­tomers on hand saw the 757 ,1S a boldstep into the future. '[The decision tobuy the plane wasl probably the mostimportant single purchase decision evertaken by a British airline,' said RoyWatts, at the time deputy chairman andchief executive of British Airways. 'Themore the shape of European air travelchanges, the more apparent it becomesthat the 757 is the right size for BritishAirways.' The airline needed the 757 to

Jane Boullioun, wife of Boeing Commer­cial Aircraft Group president Tex Boul­lioun, christened the gleaming aircraft, say­ing, 'May this great <lirplane, and thehundreds to follow, serve us well.' More cur­tains rose, the hangar doors parted and theaircraft was towed outside, under threaten­ing skies. Like the first 767, the 757 carriedBoeing's red, white and blue colour scheme,and was festooned with the logos of the firstseven customers - Eastern Airlines, BritishAirways, American Airlines, Delta AirLines, Air Florida, Monarch Airlines andTransbrasil. Its rail number read N757A.

74 75

One of the first 767s is assembled in Everett. Boeing

as the 747s and 777s in Everett, 35 miles(56km) north of Seattle. Just south of thecity, in Renton, 757s are built alongside737s. Both airliners are built in virtually thesame way, with large and small pieces - fromtiny rivets to railroad car-sized fuselage pan­els - shipped to the factories by plane, trainand truck from all over the world.

Viewed from a platform set up to accom­modate 140,000 annual visitors, the scenein Everett is surprisingly calm. Thousands ofworkers, scattered throughout the building,prepare rows of glinting aircraft fuselages fortheir dramatic rollout from the factory. Themuted sounds of riveting and drillingecho through the building. Employees ongolf carts and bicycles navigate seemingly

HOW THE BIRDS ARE BORN

endless passageways. One million piercingwhite lights glow from the ceiling.

The facility was built in 1966-67 to pro­duce the 747. When the 767 received thego-ahead, in 1978, there was one very biglogisti al problem - no room to build thenew widebodies. Instead of investing in anew facility, the Everett plant was enlargedby 285 million cubic feet (7.98 millioncubic m); the main structure had originallycovered about 200 million cubic feet (5.6million cubic m), and was already muchlarger than the Vertical Assembly Buildingat Kennedy Space Center in Florida, whichuntil then had been the world's largestbuilding. In all, Bo ing built four factorybuildings and three office buildings, with a

76

total area of more than 1 million square feet(92,900 square m). Since then, the factoryhas been expanded again, in 1993, to makeroom for the 777, and now covers 1.5 mil­lion square feet (139,350 square m).

The factory in Everett stands elevenstoreys tall, offering 472 million cubic ft(13.3 million cubic m) of space - 98.3acres (39.8 hectares) in all. The factory isso large that Disneyland would fit insidethe building, along with parking for everyvisitor. The main section of the 115-foot(38-m) building consists of six massive baydoors, big enough to drive an aircraftthrough, or roughly the size of an Ameri­can football field. Each door is 273ft(9lm) wide and 79.5ft (26.5m) tall.

More than 2,000 widebody planes haverolled off the Everett assembly line since30 September 1968, when the first 747made its debut. On average, four 767-300sare produced every month. (Boeing wi IIonly build a -200 extended-range modelwhen a previous customer orders one.Although the -200 programme has notbeen closed, it is rare when airlines willorder the -200ER because of the -300'sadded capacity and savings per seat. Thelast 767-200 was completed in 1997 forJapan's AWACS defence force. However,

767-300s in final assembly. Boeing

Continental Airl ines surprised the avia­tion community in November 1998 whenit ordered 10 new 767-200ERs to replaceolder widebodies for European and SouthAmerican routes. Although previously nota -200 customer, Continental is a launch

HOW THE BIRDS ARE BORN

customer for the new -400 model, and willreceive the -400's interior in the new -200swhen they enter service in the year 2000.)

On its own, the Everett plant is amongthe largest single export sites in the Unit­ed States. Besides carrying out the finalassembly of widebodies, the plant pro­duces the interior decorative sidewalls,cei ling panels, carpet and stowage bi ns forall Boeing jetliners, providing enoughwork for 28,000 people.

The 767 is one of Boeing's steadiestmodels, less affected by the ebb and flow of

international aircraft sales than its largerEverett cousins. It has its own dedicatedassembly line, although the model is oftenovershadowed by the crowd-pleasing 747­400 and the 777 and its derivative, the 777­300, the longest plane in the world. The 747

77

and 777 have two production lines each, butonly one of each is used.

High above the assembly floor are eigh­teen overhead cranes - on 31 miles(49.6km) of track - that make an averageof 250 lifts per day from a height nearlynine storeys above the floor. The cranesare used to transport large ai rcraft pieces,such as entire fuselages or tails, into therequired manufacturing positions.

Outside the cavernous building lies the9,000ft (2,740m) runway of SnohomishCounty's Paine Field. Adjacent to this are

three gigantic paint hangars and a flightline fuelling system that can fuel three air­craft at the same time. Aircraft assembled inEverett take off from Paine Field and returnthere to have any problems fixed. Finished767s are then delivered to customers from

The first 757 for Eastern Airlines takes shape in Renton. The model was rolled out on 13 January 1982. Boeing

Everett. (In June 199 ,a Renton-built 757wa the fir t Boeing narrow-body to bedel ivered from Everett a part of a tempo­rary plan to rake some strain off BoeingField, where 757 and 737 deliveries nor­mally take place.)

Renton

While not as large as at Everett, the sceneis equally impre' ive 35 miles (56km)away in Renton, at the south end of LakeWashington. Here, the smaller 757s areassembled next to 737s, the world's mostpopular commercial aircraft. The factory,about one-third the size of the Everett site,began in the 1940s to build B-29s for theSecond World War. Following the war,Renton was home to Boeing's commercial

HOW THE BIRD ARE BORN

aircraft, growing steadily with the expand­ing product line. It was at Renton thatBoeing ushered in the jet age with the 707,and, later, built all 727s and 737s. Toaccommodate the new 757 programme,facrory space wa' expanded by 2 mill ionsquare ft (I 5, quare m).

The 757s are assembled in one produc­tion line, 1,000ft (305m) long, in Building4- '1, opposite a line of 737. A in theEverett plant, giant cranes 114ft (35m)above the floor manoeuvre huge chunks ofairliner. An average offour 757s roll out ofthe factory every month. In the early1990s, when 757 production peaked ateight aircraft a month, two productionlines were needed. This was later cut backto one. A second assembly floor in an adja­cent building houses two more 737 lines.

It rakes about four and a half month tobuild the 757, from the time the first wingspar comes into the factory until rollout.

About 15,000 employees work at Ren­ton. Other sub-assembly and major ub­assembly operations at the plant are locat­ed in the balcony of the 4-21 Building,where struts, skin panels, bulkheads andslates are produced; in the 4-2 building,where the wings are produced; and in the10-50 building, where three major 757body sections are built.

The 757s take off from the relativelyshort 5,300ft (1 ,615m) runway at RentonAirport and head out over Lake Washing­ton. Most 757s make their first landings atBoeing's commercial delivery centre atBoeing Field in Seattle, less than 8 miles(13km) away.

The Production lineThe 757 is assembled at Boeing's Rentonfactory in one production line 1.000ft (305m)long in Building 4-81. opposite a line of737s.

1. like in the Everett plant. giant cranes114ft (35ml above the floor manoeuvre hugechunks of airliners.2. In the final join position. fuselagesections are joined with the centre section.which is attached to the wing.

1.

2.

78 79

3. After final join. the aircraft move into finalassembly.4. Insulation is placed into the fuselage. A 757 usesmore than 1.800 fibreglass blankets to help insulatepassengers and cargo from sub-freezingtemperatures at high altitude.5. 757s nearing completion.6. In Everett. the 767's fuselage sections are joinedtogether.

3.

4.

80 81

5.

6.

HOW THE BIRDS ARE BORN

757 production in the first few years required two production lines. Today, only one line is used in Renton.Boeing

fasteners and rivets, plus 60 miles, or96km, of wiring. It can take months to pur­chase materials and to manufacture all theparts needed for final assembly, but thepieces arc merged into an airliner in just afew shift. Final as embly is followedby painting, flight te ting, delivery andfollow-up customer service.

Each year, Boeing buys tons of rawmaterial and tens of thousands of parts ­from main landing gear and electronicflight instruments, to raw sheet-metalstock and rivet. Billion of dollar' are paidto thousands of suppliers for item thatmust be at hundred of different locationsat just the right time in the productionprocess. Boeing buys from companies innearly every state in the United States and

While the planes themselve are assem­bled in the eattle area, manufacturing isspread around the world. A 767 ha 3.14million parts, held together by an addi­tional 600,000 titanium and cadmium

an Airliner: 'It's a high-technology talcfilled with financial and political forces,the complexities and subtleties of theindustrial proces , and a dash of continu­ous quality improvement.' With everyaircraft that leaves Boeing, the companylearns more about how to do things bet­ter; a a result, the planes that followbenefit from constant refinement' andimprovement.

Millions of Parts

From Millions of Parts toDelivery

Assembling a modern airliner require· acombination of miraculous technologyand good, old-fashioned perspiration. Atone end of the spectrum is the daily man­ufacture of thousands of separate compo­nents, some of which are made up of evensmaller elements. At the other is thebringing together of a series of ub-assem­blie to construct an aircraft that will, ayear later, stand on its own three under­carriages, roll out and take to the skies.

Building the 767 and 757 involvesthousands of people from hundreds ofdifferent organizations. Boeing puts itthus in its booklet entitled How to BL!ild

7. As one 767 is assembled, another one, with itscentre section, awaits other fuselage sections.

8. A 767·300 in final join position.

7.

8.

82 83

HOW THE BIRDS ARE BORN HOW THE BIRDS ARE BOR

767 front sections and horizontal stabilizers are prepared for assemblv. Boeing

A 767 centre section and wing are lowered into place. Boeing

Towards the Final Assembly

The part that begin the assembly processare the wing spars, the internal beams thatrun the length of the wing. Wing spars andskins, machined in Auburn, arrive in aunique truck. It is so long that its rearwheels must be tee red by a driver sittingin a cab beneath the back of the trailer.Panel assembl ies and spars are joinedtogether with titanium rivets on a series oflarge tool jigs. Some of the rivets arecooled to minus 40 degrees Fahrenheitbefore installation, providing a tight fitas they expand as they warm to room

The fabrication division turns raw materi­als into many important items for assemblylines; it produce those parts that are diffi­cult to make, or are critical to keeping air­craft on delivery chedules. The divisionproduces 350,000 parts every week.

It takes about 18 months to build theparts and assemblies that go into each plane,and a month more to assemble the piecesinto an airliner ready for it first flight. The767 and 757 are manufactured in a serie ofoperations; some operations are huge, uchas hoisting tons of metal by rane, and someare tiny, such a aligning body sections towithin thousandths of an inch.

involves compiling parts and assemblieinto larger and more complex componentsuntil those components are ready for finalinstallation. These parts in lude frames,floor beams, spars, bulkheads, struts, doors,landing gear, flaps and horizontal stabilizers.Before parts are shipped to the plants, allexterior surface are coated with a thin layerof green vinyl, to guard against scratche .

In parallel, a Boeing shop assemblessmaller, more detailed parts shipped infrom the company' fabrication division inAuburn, Washington, and outside suppli­ers. The e include small latches, frame,tubes, pulley brackets and imilar items.

Sub-assembly is the vital step that occursaftcr parts are fabricated, but beforc majorhody scctions arc joined during what iscallcd the final asscmbly. Sub-assembly

ture of the aircraft how to tum the raw mate­rials into an aircraft. Each manufacturingta k is broken down into a more detailed,step-by-step plan. While that plan is beingput together, tooling engineers design thevarious complex and unique tools necessaryto build the plane, such a jig, assemblytools and holding fixtures. Then parts beginto flow into thc assembly plants. As assem­bly begins, manufacturing, design andanalysis engineer roam the factories toen ure that each part is installed accordingto specifications.

Sub-Assembly

The purchase of parts and materials canbegin only after the engineering organi:a­tion have given their approval. Engineersplaya key role, from the analysis of the needfor a new aircraft, through design and man­ufacturing, to testing and after-delivery sup­port. Early on, they consider the changingrequirements of the airl ine industry relatingto range and payload, and speed and safety.During product definition, engineersdecide what the aircraft is going to looklike. Data et and parts lists ar developed,including such details as the finish neededon parts and uggested heat treatments.

The Manufacturing Plan

Aftcr the aircraft is fully defined, a manu­fa turing plan is drawn up. This planinstructs everyonc involved in the manufac-

from subcontractors in Canada, outhAmerica, Europe, the Middle East, Asiaand Austral ia.

To maximize its buying leverage, Boe­ing's Commercial Airplane Group pur­chases basic items on an order base out­lined by top management. This maintainsa smooth flow of parts into the company'sreceiving area.

bout 30 to 36 months before thedelivery of an aircraft, Boeing begin pur­chasing basic part for each plane, includ­ing forgings and landing gear. About II to1 months before delivery, the companybegins buying the unique parts needed fora customer's specific configuration. A t thispoint - when customers make their orders,and delivery dates are locked in - subcon­tractors missing delivery deadlines canlead to delays and excess cost.

84 85

HOW TilE BIRDS ARE BaR I

During final body join, the 767's centre section and wings are lowered into position by huge overhead cranes, which manoeuvre the section so it can be joinedwith other fuselage sections. Notice the wires coming from where the engines will hang. Boeing

Each fuselage is held together by hundreds of thousands of rivets. Boeing

86

The forward section of a 767 is inched towardthe waiting fuselage in the Everett factory. Much ofthe movement of large components is doneovernight. Boeing

(Below) 767-200s in final assembly in the earlydays of the programme. Finished planes exit thecavernous factory through the giant doors in the

background. Boeing

HOW THE BIRDS ARE BORN

87

HOW THE BIRDS ARE BOR HOW THE BIRDS ARE BORN

Six Boeing 767s are shown in the 767 final assembly area during the early days of theprogramme. In this photo are (from front), a United Airlines model, one for TWA,another United, a Delta model and two additional Uniteds. Boeing

767s in final assembly, while other sections wait for assembly in the background. Boeing

process, usually on the overnight shift. Onthe second day in the paint hangar,painters use templates and stencils to layout all of the major lettering and decOl'a­tive markings of airlines from around theworld. Many of the templates are comput­er-generated to ensure exact reproduction.Each colour is then sprayed on in a pre­determined sequence. This is followed bymore curing at the end of the day. A paint­ed 757 uses 100 gallons (455 litres) ofpaint. The heavier 767 can use up to fourtimes that amount.

Some airlines need as many as nine sep­arate colours on their aircraft, althoughmost use only a few. White is the most pop­ular colour, and it is available in dozens of

are used to remove grease and otherunwanted residue, and to prepare the sur­face for paint adhesion. The painters alsouse air-pressure hoses to shoot dry, filteredair into all of the aircraft's seams and cav­ities, to blowout dust and water. After aprotective solution is sprayed on, all of thewindows - and other surfaces that are notpainted - are masked with paper and tape.

A yellow priming paint and white top­coat are applied to all painted surfaces.The paint is flexible enough to expandevery time the passenger cabin is pressur­ized. The paint is then cured, with twolarge steam boilers heating the entirebuilding to 120 degrees Fahrenheit (49degrees centigrade) during the curing

Painting

Finally - usually during the dark of night,for safety reasons - the giant doors open torelease a gigantic new hulk, sporting alight green/silvery metallic finish. Thecompleted aircraft is then tugged into thepaint hangars, where, over the course offour days, it is painted, and given aniden ti ty.

After a plane is rolled into the paintshop, its composite panels are sanded andit is sprayed with soap to begin to removethe temporary protective coating on thealuminium skins. Painters, moving abouton large cranes and scaffolding, scrub theentire plane with solvents. Abrasive pads

engines are attached, major functional test­ing begins, interior panels and carpeting areinstalled and seats are put in. In the fifth andsixth positions of final assembly, the planeundergoes a shakedown, or top-to-bottomtest, and the engine cowlings are installed.

There are usually six final-assembly posi­tions. In the first and second positions, lava­tories and galleys are installed, the fuselagepressure, electrical and hydraulic systems aretested, and fuel tanks are closed. In the thirdand fourth final-assembly positions, the

temperature. The wings are moved adja­cent to the final assembly line, where flaps,slats and other sub-assemblies are joined.Although manufactured separately, theright and left wings are joined together toform a single unit before other aircraft sec­tions are attached. Altogether, this cav­ernous unit serves as the main fuel tank ofan aircraft, and it is tested for leaks beforefinal assembly.

The 767 and 757 begin to come togeth­er when their wing assemblies are joinedwith a centre section, then attached to ashort, hollow section offuselage known asSection 44. The entire assembly is thenattached to cables and hoisted into the airby two ceiling cranes that can lift as muchas 34 tons (31 tonnes). In a procedure nor­mally done at night, crane operators slow­ly bring the section into place over anarray of steel scaffolds, beams, braces andramps. The scaffolding contains hydraulicjacks to level the fuselage.

The next section lowered into place isthe aft body section, Section 46, whichextends from just behind the wings to theback end of the aircraft. The vertical tailand the horizontal stabilizer are attachedlater. Finally, huge doors open to allow atractor to bring in the forward body sec­tion (43), which includes the attachednose section (41), wi th the fl igh t-deckequipment already installed and the lava­tories and galleys in place. One cranehooks on to the front of the nose sectionand another hooks to the rear. The hollowshell is hoisted and set in alignment.

Although the three individual sectionsare still more than a foot (30cm) apart, theplane has broadly taken shape. Over thenext several hours, workers will inch thebody sections together, measuring and lev­elling them until they fit. At this point, elec­trical and plumbing systems are installed,flaps and slats are installed and rigged, ;:)ndcargo liners and cockpit panels are put in.The landing gear is then installed and theplane is ready for final assembly.

Final Assembly

Both models spend about five days in theirfinal join position before moving to thefinal assembly area. The placement of fuse­lages and aircraft changes dramaticallyevery day in final assembly. Major movesare conducted on night-time shifts, whenfewer workers are in the factories. [n thefinal assembly area, an aircraft's positionchanges every four days.

88 89

HOW THE BIRDS ARE BORN

A 767 is prepared for painting. Water is used to clean the surface before the processbegins. Boeing

initial fuelling, the aircraft's fuel-storagetank and sy tems are tested. Fuel tanks arefilled completely. The tanks are then emp­tied, to test the fuel-feed and fuel-pumpsystems, and then filled again with slight­ly more than a full flight load of fuel, toallow the engines to run completely with­out additional fuelling.

At the same time, mechanics and elec­tricians start to prepare the engines for ini­tial run and operational checks. Engine­testing usually takes two to three day.First, the engines arc opened to make surethat everything is attached properly. Thenthe aircraft is moved into the engine-runposition, facing the wind. Air-ble d andstarting systems are tested while theengine is motored without ignition. Oil­system pressure, the auxiliary power unit,hydraul ic pumps and the generator arechecked. Once the engine is ignited forthe first time, engine performance is mon­itored and adju ted under both manualand automatic controls. Thrust reversersare then fine-tuned and the air-condition­ing system, which is powered by theengines, is adjusted. Cabin pressurizationis also hecked.

After the engine tests, the flight con­trol are studied, and the aircraft shake­down continues. The goal is to make surethat the aircraft is safe to fly, with no 100 econnections, no defects and no uncom­pleted adjustments. Tests are also conduct­ed on the safety systems.

On the day before the first flight, every­thing is checked again: flight-control sys­tems, lighting and warning systems, cock­pit and avionics systems, radar, autopilot,autothrottle, flight-management omput­ers, and flight and voice recorders. Finally,the engine arc readied for take-off, afterthe tyres have been kicked just one moretime.

the customer if the aircraft is heavier thanpecified in the contract, since a heavier

plane will burn more fuel, increasing oper­ating costs. Each aircraft is weighed at Boe­ing Field on three 8 by 10ft (2.4 by 3m)scales, one under each landing gear, insidethe flight-test hangar. The aircraft isbacked into a stall, with the stabilizer in theneutral position rmd flaps up. While fuel,

HOW THE BIRDS ARE BOR

The hangar doors are closed and blowersturned off, to eliminate any possible distur­bance of the aircraft's wings. When the d ig­ital readings of the three scales settle, theweight is compared to the calculatedexpected empty weight. An empty 767­200 weighs 177,500-l86,000Ib (80,510­84,370kg); the -300 model weighs more, at192,100-199,6001b (87,135-90,535kg).

call is arranged with the customers' andBoeing's bankers, so that funds can betransferred without delay. Typically, anairline representative will call his bankerto transfer the money. A banker for Boe­ing then acknowledges that the millionshave been tran ferred to Boeing'saccount, and ownership is then trans­fen·ed. The plane is then ready to be flown

Delivery Completed aircraft are normally moved out during night-time hours to avoid traffic congestion. Boeing

shades. A ny special decals are appl ied onthe third day of painting. On the same day,masking is removed, small markings arepainred for identification and mainte­nance, and small decals arc applied. ntilth is process is completed, every plane isjust another aircraft. With an airline's liv­ery, it takes on it own identity.

Quality is vital in the paint shop, par­ticularly on aircraft which rely on theirfuel-efficiency for their popularity. If anarea the size of two doors is poorly painted,with rough surfaces, on ten planes, this

could result in 777 unnecessary gallons(2,941 littTs) of fuel burned a year. Thatequates to 25 passengers and their luggageleft behind on a typical journey.

Testing and Fino/Installation

Fir t flight i closer when the engines andinstrument come to life. This happensduring pre-flight activitie. Each planeundergoes about two weeks of testing andfinal installation work before it is ready totake off for the first time. During the

90

ew 767s are handed to airlines at PaineField in Everett; Boeing Field in Seattle isthe final location for 757s before they areturned over to their owners. During its tento fourteen days there, each plane undergoesmore flight testing, sometimes by customer,Boeing or FA pilot. Last-minute in talla­tion ,adjustment and fixes are made. Billsand receipt arc then signed, and the aircraftis flown away by airline pilots to its newhome base around the world.

Each aircraft is also weighed beforedelivery. Boeing may pay penalty fees to

drinking water and toilets are drained, tomake the plane empty, flight-test crewsscour the aircraft to remove every item thatdoes not belong - tools, fire extinguishers,left-over lunches. A tractor moves the air­craft to the hangar and carefully backs it upon to the electronic scales. An engineerthen signals when the wheels are centredon the scales, and the tractor pulls away.

The 757-200 weighs in at In,8l0lb(57,975kg). As new items arc added overtime, an aircraft's empty weight canincrease by up to 1 per cent each year.

On the day an aircraft is cheduled fordelivery, representatives of the airline,Boeing and others gather to sign thepapers in a conference room. Because mil­lions of dollars arc involved, a conference

97

away, just as a new car is driven away byit happy owner.

Naturally, the work doe not end whenplanes are flown away by customers. Boe­ing's customer-service division providesmanuals and CD-ROMs telling customerhow to operate and maintain members oftheir dynamic duo. The division also offerstraining and spare parts.

HOW THE BIRDS ARE BaR

After flight testing, most new Boeing jets take off for their delivery flights from Boeing Field in Seattle.Here, a new British Airways 757 leaves for home. Ed Davies

This Finnair 757 awaits modifications prior to delivery at Renton. Ed Davies

92

Static Tests

Soon after first rollout, the 767 and 757underwent a static test programme a' partof their certification. In such a test, theentire airframe is subjected to increasinglysevere loads until it fails, and this providesprecise knowledge of the plane's structuralcapability. Every new plane, without itengines or avionics, is twisted, turned andpulled in various ways, to ensure the designcan cope with the worst battering thatwind, weather and poor piloting couldinflict upon it.

During the final static test of the 767airframe, a load test was conducted thatpulled the wing tips up 15.5ft (4.7m) overthe top of the fuselage, at a pre sure of 1.2million pounds (544,3 Okg). The wingdid not break, but the aft fuselage belowthe cargo floor did. As a re ult, that areawas later strengthened. The wings provedto be 150 per cent tranger than the engi­neer had anticipated. Static testingshowed that higher gro -weight versionscould be offered earlier, and that thicould be achieved with fewer changesthan expected.

Static tests on the 757 were completedon 16 July 1982, when both wings failed atthe same predicted location at 112 percent of ultimate load, allowing the 757'sgross weight to be increased to 240,000Ib(1 ,900kg) from 220,00 Ib (99, kg).

The 767 Early TestingProgramme

The objective of the flight-testing pro­gramme is to identify any problems andwork out the kinks prior to certifi ation.

The 767's first flight occurred on sched­ule on 26 September 1981. The maiclenjourney of the world's newest airlinerbegan on Paine Field, less than twenty­four hour after the aircraft had movedunder its own power for the first time.It was an extraordinary achievement,showing how demanding the company's

CHAPTER NINE

Right Testing

Static testing is as important as flight testing. Here, a 767 is prepared to test theairframe's ability to withstand both the forces of nature and pilot error. Boeing

93

FLIGHT TESTING FLIGHT TESTING

LlDE'.lVG767••••• • •••• • • •••••••••• ••

The 757's First Flight

engine noise and fuel efficiency would becarefully noted in future test flights,observers near the runway also said thatthe take-off seemed remarkably quiet.

Edmonds was pleased with the colourdisplays of the electronic attitude directorindicator and the map display on the hor­izontal situation indicator. 'It's like hold­ing a map on a TV screen,' he said. 'Youcan see where you are all the time.'

Test runs of the 757's Rolls-Royce RB2lI­535C engines began on 23 January 1982,on the pre-flight line at Renton. Power warestricted to idle that day, due to high cross­winds. Full take-off power was achievedthe next day. On 17 February, Boeingrolled the aircraft under its own power, to

25 degrees and 30 degrees. The new trans­port met up with a photo aircraft for about30 minutes, then returned to Paine Fieldfor a fly-by at 800ft (244m). It then madean approach at 125 knots (23lkm) and asmooth, uneventful landing at 1.58 pm ­just as the oncoming front began to dark­en the skies.

The big jet then taxied across to theadjacent flight line, where hundreds ofemployees and guests applauded the flightcrew. 'I don't think we've ever had a clean­er airplane on a first flight,' 'T' Wilson toldthe crowd. Edmonds described it as a 'verymarvellous' first flight, and confirmed thatthe aircraft had performed very close toexpectation, following the simulator tests.He noted the plane's hallmarks - fuel effi­ciency and quietness. 'It looked like wehad more fuel when we came back thanwhen we left,' he said at the time. While

757 test pilots John Armstrong (left) and Lew Wallick prior to the aircraft's first flight on19 February 1982. Boeing

the fI ight showed the leak was due to a bro­ken hydraulic line in the nose-gear area.The broken line drained nearly all thefluid from one system. It was unrelated tothe hydraulic pump problem that haddelayed the taxi tests.

There was one other problem during thefirst flight. When Edmonds flushed one ofthe toilets, there was a boom Iike a gungoing off. The noise came from a valve inthe vacuum flushing system - a problemthat was later quickly fixed.

early all the initial first-flight objec­tives were met. The aircraft flew at alti­tudes of between 17,000 and 18,000ft(5,180-5,500m). Cruising south over anarea just south of the Juan de Fuca Strai tbetween Port Townsend and Port Angeles,Washington, the crew investigated thehand ling characteristics, and performedsome initial buffet checks at flap settings of

seat, with John Brit in the soon-tn-be­extinct f1ight-engineer's station.

The maiden flight encountered a prob­lem 40 minutes after rake-off. Edmondstried to retract the landing gear, but thecentral hydraulic system failed as a result ofa fluid leak, which was spotted by the pilotof the chase plane. As a result, the gearwould not come up, and all photos takenfrom the chase plane showed the 767 withgears down. Wallick confirmed that theinstruments showed a loss of hydraulic fluid.

It was the only sour note in an otherwiseflawless first flight, which lasted two hoursand four minutes. It was not a serious prob­lem, since the 767 has three hydraulic sys­tems. 'The aircraft is designed to fly on oneengine and to fly on a single hydraulic sys­tem. We have three,' Edmonds told via­cion Week & S/)ace Technology after theflight. 'It is going to be operated in airlineservice, and at some time in its life it willhave a hydraulic failure. For me this wasanother way of saying that the aircraftoperated as designed.' An inspection after

However, within about 90 minutes, halfthe time allotted, the aircraft had com­pleted eight runs up and down the runwayand achieved its test objectives. Theseincluded achieving a speed of 130 knots,180-degree turns, S-turns, nose-wheel lift­off, rudder steering, and full thrust revers­er and shimmy checks. Following the suc­cess of the taxi tests, the decision wasmade to fly on 26 September. Programmeofficials were anxious to get in the airahead of the approaching storm front.

The 767's First Flight

Project pilot Thomas Edmonds sent Boe­ing's biggest twin screaming down the run­way at 11.54 am. After a 3,600ft (1 ,097m)take-off roll and a speed of 120 knots(222kmfh), the 767 lifted smoothly intothe air, heading north. Edmonds thenmade a gradual turn to the west, over theOlympic Peninsula, where the 767 wasjoined by a Boeing-owned North Ameri­can F-86 fighter, serving as the chaseplane. Lew Wallick was in the co-pilot

flight-test programme was, during itsunprecedented effort to produce two newplanes less than five months apart. Usual­ly, with a new-model aircraft, taxi tests arefollowed by a few days of debugging.

The first 767 was cleared for flight at8.07 am that morning, after the replace­ment of some troublesome hydraulicpumps, which had delayed the start of ini­tial taxi tests for several hours.

The aircraft had not moved under itsown power until 12.20 pm the Jay before,

The first 767 during its first flight on 26 September 1981. The landing gear did not retract because of ahydraulic failure during the flight. Note the stickers of the seventeen original customers on the forwardfuselage. Boeing

25 September, when two Pratt & Whitney]T9D-7R4 engines powered it from theflight line to the runway. At the time,fl ight-test officials were sceptical that thethree-hour taxi test programme could beaccomplished, the resulting data absorbedand analysed, and the aircraft checked outin time for a flight the following day. Withforecasters predicting deteriorating weath­er conditions, starting from midday on 26September, the first flight date of 30 Sep­tember - chosen three years earlier ­appeared to be in jeopardy.

94 95

American Airlines is the second-largest operator of 757s, with 102 in service. Darren Anderson

(Below) Germany's Condor Flugdienst is the launch customer for the 757­300, a stretched model that rolled out in May 1998. Condor Flugdienst

(Above) One of America West's 757s is painted in the team colours of the ArizonaDiamond Backs, a baseball team in the airline's hub city, Phoenix. Darren Anderson

Aviation

r

Delta Air Lines, the third-largest carrier in the world, operates 110 757s, the most of any airline. Ed Davies

(Above) American Airlines uses its 767-300s ondomestic and international routes. Ed Davies

(Below) German charter carrier Condor gets in the spirit of holiday travel with this Rizzi Bird livery on a757-200. Stefan Roesch

(Opposite) The 757 Freighter was rolled out on 8July 1987 for United Parcel Service. Boeing

(Be/ow) It doesn't take special liveries to makeAmerica West's 757s look beautiful. Ralph

Olson/Flying Images Worldwide

(Above) Transbrasil uses both 767-300s, shownhere, and -200 models. Michael Pellaton/Flying Images

Worldwide

Air China operates four 767-300s. Michael Pellaton/Flying Images Worldwide

United Parcel Service is the largest operator of 767 freighters. Terry Hale

Vietnam Airlines unveiled its new colours in 1998 on one of its 767-300ERs. Peter Sweeten/Aviation Photography Worldwide

r

This LTU Siid 757 is among many flying for European charter carriers to warmer climates. Peter Sweeten/Aviation Images Worldwide

Asiana's 767-300s are used on both trans-Pacific and Asian routes. Michael Pellaton/Flying Images Worldwide

All Nippon Airways operates forty 767-300s. Peter Sweeten/Aviation Images Worldwide This United Parcel Service 767-300 is painted in special Olympic colours ,in honour of the company's Olympic sponsorship. Terry Hale

An Employee's Perspective

"She sits on the runway in the morning sunlight.Silver wings spread for flight; sensing, testing, tasting the wind.

Poised, gleaming and with agreat bellowing lurch. projected on her run.Straight as an arrow sprung from ten thousand bows, she goes. ever faster.

Mighty engines burning. pulsing, thrusting, singing their song.Up she goes toward the great heights; up where the angels play.

Born of abreed whose playground is the starsLaunched by a million careful hands who came to see her fly... ·

FLIGHT TESTING

Seeing the new planes leaving the assembly line and flying away can be an emotional experience for the Boeingemployees who help to design and build them. One worker. Jack J Joseph. shared his feelings in a 1982 issue ofBoeing News. the company newspaper:

'We went to Renton Field to watch the first flight of the 757. Waiting there for a few minutes in excited anticipa­tion. which I think we all felt. the clouds dissipated almost suddenly as if by some magic to expose agreat expanseof sunshine and blue sky - a portent of future greatness for the 757.

'It occurred to me that this great airplane that was about to be launched into service was atotal manifestation ofthe creative energies and abilities of many men and women working in harmony to produce the very finest that theircooperative talents and efforts could conceive. Having had a part in this effort and seeing it evolve into this beauti­ful machine caused a feeling of pride and exhilaration. which I felt compelled to express in some way:

Thomas Edmonds

Edmonds was the 767's project test pilot.Working with engineers, he representedthe pilot viewpoint in cockpit and aircraft­systems design.

Edmonds began flying while he was anaeronautical engineering student andjoined the US Navy flight programme in1951. In 1956, after graduating from theUS Air Force Test Pilot School, he joinedBoeing as a flight-test engineer on the KC­135 military jet tanker programme. He wasthe project pilot of the 707 programmeand also took part in the 727, 737 and 747programmes. At the time of the 767,Edmonds offered 31 years of flight experi­ence. Both Edmonds and his co-pilot onthe 767, S. L. 'Lew' Wallick, had flownevery type of Boeing jetliner produced.

97

S. L. 'Lew' Wallick

in the press. Only several days later, onenewspaper reported that the 757 had lostengine power on the flight. Although notdamaged, the engine was replaced for thesecond flight. No one takes any chancesduring flight testing.

As the pilots went to stride proudly outof the plane, there was a little incident ­they could not get the 757's door open.Due to a relief-valve failure, the pressur­ization system had broken - in effect, theplane was still pressurized. Test pilot JohnArmstrong simply went back to the cock­pit and opened a window to let air out.

The first 757 was a more complete air­craft at rollout than any other Boeingmodel that had been produced before. 'Weachieved everything we intended to do onthe first flight, and everything worked justas advertised,' says Armstrong, who wasjoined in the cockpit by Lew Wallick, whohad also flown on the 767.

'It was a thrill to get the sucker in theair,' Armstrong recalls today. 'It performedjust like they said it would.'

A fonner Second World War naval pilot,Wallick joined Boeing in 1951. He wasBoeing's director of flight test and chieftest pilot at the time of the 767 launch. Hewas involved in five initial flights of newBoeing aircraft, and three maiden flights ofderivative models. He was co-pilot on the767 and 757, and the chief test pilot for Armstrong (JeftJand Wallick disembark following successful first flight ofthe 757. Boeing

Pilot Profiles(Below) 757 assembly in Renton. Boeing

This KLM 767-300 lands at Vancouver following a long flight from Amsterdam. Robert Rindt

The C-32A, the military version of the 757, entered service in 1998 to transport US government officials. Boeing

The first 757 conducts flight testing at Edwards Air Force Base in California. The base's long runways,desert climate and a lack of population is an ideal place to test new aircraft. Boeing A 767 AWACS, one of four built for Japan, is shown at Boeing Field. Ed Davies

US Airways is among the major US carriers flying the 757. Ed Davies

Northwest Airlines flies more than seventy 757s, many flying coast-to-coast routes in the US. Ed Davies

for ten hours of flight time, in order to proveto the FAA a level of airworthiness thatwould allow it to operate over populatedareas. It then moved to Boeing Field, head­quarters for the 757/767 flight-test effort.

The 767 had experienced some prob­lems on its first flight, and the maidenvoyage of the 757 was not quite withoutany flaws, either.

Towards the end of the 757's first flight,one of its engines stalled, because of aninadvertent blast of high-pressure airwhile at flight idle. The No. 2 engineintentionally had been brought down toidle, while the other engine remained atfull power, as part of the control checks. Avalve was left open in the interconnectsystem between the engines, allowinghigher-pres ure bleed air to flow from theengine operating at flight power to the idleengine. That created a stall condition.The engine was shut down for a few min­utes and re-started. The first flight, whichhad lasted for two hours and thirty-oneminutes, ended with a normal landing.

The problem with the Rolls enginecame about twenty minutes before theplane landed, and the issue never came up

returned to the end of the runway andstarted its take-off roll.

The aircraft rotated at 125 knots(231km/h) and lifted off smoothly overLake Washington. Like the 767, it wasjoined by an F-86 cha e plane. Later, afterachieving all first-flight objectives, theplane met up with a 727 photo aircraft fora 40-minute photo session over the Straitsof Juan de Fuca. The plane flew between16,000 and 18,000ft (4,900-5,500m), fly­ing at speeds below 250 knots (462km/h).

The landing gear was intentionallyretracted for most of the first flight, and didnot suffer the hydraulic problems that hadbeen faced by the 767 five months earlier.Objectives of the maiden flight includedchecking the aircraft at all flap settings andall speeds below 250 knots, and initial buf­fet at each flap setting. Trailing cones weredeployed during the flight, to check the cal­ibration of the airspeed recorded on board.

A plan to perform a ceremonial fly-bybefore landing at Paine Field in Everett wasscratched because of impending rain clouds,but the 757 touched down smoothly. Itlanded at Everett, because the area is lesspopulated. The first 757 operated from there

FLIGHT TESTING

conduct taxi tests. The 757 returned to theflight line after only three runs.

At this point, all was ready for a 10 amflight the following day, but persistentheavy rains - common in the Puget Soundarea at that time of year - caused a series ofpostponements and, finally, a midday deci­sion to abandon flight plans for the day.

On 19 February, the weather was stillthreatening, but now concern centred onthe wind. Because it was a first flight, theFAA required that the 757 take off to thenorth over Lake Washington, rather thansouth into the wind - a path that wouldhave taken the aircraft over populatedareas. A weather station near the runwaywas recording tail winds of about 16 knots(30km/h), unacceptable for a downwindtake-off from the 5,300ft (l,615m) run­way. However, conditions swiftly im­proved, enabling the red, white and bluetwin-jet to taxi to the south end of thefield. When the wind speed dipped to 10knots (l8.5km/h), it was time to go.

The crew brought the engines up topower and carried out a short taxi test bymoving the plane down the runway a shortdistance before braking. The 757 then

96

FLIGHT TE TING FLIGHT TESTING

brake development, fl igh t loads and tests ofthe pneumatic system, automatic flightcontrols, and stall and buffet loads. Thefourth aircraft, fitted with a complete inte­rior in the front half of the passenger cabin,began work in December 1981 to performairline-type flying and reliability checks.

A fifth aircraft equipped with GE CF6­80A engines was used to certify the aircraft

Test equipment on board the 767 measures aircraft performance. The barrels (top) areused to simulate flight loads, Boeing

initial airworthine s test, high-speedstructural test and testing of stability anclcontrol and aerodynamic performance.

The second aircraft began tests in Octo­ber 1981. It was used to test controls, digi­tal avionics and the flight-managementand electrical systems, and also to certifythe engines. The third 767 joined the pro­gramme in ovember to concentrate on

The Test Fleets

The first five 767s used in flight testingwere outfitted with three-member crewdecks, ince they were built after Boeingwas allowed to offer two-crew cockpits.Four 767s - the Boeing-owned first oneand three in United irlines colours ­equipped with Pratt & Whitney enginewere used for the basic fl igh t test pro­gramme. The first 767 was used to perform

performance and safety both in the air andon the ground, The tests focused on cruisepelformance, low-speed stability and con­trol, engine-cooling, noise, flutter, and land­ing and take-off performance, including thedramatic tail-drag test. The aircraft alsounderwent a series of aborted take-offs, toshow that they are able to stop when losingan engine at a critical moment, in concli­tions that de troy brake, tyres and wheels.

The later 757 programme did use certi­fication data from 767 flight tests, but thetwo planes are sufficiently different to war­rant their own extensive test programmes,On the 757, for example, equipment isinstalled in different locations and in dif­ferent proximity to other equipment in thetwo models, and these differences affectoperating temperatures, electromagneticinterference and other characteri'tics, allof which needed to be checked out inflight, till, the commonality of the 767and 757 reduced testing from what wouldhave been required for two completelynew aircraft.

Hundreds of landings were conducted oneach plan' under a variety of wind condi­tions, weights, centre-of-gravity locations,flap settings, and other variables. Many ofthese were done at Boeing Field in Seattleor at Moses Lake, Washington, at a formerair ba e in Glasgow, Montana, and in thehigh desert of Palmdale, California,

Much of the testing focused on the glasscockpit and accompanying electronics,The first 767 did not have the glass cock­pit at all, and the 757's, although furtheralong, was incomplete. In fact, the digitaldecks were not fully ready until just beforethe aircraft were certified, giving engineersenough time to demonstrate that all thenew gadgets on board would not interferewith communications or cause electronicproblems. Engine Indicating and rewAlerting ystem (EICA ) testing wasdone on the 757 before the system wasused on the 767,constantly enlarged. The second flight of

the 757, for instance, reached speeds of460 knots (851 km/h) and an altitude of35,000ft (l0,700m) instead of 250 knots(463km/h) and 18,000ft (5,500m) on thefirst flight. (Armstrong and Wallick,though, reported an engine throttle slight­ly out of adjustment, and minor troublewith electronic indicator' - the type ofproblems common to brand-new aircraft.)

The 767 underwent 1,64 hours of flighttesting in ten months; the 757 completed1,3 0 hours in ten months. Each wentthrough similar trials to test capabilities,

Flight testing was e'pecially critical forthe new jet, since both planes were tech­nically very different from previous Boeingmodels. A irframes and engines were not theonly items under the micro'cope. 'A lot ofthe systems were totally new,' Wygle says.'The glass cockpit was a novel concept, andthe industry was watching very closely.'

Overall, the 767 and 757 performedwell, both aerodynamically and 'tructural­Iy. 'Both were relatively trouble-free andthey met or exceeded take-off and cruiseperformance,' Wygle says, 'These were twoof the best-behaving models we had everbuilt, certified and delivered on time, Thatis a success story.'

With every successive test flight, ti;leperformance envelope on both planes was

The Programme

could arise - but in 19 2 Boeing was facedwith testing two new aircraft at the sametime. On top of that, the all-new digitalflight decks had to pass muster.

The company's seven-day-a-week flight­test workload peaked in 1982 at seventeenaircraft, nine more than the maximumused during the 747 flight-test programme.At the same time, new regulatory require­ments forced Boeing to produce more datato a greater degree of accuracy in less time.

Brien Wygle, vice-president of flightoperation, who oversaw the 767 and 757flight-testing programmes, says now thatgearing up for two test programme wasnot easy. 'That wa no small task,' herecalls. 'Our facilities and manpowerwere stretched real thin,'

The test-flight programme was the mostdemanding yet for Boeing, The companymet this challenge, which was complicatedby a tight time schedule and stringent fed­eral requirements, by doubling it' flight­test organization from 524 employees tomore than 900, redeveloping its flight datamanagement system, and conducting anintensive training programme to make effi­cient use of people and equipment.

LiTLI~'~L;7"Li'7"... ' ... . ~

John Armstrong

John Armstrong worked with the 757designers right from the aircraft's incep­tion, representing the pilot" point of viewduring the de 'ign process.

A graduate of Washington State niver­sity, with a Bachelor of cience degree inmechanical engineering, Armstrong joinedBoeing in 1959 as a flight-test engineer. Hereturned to Boeing in 1965 after five yearsin the US Air Force, and served as a pro­duction test pilot and an engineering test

With the dynamic duo's first flights uc­cessfully completed, Boeing embarked on astrenuous and ambitious flight-test pro­gramme. Flight testing is always an anxioustime - just when engineers are hoping tohave thought of everything, a new problem

pilot on 707s, 727s, 737s, and 747 ' He hadbeen the project test pilot for the 72 7 and737 when he was named for the 757 pro­gramme in 1978.

the 727 and 737, and also co-piloted the720,707-300 and 747 P derivatives. Wal­lick was named co-pilot for the initialflight of the 767 in September 1980.

Flight Testing

The 767 during flight testing, The model underwent 1.648 hours of flight testing in ten months, Boeing

98 99

FLIGHT TESTING FLIGHT TESTING

Velocity minimum unstick testing, a scary flight-testing manoeuvre, is done to determine the minimumspeed at which the aircraft can lift off, and to demonstrate that it can remain stable during climb after sucha take-off. During these tests, the aircraft's tail, protected by a wooden tail skid, scrapes the lake-bedrunway at Edwards Air Force Base. Boeing

The 757 arrived on 17 January 1995 in a dense cloud of frozen ground fog thatobscured much of the area. The aircraft was immediately prepared for cold soak. Theaircraft was powered down and all heat sources were removed. The cold soak beganat a temperature of -50°F (-45.5°CI. The temperature hit a low of -58°F (-50°CIduring the test. driving temperatures in the interior cabin to -27°F (-33°CI; it was-33°F (-36°CI in the flight deck.

Following the cold-soak test, the Boeing crew used two ground heating units towarm the air inside the 757. Four hours later, the cabin temperature was warmenough for systems to work. It took less than 45 minutes af1er that to bring the cabtemperature up to 75°F (24°Cl. Engines were then started, and the plane flew ashortdemonstration flight. As a result. the 757 is certified for operation at temperaturesas low as -65°F (-54°CI - cold enough to solidify fuel - and is, therefore, suitablefor Russian operators in the winter.

Cold-Weather Certification

The 757 was flown to Yakutsk, Russia, in January 1995 for cold-weather certification in Russia. Boeing

When Russia's Baikal Airlines ordered the 757 for service in Siberia, Boeing had to satis­fy Russia's aviation authority, the Aviation Register, that the aircraft could withstand theworld's coldest temperatures. To obtain cold-weather certification in Russia, in January1995, about thirty Boeing employees flew a 757 to the city of Yakutsk, Siberia. The tripentailed aquick stopover in Fairbanks, Alaska, a flight across the Bering Sea and landingin the city, which is just south of the Arctic Circle. There, the plane was left 'cold-soaked'(sitting outsidel for fourteen hours in temperatures down to-65°F (-54°CI. Then the crewconducted several ground and flight tests, showing that the plane could operate at below-30°F (-34°CI, the temperature to which the Russian authorities had limited the aircraft.

The Boeing team was anxious to find out how the bitterly cold weather would affectfuel and hydraulic systems, the auxiliary power unit, the Rolls-Royce engines, landinggear, tyres and doors. The cold-weather demonstration was a complete success; theaircraft performed almost flawlessly. As a result, Boeing was able to validate anddevelop minor revisions to the maintenance and flight-operations manuals.

take-off. During these tests, the aircraft'stail, protected by a wooden tail skid,craped the lakebed runway, ending a col-

umn of moke and dust into the air. Datafrom such test were used to calculate fieldlength and take-off performance. Both the757 and 767 performed the e challengesomewhat better than expected, and theflight-test crew was pleased with borh thehandling characteristics and stahilityunder such abusive conditions.

To simulate the rigours of flight, partswere judged on their ability to withstandthe number of cycles in a normal servicelife, plus 50 per cent. 'Cycle' refers ro thenumber of fl ights; one cycle is one take-offand landing. Both airframes were servic

Dramatic Tests

The dramatic rejected take-off brakingtesting was conducted on the hot and drydesert floor at Edwards Air Force Base inCalifornia. For these tests, an aircraft wasloaded co full take-off weight, brought upto take-off speed and then scopped abrupt­ly, putting maximum energy inco thebrakes. The new airliners had co demon­strate that they could withstand the ensu­ing brake fire for five minutes.

Another scary manoeuvre was velOCityminimum unstick testing, to determinethe minimum speed at which the aircraftcan lift off, and co demonstrate that it canremain stable during climb after such a

with that engine. [t first flew in February[9 Z. A sixth 767, outfirred with a two­per on fl ight deck, began operating in thespring of 19 Z. This one was used for finalcerrification of the aircraft, includingevacuation testing.

The 757 te t fleet comprised six aircraft,used for the same ta k . One aircraft, forEastern Ai rl ines, offered a rearrangedelectronic bay, co allow for more haggage.Anodler 757 was in the Delta Air Linesconfiguration, which differed from orher757s in the division of elecrrical andelecrronic equipment between the foreand aft compartments. Delm also chose toeliminate a door, opting instead for anoverwing exit.

700 707

FLIGHT TESTING FLIGHT TESTING

The 757 during a test flight. Both the 757 and 767 performed well during this critical phase. Boeing

(Below) A 767 cruises on a test flight over Washington State's OlympicMountains. Boeing

IiTLTE'~LT 76'7•• I ••••••••• • • • ••• I •••••••••.. .

(Above) A 767-300ER about to touch down after a test flight over theCalifornian desert. Boeing

when they ordered the plane. This was duelargely to lower aerodynamic drag. The air­craft was also found to be 1,5001b (680kg)lighter, as the result of an aggressive weight­reduction programme. Flight testing foundthat each 767 with a full passenger loadequals two 727s plus half a 707 freighter, allfor 2 per cent less fuel burn than a 727.

'The 767 is a better airplane than [theone] we sold, and our airlines are going to

get a better airplane than they bought,'Dean Thornton, vice-president and gener­al manager of the 767 division, toldreporters during a demonstration flightfrom Seattle to Chicago. 'That's not justengineering calculation, but hard, measur­able data with the airplane in the sky.' Boe­ing knew about these better-than-expectedresults even before the first flight, but choseto wait until testing could confirm them.

Flight tests confirmed that both aircraftwere as fuel-efficient as advertised. The767's fuel burn was found to be 4.5 per centless than the level the airlines had been told

Meeting and ExceedingExpectations

In general, both planes performed close todesign in flight tests, and Boeing experi­enced fewer testing problems on the767/757 than on the 727. 'These were twoof the best programmes we've ever pro­duced coming out of our factory. lt wasquite a happy programme,' says Brien

Wygle. 'Those two planes were beautiful.They were well engineered and met allexpectations. '

The 767

life tested over two lifetimes, or forty yearsof airline service. They endured 19 monthsof tests consisting of 100,000 simulatedfI ights over 100,000 hours.

To test the real-life capabilities of thenew jets, both the 767 and 757 flew insome odd places to ensure their durabilityand reliability, from the hot Arizona desertin the middle of the summer to the depthsof a Siberian winter.

Among the most significant tests wasthe test carried out in Lhasa, Nepal forhigh-altitude certification. To be flown inChina, the 757 had to show that it couldtake off in the thin Himalayan air, evenwith one engine out, and maintain suffi­cient altitude, for long enough, to cross themountains and fly back to Chengdu,China. For these tests, the pilots wore oxy­gen masks during descent and landing.

702 703

FLIGHT TESTING FLIGHT TESTING

The 767's exit chute, used in emergency evacuations, was among the aircraft's manyfeatures tested on the ground. Boeing

(Below) Boeing employees were used to test the757's comfort and speed of in-flight service. Boeing

"""~

l 1111""''''

(Above) The 757 executes a water spray test during flight testing. This test measures how the aircraft andengines perform if standing water lines the runway. Boeing

Long before the first flight of the 757, Boe­ing and launch customer Eastern Airlinesdecided to test the galley positions of thenew plane. Boeing recruited 174 employ­ees to act as 'passengers', to sit on an imag­inary flight in a full-scale mock-up of thenew jet. This time and motion test wasaimed at determining the better of twomethods a carrier might use to serve food.Cameras recorded the 'flight' for lateranalysis. In the study, fl ight attendantsprovided customers with beverage service,followed by lunch or dinner. In the 757design, the galleys are located forward andaft, with lavatories bracketing the centresection of the aircraft.

The flight attendants used aisle carts inthe morning test and distributed meals byhand in the afternoon test. Cart servicewas found to require a 40in (lOOcm) deepgalley, compared with the hand-carry sys­tem, which needed a 30in (76cm) deepgalley. Consequently, the type of food andbeverage service selected by an airline willaffect the seating arrangement.

During the tests, employees were givenplay money to buy drinks, and were told towalk to the lavatories at given times, inorder to demonstrate the difficulty or ease of

Mock Flights

Continued 757 testing found that thewings' decreased sweep, greater length andthicker cross-section led to improved fuelefficiency. Improved low-speed perfor­mance and a higher lift-to-drag ratio result­ed in lower engine thrust requirements dur­ing landing, helping to reduce noise. To testthe wing's structural dynamics, Boeing useda flutter vane, extended from the wing tip,which activated in flight to induce flutter.Flutter tests on the 757 were completed inrecord time for a Boeing transport. In fact,testing of the 757 went so well that one ofthe five aircraft planned for the test fleetwas retired early and prepared for delivero/.

Armstrong, the 757 test pilot, now saysthat the smooth progress of the aircraft'stesting programme was in part due to theexperience derived from the earlier 767programme. The 757, which was notintended to be a transcontinental aircraft,quickly received that reputation after theairlines saw its performance during flighttesting. 'jt became a longer-range airplanereal quick,' says Armstrong.

The 757

flight deck makes the cockpit feel evenroom ier. Late adoption of the two-crew con­figuration in the evolution of the 767 designhas resulted in a greater amount of space atthe rear of the flight deck.'

The 767 flight-test programme resultedin a number of refinements in the softwarefor digital avionics, and a change in themounting arrangement of the wing's lead­ing-edge slats. An inability to retract theslat on the third flight led Boeing tostrengthen the slat-attach structure some­what, and move it further forward.

The avionics systems for both new air­craft went through their paces in less timeand with more thoroughness and precisionthan in any previous Boeing aircraft.

Early test flights by members of the indus­try press gave the 767 high marks: 'Apartfrom its high level of automation, the 767has retained the stability and handling qual­ities of earlier Boeing planes. Control forcesare slightly on the heavy side, thoughresponsiveness has been improved from pre­vious aircraft such as the 707, especially atlow speeds,' wrote Aviation Week & SpaceTechnology's reporter. 'The new aircraft alsohas very straightforward stall characteristics,with natural and artificial stall warning mar­gins adequate enough to prevent inadver­tent stalls. Spaciousness of the 767' cockpitis similar to that of other widebody trans­ports currently in service, but the absence ofa flight engineer's panel at the rear of the

104 705

FLIGHT TESTING

A 757 embarks on another test flight. Note itssilvery finish. unlike other Boeing test aircraft.Boeing

(Below) The 757 returns to Boeing Field following atest flight. Boeing

106

A 757 takes off at Renton. Boeing

pa senger movement during meal service.Employees who served as passengers wereasked to complete a questionnaire statingh w long they had to wait for a meal,whether it was hot enough, if they wereallowed ample time to eat, and whether theart in the aisle was a hindrance.

imilar tests were conducted on 767s atthe Everett plant, when 446 'passengers'enjoyed mock flights during an American

idines time and motion study. The twolays of tests were recorded by five televi­ion cameras on fifty hours of videotape.merican Airlines officials viewed the

tape in order to determine the best config­urations for passenger comfort.

Today, Boeing selects a group of employ-e to take test flights before any first new

model is del ivered. They check everything,from cushion comfort and cabin tempera­tures, to air circulation and whether theyare able to read during take-off.

FLIGHT TESTING

Data Analysis

When the dynamic duo was tested, Boeinghad the advantage of a sophisticatedonboard airborne data analysis and monitorsystem called Adams 2, as well as a ground­based flight-test computing system. Thesesystems had not been available when previ­ous aircraft were tested. Together, theyenabled engineers on board to look at liveflight-test data, so that they could evaluatewhether completed tests were sufficient, orwhether the tests needed to be repeated inthe air. In older testing programmes, the air­craft would have to land first. Data tapewould be run through a computer, and theresults sent to the technical people, whowould have to evaluate it before returningwith a decision as to whether it was neces­sary to repeat the specific condition inflight. With the new systems, such decisionscould be made with the plane still in the air.

707

The Fuel System

Tests are also conducted on the fuel systemto certify and document its accuracy. Atstake is safety (is there enough fuel in thetanks for the flight?) and reputation (howaccurate is performance compared withprom ised performance?). Fuel for both the767 and 757, as on almost all aircraft, is car­ried in the wings. Fuel quantity is measuredby probes, which change in electricalcapacitance as the fuel level around themchanges. This is indicated by gaugesbeneath the wings and on the flight deck.A densitometer in each wing tank auto­matically determines the unit weight of thefuel, which the fuel-system computer mul­tiplies by the quantity of fuel on board to

determine fuel weight. This is importantfor calculating aircraft gross weight, to keepwithin structural weight limitations, andwhere take-off distance is weight-critical.

FLIGHT TESTING FLIGHT TESTING

High-Tech Testing

I

I

Wind-Tunnel Testing

How did Boeing know the 757 and 767 would be amongthe world's most fuel-efficient aircraft? One answer iswind-tunnel testing.

Boeing's wind-tunnel testing facility is the largest inthe world, and the company conducts more wind testingthan any other. Boeing operates the facility for threeshifts every day. Scaled-down models of both the 767and 757 airframes underwent thousands of hours ofwind-tunnel tests.

The wind tunnel can blow winds of 600mph (965km/hl-the speed of aircraft flying at cruising altitude - to testforce on an airframe. Data from sensors is sent to com­puters. When models are put through the tests, engi­neers can tell immediately if changes are needed to opti­mize an aircraft's performance. Those changes can thenbe made, even while the aircraft is still in production.

IRightlThe 767 model, still with aT-taililrior to finalconfiguration, is Ilrellared for wind-tunnel testing. Thewind tunnel can blow winds of 600mllh (965km!h) - theslleed the aircraft flies at cruising altitude - to test theforce on the airframe. Boeing.

The 757 is Ilrellared for wind-tunnel testing. Boeing

708

To test the accuracy of the system, a mul­ticoloured pictorial display on the video con­trol terminal shows the critical elements ofthe fuelling system, such as switch and valveposition, pumping rates, system pressures,weight of fuel in the tanks, and the percent­age difference between the amount pumpedand the amount indicated by the aircraft'sgauges. Each step of the test and the resu Itsare printed out by computer to document theaccuracy of the fuel system. Abnormalitiesare noted and can then be fixed.

Touring the World

As part of the flight-test programme, bothaircraft visited a variety of airports aroundthe world. The 767 finished a world-widepromotional tour by setting a non-stop dis­tance record for a twin-jet on 21 July 1982,flying non-stop from Oslo, Norway, to Seat­tle in the USA, a distance of 4,990 miles(7,984km), in 9 hours and 50 minutes.(This record was LIter easily broken.) Thetour cm'Cred 29,000 miles (46,400km) in

An array of interconnected sensors, digital computers andtouch-sensitive video terminals has revolutionized thetesting of new aircraft. On the 767 and 757, automatedtest systems and components were used for the firsttime, both built into the aircraft and attached temporarilyto obtain faster, more accurate and more consistentresults. After all, introducing the first aircraft with digitalflight avionics required sophisticated testing equipment.

Other testing, such as checking the landing gear,employs more old-fashioned methods. The landing gearis checked simply by cycling the landing gear after theaircraft is supported on tripods, and sections of theassembly floor are lowered beneath the landing gear.Avionics testing is done in a special facility and by amobile test van on the flight line.

The flight-control surfaces on the twin-jets - theflaps, ailerons and spoilers on the wings, the elevatorsand rudders on the tail - have small transducers built

seven countries in Europe, the Middle Eastand Africa. It featured many firsts for thenew plane: the first transatlantic flight by a767 (Boston, USA, to Turin, Italy); the first767 landing in Europe; the first 767 landing

709

into them, which send electrical signals on their posi­tions to the flight deck. Transducers convert energyfrom one system to energy in another system. In the 767and 757, transducers convert the movement of actua­tors moving the elevators, for instance, into electricalenergy. Transducer signals in the planes are used on theflight deck to indicate the position of the control sur­faces. In the case of the spoilers, which are controlledby an electrical-hydraulic link, the signals provide feed­back to the control loop. The signals are recorded forany malfunctions. The result is that testing is muchmore accurate, quicker, and can be repeated. For test­ing, microprocessors convert the transducer signalsinto digital form and send the signals to a computermounted on a mobile console outside the aircraft. Thecomputer compares the signals from the flight-deckcontrols and from the control surfaces with values froma test document based on engineering requirements.

Hundreds of Ethiopians line up at the Addis Ababaairport in March 1982 to view the world-touring767. Ethiopia was one of eight African nations onthe 23-nation tour of Boeing's new-generationaircraft. Ethiopian Airlines was the first Africancarrier to select the model. Boeing

FLIGHT TESTING

like the 767, the 757 also completed a number of world tours, specifically to show itsability to land at high-altitude airports in hot climates. Children in Nairobi, Kenya,learned about the aircraft during a stop there in 1983. Boeing

r

61ft 1in(18.62m)

52ft(15.85m)

6am(172.7cm)

18.0in (45.7cm)

~---- 19.0in (48.3cm)

~-_L156ft 1in(47.57m)

engines. It was the first time that the Rollsengine had flown on the 767, for deliverybeginning in November 1989. At the time,the 767-300 was the longest twin-engineplane in the world, later suprlanted by the

Y 6~(172.7cm)

~'l'--L-

218 passengers

-L

~O"""""""ZZiiiiif'''''''~180ft 3in(54.94m)

767-300 aircraft characteristics. Boeing

was certified with that engine, and withGE's CF6-80A2 on 22 September 1986.British Airways ordered eleven in August1987, later increasing that order to twenty­five, with Rolls-Royce RB21I-524H

CHAPTER TEN

The 767-300

The FaDlily Grows

Boeing had considered stretching the 767long before the aircraft had even carried itsfirst revenue passenger. Soon after the air­liner entered service, several airlinesexpressed an interest in a longer version,particularly in Asia, where dense passen­ger loads were, and are, more common.

Responding to requests from Japan Air­lines, All Nippon Airways and Delta AirLines to increase passenger capacity andimprove scat-mile costs, Boeing decided,in September 1983 - only a year after the767's debut - to continue its tradition ofstretching existing models. The 767-300,as it became known, would feature a fuse­lage 21 ft I in (6.43m) longer than the 767­200. To achieve that stretch, Boeingextended the 767's fuselage with two110in (2.79m) plugs fore and aft of thewing. This change increased seatingcapacity by 22 per cent (or about 45 pas­sengers), and cargo volume hy 3 I per cent.Compared with the 767 -200, the stretchedaircraft would usc 10 per cent more fuel,but 10 per cent less fuel/)er seat.

The -300 has a maximum take-offweight of 345,0001b (l56,500kg) and cancarry a two-class load of 269 passengers for4,560 miles (7,340km). Most airlines optfor 250-260 seats in the plane. The -300 isalso available in an extended-range ver­sion. The highest gross-weight 767­300ER, at 412,0001b (l86,900kg) maxi­mum take-off weight, can carry 218pa sengers in three-class configuration for7,080 miles (l1,400km). Flying out ofNew York, the new version would be ableto reach all of Europe and South A merica,and reach well into Africa and the MiddleEast. Out of London, it could reach all ofthe United States and Mexico City, andeven Singapore.

The stretched model was rolled out ofthe Everett factory on 14 January 1986. Itsfirst flight, with JT9D-7R4 engines, fol­lowed on 30 January. The first -300 model

Marketing a Boeing aircraft is as important as mak­ing one. An airline in need of new planes usuallyapproaches or is approached by both major airframemanufacturers, Boeing and Airbus. Apart from the747-400, these two companies make aircrah of asimilar size. The airline considers a host of factors ­financing, price, cost of ownership, engine selection,commonality, passenger comfort, maintenance, andeven political pressures - before making its selec­tion. Throughout the process, Boeing is ready to sup­ply information and answer hundreds of questions.

The 767 and 757 made their international marketingdebut at the 1982 Farnborough Air Show in England.At the time, the 767 was competing vigorously againstthe Airbus Industrie A310, particularly in Europe,where early sales lagged behind those in other areasof the world. These leading commercial airframe man­ufacturers were displaying new products at a timewhen many airlines were opting to delay purchasingnew technology in lieu of used equipment.

Boeing's new jets were the darlings of the show.They drew applause from the crowd with their quiettake-offs and landings. Both planes flew once aday,even performing fly-bys over the runway.

The show coincided with the first commercial ser­vice of the 767, which was scheduled to make its inau­gural flight on 8 September. Farnborough Was criticalfor stimulating a rather lacklustre sales situation: inthe previous 13 months, Boeing had not received anynew orders for the 767. Despite the gloomy outlook,the company continued to tout the fuel efficiency of itsnew jets. Tex Boullioun, the president of Boeing's com­mercial aircrah group, went so far as to guarantee thatthe 767 would beat the fuel efficiency of the AirbusA310 that Trans World Airlines was set to buy. Boul­lioun bet TWA that, if the plane did not match his fuel­efficiency guarantees, Boeing would pay the airline. Ifit did, the airline would have to pay Boeing. Sureenough, TWA had to pay up.

To help drum up 757 sales at Farnborough, Boeingrevealed that flight testing had proved that the planehad performed better than promised, carrying 3,6001b(l,633kg) more payload, while burning 3.5 per centless fuel. That amounts to carrying 18 more passen­gers and their baggage, and using just 58 per cent ofthe fuel used by the 727-200. When the plane wasconceived, in 1978, Boeing had predicted a 30 percent fuel saving over the 727-200.

Marketing

turned down that offer. While the lun­cheon proceeded - complete with flowersand a 757 model at each table - the moodwas far from festi ve.

After lunch, Condit announced that hehad given in - it was the only way Boeingcould meet first delivery to Eastern. Theairline had to take delivery of the plane in1982, in order to receive millions of dollarsin tax credits for that calendar year. Threemonths later, the 757 received its full cer­tification, after resolution of the scat issue.

ber, and to American Airlines shortly after.The programme met a certification datethat had been set three years earlier, despitea mid-programme switch from a three­member crew to two members, overlappingflight testing with the 757, more demand­ing FAA certification requirements, andthe extra work involved in testing andapproving the new glass cockpit.

At the time of certificmion, Boeingrolled out twenty 767s for six customersand forty-three planes for eight airlines bythe end of 1982.

The 757 was to have received its typecertificate, the licence needed to carry pas­sengers, on 21 December 1982. That dead­line had been set three years earlier, beforeproduction had even begun. However, justthree hours hefore a ceremonial luncheonin Renton, the FAA notified Phil Condit,the 757's chief engineer and now BoeingsChief Executive Officer, that the certifi­cate would not be issued, because one ofthe two cockpit jump scats failed to com­ply with regulations.

Boeing maintained that the jump seathad nothing to do with safety or technicalmatters, and thus was not covered by thecertificate. After a flurry of coast-to-coastphone calls, the FAA agreed to grant atemporary, six-month certificate, pendingresolution of the jump-scat issue. Condit

Certification

in the Middle East, at Amman. Even thelate King Hussein of Jordan, a registeredpilot who often piloted his own L-I011,flew the 767.

The 757 also flew on several round-the­world tours, and it was enthusiasticallyreceived at smaller airports, where itdemonstrated its ability to land on short,remote runways. One such trip to sevenAsian nations was capped by a 9-hour, 7­minute flight from Tokyo to Seattle, on 28August 1982, a 4,917 mile (7,867km) jour­ney. It was the longest non-stop flight, andthe longest ti me aloft for the 757.

Both planes breezed though FAA certifi­cation, although the 757 did suffer as aresult of some last-minute red tape.

The 767 was certified on 30 July 1982,during a simple ceremony at Everett. TheFAA said that this had been the most vig­orous certification programme ever. Thefirst 767 was certified with a two-personcockpit and Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4engines, and delivered to United Airlineson 19 August. Certification of the firstmodel powered by GE engines, destined forDelta Air Lines, occurred on 30 September1982, with delivery to Delta on 25 Octo-

110 111

TilE fAMilY GROWS THE fAMilY GROWS

(Above) Two 767-300s (foreground) being builtalongside a -200 model. Boeing

The forward section of the first 767-300. Note itslength compared to the 767-200 forward sections

next to it. BoeingThe 767-300 was rolled out on14 January 1986. Its fuselage is 21ft lin (6.43m) longer than the 767-200.

increasing seat capacity by 22 per cent (about 45 passengers) and cargo volume by 31 per cent. Boeing

772 773

THE FAMILY GROWS THE FAMILY GROWS

A 767-300 is parked next to a -200. Notice the difference in length. Boeing

plane: the initial aircraft, one with higher­thrust engines, and the 767-200ER, offer­ing a gross weight of 345,0 Olb(156,500kg) and a range of 5,290 miles(8,510km). The extra range of the 767­200ER was made possible by higher-thru tengines, and a centre fuel tank holding anadditional 3,600 gallon (13,626 liu·es).Extended-range models featured heavierlanding gear and tyres, and a stronger land­ing-gear support structure, wing leadingedge and aft body. The first 767-200ERwas delivered in the first quarter of 1984.

The 767-300 ha the same take-off grossweight as the 767-200ER - 345,0001b( I56,500kg) - as well as the same landinggear, wing structure and powerplants. Inaddition to the fuselage plugs, changesfrom the -200ER include a strengthenednose gear and wheel well, a stronger cen­tre fuselage, a rail skid to keep the longerfuselage from striking the ground duringtake-off and landing, and a second over­wing exit. oftware was also changed inthe flight-control computer. Other thanthat, all other systems remained the arne,including the flight deck. The use of car­bon brake on the -300 and an aggressiveweight-reduction programme helped tocut 4,0001b (l,815kg) from the emptyweight originally specified.

The 767-300 on a test flight over Washington State in 1986. Boeing

Two sections of shiny skin show where this 767 engineering mock-up has beenlengthened for use as a 767-300 development tool. The mock-up was separated toinsert a 10ft 1in (3.38m) section forward of the wing and an 11ft (3.35m) section aft.Boeing

were relaxed. The -300 was aimed atoperators of the A300-600, L-I 0 1I andDC-lO. It took a leisurely three years fromgo-ahead to first delivery, to japan AirLines on 25 September 1986. jAL orderedfour of the models, powered by jT9D­7R4E engine. Delta Air Lines laterordered nine, powered by CF6- OA2engines. All ippon Airways was the thirdcustomer for the new model. The -300 waslater powered by new Pratt & WhitneyrW4 00 and GE CF6-80C2 engines.

When it first came out, Boeing saw the-300 as a basic tran continental aircraft.Although the aircraft would not have asmany seats as the DC-IO and LlOll, itseconomics were attractive.

Three versions of the 767-200 wereoffered prior to the decision to stretch the

right away,' he recalls. 'It was stretchedtwo to four years before it was supposed to.The uccess of the airplane, 1believe, actu­ally pushed the ·tretch earlier. It was a nat­ural evolution.'

With the -300, Boeing was hoping torevitalize sales of the 767 and, in turn,develop further derivative that would addrange and capacity to challenge the wide­body tri-jets. The shift toward smaller jets(stimulated by a deregulated US industry),and the unexpected levelling of fuel pricewere major factors in limiting early 767­200 orders. With the -300, the goal wassimply to remove range and c<lpacity barri­er that may have stalled sales. At thetime, extending the range of the aircraftbecame more meaningful when restric­tions on overwater operations of twin-jets

777. Over time, the model has proven sopopular that it has outsold the -200 by twoto one.

The extended-range 767 -300ER madeits debut in late 19 6, with higher-thrustver~ions reaching the market in 1987 and19 . The -300ER can fly more than 6,660miles ( 11,1 OOkm), farther than more thanhalf the 747s flying today, thanks to a wingcentre-section fuel tank, which carries anadditional 24,050 gallons (91 ,029Iitres) offuel.

tretching the 767 wa easy, primarilybecause Boeing had planned for it, accord­ing to joe Sutter. The 767-200's overlylarge wings ensured that the same wingscould be used for a stretch.

Sutter was surprised that demand was soquick for the -300: 'Airlines wanted more

114 115

THE FAMILY GROWS

767-300s take shape in Everett. Pictured is the first 767-300ER for Holland's Martinair. Boeing

The 767-300ER (Extended Rangel was introduced in 1987 to increase the model's range. Boeing

776

THE FAMILY GROWS

The 767-300 during flight testing. Boeing

A 767-300 bound for Japan Airlines in the foreground, with -200s behind. Boeing

777

TilE FAMILY GROWS THE FA 11LY GROWS

The Stretch

Boeing's Doug Miller, chief engineer of the757 for seven years, says that he was think­ing about a 757 stretch ten years earlier.Luckily, 757 pioneers had the foresight tomake it stretchable. In the past, the 707'slanding gear, for example, had been keptsmall because of concerns over weight, andthat had hurt its ability to grow.

'Traditionally, airplanes that tretchedmade money for everyone. You could get a20 per cent payload increase for just 10 percent morc cost, and the stretch was done<lfOund the cheapest part of the airplane ­the middle of the fuselage,' says Miller. 'I wasconvinced the 757 could be stretched. Iwent through three different design studiesto stretch the 707 to compete with theeX:::-8, which was stretched and outsellingBoeing. That's why today there arc so manymore DC- s still flying. But the reason wecouldn't do it was simple: the landing gear.When I saw the 757, I noticed a long gearthat can takc a stretch. I think the guy' wholaid the airplane out had a view to stretch it.'

Dan Mooney, chief project engineer forthe 757-300, says that the 757's high land­ing gear was, indeed, an important reasonwhy the aircraft was easy to stretch. Healso confirms that designs for a stretchedmodel had floated around Boeing for fiveyears before the -300 was actuallylaunched.

Boeing set an aggressive goal of seeingthe first 757-300 enter service just 27months after firm configuration, whichoccurred in ovember 1996. The firstdeliveries of the 65-million aircraft toCondor took place in March 1999, givingthe 757-300 the shortest design-eo-pro­duction and delivery-cycle time of anyBoeing derivative-aircraft programme.

To accomplish the quick turnaround,Boeing has kept the stretch a simple aspossible, with very few customized featurefor the longer version to limit unnecessarydesign changes. In addition, a variety ofdesign and production initiatives from sev­eral other programmes, including the 777

can appreciate. Passengers may preferwidebodies on longer flights, but passengerpreference is not a big factor for charterairlines. With the -300, German chartercarrier Condor Flugdienst is able to add 45seats per aircraft, and fly 15 to 20 per centmore revenue-generating hours each day.The airline plans to replace its three DC­lOs with the new model.

53.91n(136.gem)

66.4,n(168.7em)

_-L

~ 20.0In (50.8em)

~ 17.0,n (43.2em)

~_---:/,, L

757-300 aircraft characteristics. Boeing

178ft 7,n(54.40m)

11,490 gallons (43,490 litres)

Plane weighr 141,3301b (64,lookg);max. tak -offweighr: 270,000lb (l22,500kg)

Range (243 passengers) 4,000 miles (6,440km)

~--r-44ft 6,n• ~ (13.56m)c=O O:·· ·cl3·~ .. O ~ I

Rolls-Royce RB211-535E4-B or Pratt & Whitney PW2043

Overall I ngth 178ft 7in (54.5m); height 4ft 6in (l3.6m);wingspan 124ft lOin (3 .05m); body width J2ft 4in (3.7m)

243 (two class), 25 (one class), 279 (inclusive tour)

Lower cargo hold volume 2,387 cubic ft (67.6 cubic m)

pecification - 757-300

Performance:

Passengers:

Dimensions:

Fuel capacity:

Weight:

Engines (two):

Take-off field length: 9,000ft (2,740m) (at sea level)

Cargo volume:

The derivative's extra seating andincreased available cargo volume lowersoperati ng costs. The 757 -300's cost peravailable scat-mile is expected to be 9 percent lower than on the -200. Boeing pegsthe 757-300's costs at 10 per cent lowerthan a 767-200 and 19 per cent lower thanan Airbus A310-300, both aircraft with asimilar seating capacity.

In addition to flying more people morecheaply, the 757-300 offer 767 operatorsincreased seating flexibility, gives airlinesthe ability to wap a 757-200 with a -300 atpeak time and, despite a trend for maileraircraft, will be able to perform well at air­ports where a cess is slot-constrained.

The 757-300 is designed to allow both­chartered and scheduled airlines to fly eco­nomically on short-range, medium-rangeor long-haul routes. With a range of about4,00 miles (6,440km), the 757-300 can flytranscontinental route, complementingthe 757-200, wh ich has a somcwhat longerrange of 4,520 miles (7,240km). Typicalroutes for the 757-300 include ew York toLos Angeles, Reykjavik to Baltimore, andFrankfurt to Tenerife. A charter-config­ured 757-300 with 289 passengers will becapable of flying from London to Bahrainand reach popular tourist destinations inthe Atlantic islands and the Mediter­ranean. The -300 has a shorter range thanthe -200, because the two have the sameengines and fuel capacity, but the -300 hasa higher gross weight.

Engincs available for the aircraft arc theRolls-Royce RB211-535E4 or Pratt &Whitney's PW2043 in thrust ratings of43,1001b (l92kN) and 43,8501b (l95k ),respectivcly. Lower thrust is also offered.

With the new model, Boeing has repo­sitioned the 757 into a higher eating cat­egory, and away from it clo c t competi­tor, the Airbus A321. In addition, thecompany is addre ing and filling a gap inthe middle market, between the largestnarrow-bodie- (757 and A321) and thesmallest widebodies (767-200, A310 andA330-200). The 757-300 is an attractiveeconomical alternative to ageing DC-lOsand LI 0 lis, even if it falls 50 seats short ofthose aircraft. It also can replace older767-200s. However, given the decliningratio of available aircraft takc-off andlanding slot to number of passengerswishing to fly, aircraft need to grow in size.For this reason, the -30 al 0 is a viablealternative to existing narrow-bodies.

The 757-300 is a 'fly more people'plane, which charter and tour operators

First Customers

to debut. With the stretching of the 757,every Boeing jetliner since the 707 has nowbcen extended. (The 747s stretch was lim­ited to its upper deck.)

Like all other stretch developments, theaircraft has gained in operating efficiency.The 757-300's extra length allows it tocarry 4 additional passengers (21 per centmore) than the 757-200, and 48 per centmore cargo volume. It can carry between243 and 2 9 passengers, depending on con­figuration, between the capacity of theBoeing 757-200 and the 767-300. Toaccommodate the extra load, the 757-3 0'maximum take-off weight has increased to270,000Ib (122,500kg).

Benefits

At first, Boeing was not convinced thatstretching the 757 would be worthwhile.After all, such a decision would mean mil­lions of dollars in investment for no guar­antee of returns. Customers of the 767 haddemanded a version with increased capac­ity and range, but this was not the casewith the 757. However, when DietmarKirchner, managing director of Germancharter carrier Condor Flugdienst, beganto look around for new planes, he knewexactly what he wanted: a stretched ver­sion of the 757, which would enable hisairline to carry more pas~engers at lowercosts.

Unfortunately, Boeing had scrappedplans to bu i1d a stretched 757 in the earl y1990s, so Kirchner had to switch roles andstart pitching the idea of the plane to Boe­ing, as if he were the salesman and Boeingthe customer.

Condor launched the 757-300 on 2September 1996, at the Farnborough Air

how, with an 75 million order fortwelve of the planes, with options fortwelve more. Icelandair became the sec­ond customer, announcing an order fortwo aircraft at the Paris Air how on 16June 1997. The th ird customer for the newmodel was Arkia Airlines of Israel, whichalso ordered a pair. All three carriersselected Rolls-Royce engines.

Although the program is off to a slowstart, sales of the 757-300 will likely pickup as airline markets around the worldderegulate and costs per seat become morecritical. Thc 757-300 has low eat-mile(kilometrc) COT and good range.

In Boeing's final as embly hangar in Ren­ton, there is no mistaking the ncwcst 757- it' the one with its tail sticking out intothe aisle. At 17ft 7in (54.5m) long, the757-300 is the longest, largest and heavi­cst aircraft evcr made in Ren ton; it is evenlonger than the 707 -300, which measured152ft 1 I in (46.6m). Th 757-300, 23ft 4in(7.1 m) longer than the 757-200, has thclowest scat-mile cost of any single-aislejetliner on the market. It is also the largestsingle-aisle, twin-jet airliner in the world.The DC- was a longer single-ai Ie air­craft, but it had four engines.

While Boeing offered a stretched 767just a year after the original 767 entered ser­vice, it would take 14 years for a longer 757

The 757-300

The first 767-300 wa slightly differentfrom the model that had originally beenenvisioned. The fuselage plug forward ofthe wing was increased by II in (28cm),and the aft plug was extended by 22in(56cm), adding just one seat row, but alsothe capacity for four additional LD-2 cargocontainers. Thi contributed a big boost torevenue potential.

Boeing offer two ver ions of the 767­30 . The basic arrangement has two pas­senger door and two emergcncy overwingexits on ach ide. This permits an emer­gency exit limit of 29 passengers. Analternate arrangement offers three doorson cach side and no ovcrwing exits. Thisconfiguration breaks up the forward cabin,so that first-class passengers can be loadedthrough the forward exit, with aft cabinpassenger~ boarding through the seconddoor, located just aft of thc wing. In an all­economy configuration - common onhigh-demity Asian routes - thi arrange­ment speeds loading times. The emer­gcncy limit for this arrangcmcnt is 330passengers, which charter operators canuse in an eight-ahreast configuration.

Boeing also offers 767-300 customcr­thc option of using thc S,lme centre wingtank as in the 767-200ER; this increasesfuel capacity up to 20,300 gallons (75,100litrcs).

Anxious about the -low initial sale of the-300, Boeing briefly studied the possibility ofmodifying existing -200s to the -300's~tretched configuration. Several airlinesexpresscd an interest in such a retrofit, butsoon enough airlines werc ordering enough-300s to make the idea ohsolete.

118 119

A 757-300 and 757-200 together in an animated drawing. The stretched -300 can carry 48 more passengersthan the -200, giving it the lowest per-seat cost of any single-aisle aircraft. Boeing

and the next-generation 737, are heingused for the 757-3 0, to help reduce thecomplexity and cost of its development. Atthe ~ame time, the -300 continues to ;,harea common flight-crew rating with othermodel~ in the 757/767 serie:, making it anattractive addition to the family.

To stretch the 757-200, Boeing extendedhoth ;,ides of the fuselage's centre of gravity,with a [3ft 4in (4.06m) fuselage extensionof the forward fuselage at ection 43, and a10ft (3.05m) extension at Section 46, aft ofthe wings. The 757-300 is just 16in (40cm)shorter than the 767-300.

TilE FAMILY GROWS

Other Revisions

Despite the simple stretch, the 757-300'slength forced Boeing to make several re\'i­sion - to the randard -200 model. The757 -300 -hares the same wings as the -200,hut the -300's ha;, heen ~tructurally rein-

forced to handle the increased load. Theoverwing section of the fuselage, Section44, was strengthened, as were the horizon­tal srabili:er and landing gear. The -300 isalso fitted with higger tyres and strongerhrakes, to cope with heavier landingweight and faster landing speed.

120

For the time heing it is unlikely thatnarrow-hody planes will grow much longerthan the 757-300, largely because of thelimitations imposed hy ground cle<mmcewith the current undercarriage. At firstglance, it looks like the stretched 757 willalmost certainly hit the runway on rake-

off. The 757-200 already srand;, fairly highoff the ground, and the issue of rail scrapeswas addressed on the -300 by increasingrake-off and landing speeds, delayingspoiler deployment on landing and addinga new hydraulically activated retra rablerail skid. The tail skid protects the aircraft

from possible damage from tail strikes dur­ing take-off and landing, a problem thathas affected even standard 757-200s. Thetail skid i similar to that on the 767-300and 777. [t has a body-contact indicatorthat alerts the crew to more serious con­tact with the ground. The de ign is intend­ed to make it harder for the crew to acci­dentally crape the tail on landing, bylinking the pitch-attitude sensor to thespoiler-deployment system.

'We don't expect the tail strike to be anybigger an issue than on the -200,' says DanMooney. To mitigate the chances for tailstrikes, Boeing modified the air raft'sspoiler-deployment sequence. If a landingis too slow or the nose too high, the spoil­er sci edule is adjusted to bring the nosedown, avoiding tail impact. The landing­flap position on the -300 has also beenchanged, to help bring the nose down.

Mooney says that the engineers had atfirst considered stretching the -300 20in(50.8cm) more than its eventual configu­ration, but that to do 0 would haveincreased the chance of tail strikes, chal­lenged the performance of landing gearand engines, and reduced fuel efficiency,in addition to po ing several structuralimplications.

The 757-300 aircraft has a higher­capacity environmental control system, toaccommodate additional passengers andincreased cargo volume. The air-condition­ing packs the 757 shares with the 767 werenot changed, but they provide increasedflow rates without having to modify the air­conditioning packs, taking advantage ofsystem commonality between the airplanes.An extra temperature-control zone hasbeen added, along with a new, larger pre­cooler and higher-capacity re-circulatingfans. Passengers in the -300 usc a centrallyplumbed vacuum-lavatory system. Thelower cost and reduced service time of thenew system make up for its additionalweight.

Boeing has taken advantage of the-300's development to introduce the newcabin interior developed originally for the777, and then tailored for ext-Genera­tion 737s, based on airline feedback. The757-300' new interior is designed toupgrade the overall look and aesthetics ofthe passenger cabin. Longer overheadstowage bins and the new culptured ceil­ing, with indirect overhead lighting, havemoother curves, giving the cabin a more

open, spacious feeling. A handrail thatextends along the bottom of the stowage

THE FAMILY GROWS

bins and a moveable cabin class divider areal 0 available. Eventually, this cabin con­figuration will be built into future 767­300s and 757-200s, beginning in the year2000.

[n the longer 757-300, Boeing has takenstep to alleviate the effect of the long,thin fuselage by dividing the cabin up intosmall sections with strategically positionedcabin bulkheads. One option is convert­ible seating that enables carriers to switchfrom six-abreast economy class to five-seatbusi ness class.

Despite a passenger load one-fifthgreater than the -200, Boeing believes thecharter-configured -300 will take onlyfour extra minutes to load and two addi­tional minutes to unload. Its overwing­exit body section and a strengthened four­door aft stretch ection allow Boeing tomeet evacuation requirements withouthaving to redesign doors. To speed up bag­gage handling, Boeing offers a sliding-car­pet baggage and cargo system, whichoffers a conveyor system and movablebulkhead pushed along the belly hold by adrive system.

The flight deck of the 757-300, like thatof the 757-200, is de igned for two-crewoperation and furnished with the amedigital electronic di plays. Pilots can flyboth types with little additional training.The 757-300 flight deck incorporates twoimprovements that have been built intonew 757-200s: the Pegasus flight-manage­ment system, and an enhanced EngineIndication and rew Alerting System(EICAS). With the Pegasus system, oper­ators can choose software options thatinclude elements of the Future Air Navi­gation System (FANS). FA S functionswill provide operators with the ability touse advanced systems, such as G PS (glob­al positioning system) sensors and atellitecommunications, to take full advantage ofnew communication, navigation and air­traffic management systems. The ElCAupgrade will replace existing computerswith enhanced devices that are software­loadable. The enhanced EICA hasimproved built-in test equipment (BITE)function that will allow for improved self­diagnosis of faults in a more readable for­mat. Onboard software loading will enableoperators to use the same EICAS comput­er as a replacement on any 757 or 767,reducing spare-part inventory.

In all, 90 per cent of the 757-300's partsare interchangeable with the -200 model,and 40 per cent fit 767 models.

121

The flight characteristics of the -200and -300 are very similar. One differencefor pilots, however, is that the increasedlength of the fuselage means the flightdeck's relative po ition is higher off theground during landing. Changes made tothe flight-deck panels due to the 757-300'sadditional length and weight include anew EI AS message of tail-strike warning,additional notifications of door openings(since the -300 has two more doors thanthe -200), an enhanced ground-proximitywarning system that is intended to reducecontrolled flight into terrain (when pilotsfly into mountains or hillside because ofnavigational error), and a predictive wind­shear-warning system.

Building the Stretched 757

Building a longer -300 has posed manyproblems for Boeing. Because of themodel's increased length, new rooling wasneeded to build the fuselage, wings andother parts of the plane. For this deriva­tive, 750 new tools were needed andanother 555 had to be modified to fit thelonger aircraft. The tooling supporting thelengthened fuselage had to be extended sothat crew could work on cabin door,which are in different locations from thoseon the -200. The body-join proces wasalso changed to reflect the use of a differ­ent sort of fastener. Rivets once used tojoin the huge sections of fuselage togetherhave been replaced by fasteners, which arebetter able to support the additionalweight of the -300's fuselage.

Many of the aircraft's parts, from panelsand spars, to th fuselage itself, arc thelargest the Renton facility has ever seen.Some of the fuselage panels alone are a longas 400in (lOm). Many part do not fit intostandard shipping container, and new con­tainers have had to be designed.

The new plane has al 0 given Boeing achance to try 'lean manufacturing', a termused to describe manufacturing with littlewaste or duplication. This has beenapplied to the new plane's kin ~anels, forexample. In the past, employee shippedthe kin panels lying flat and stacked ontop of each other. When they arrived inRenton, the panels were hung up on racksand stored until they were needed. The-300's longer panels are now transportedtanding upright, like plates in a dishwash­

er. They are delivered directly to the fac­tory and then pulled out of the box asneeded, eliminating the need for storage

THE FAMILY GROWS THE FAMILY GROWS

The first 757-300 in final assembly. Note its length compared to the -200 model. Boeing

The 757-300 was rolled out on 31 May 1998. Boeing employees tugged the new airliner into place for aceremony. Boeing

'We are so convinced this airplane will bea money-maker for us that we've orderedanother one before we've even seen it fly,'Dietmar Kirchner, managing director ofCondor, told an audience of lO,OOO Boe­ing employees, customers and suppliers ona brilliant sunny day. 'The 757-300 has thelowest seat-mile operating costs of any sin­gle-aisle airplane on the market - lowerthan many widebody airplanes. The 757­300 complements our strategy of providinga high-quality, high-service product to thecharter market.'

The festi ve rollout celebration recog­nized the work of Boeing employees who,

ators to add capacity to growing routes anddeveloping markets. The 757-300, Millersays, 'is going to be a money-maker. It's slowto take off but it will fly when airlines real­ize it will be a money-maker. It's the perfectplane to bypass crowded hubs on morepoint-to-point services.'

Rollout

The first 757-300 rolled out at Renton on3l May 1998, wearing Boeing red, whiteand blue livery. The rollout was highlight­ed by an announcement from Condor thatthe airline is ordering another 757-300.

that drills and installs more than 2,600fasteners into the wing structure. On 21August 1997, manufacturing of the firstskin panel for the fuselage began inWitchita. Major assembly began in Ren­ton on 9 September 1997, and assembly ofthe first fuselage got under way on 5November. Final assembly of the first -300began on l5 March 1998, when the wingswere joined with the body.

The -300 will complement, rather thanreplace, the -200, and both will be in pro­duction at the same time. The model mayalso be offered as a freighter or combi plane.Together, the -200 and -300 will allow oper-

skin panels for the fuselage, and the air­conditioning system. Drawings for otherparts of the aircraft that are identical tothe -200 also have become digitized, toincorporate the changes the -200 hasundergone since its introduction.

'The thrill of seeing [the 757-300] gofrom being designed on the computer toseeing the parts come together in the fac­tory to seeing it fly is really something,'says Laura Sebesta, a flight-control systemsengineer. 'It's just an amazing effort.'

Building of the first -300 began on 12September 1997, as workers loaded a 63ft(19.2m) front left wing spar into a state­of-the-art automated spar-assembly tool

longer fuselage sections. Lengthening skinpanels is a better option than inserting atraditional plug. The move also reducesweight and necessitates only small changesto the manufacturing process.

Much of the 757-300 has been designeddigitally, including about 80 per cent ofthe aircraft's wings. Drawings have beendigitized to feed information into a com­puterized spar-assembly system that isbeing used for the first time to manufac­ture 757 wings. Components designedusing high-technology, computer-aideddesign software account for more than halfof the aircraft, including the interior of thepassenger cabin, the twelve extra-long

space and reducing porential damage tothe skins from too much handling.

As a cost-saving measure, the longer ­300 will be built on the same productionline and in the same building as the -200.To do this, Boeing has had to make a year'sworth of changes to the factory, includingextending assembly machines, lengtheningtrailers and pushing out walls to make roomfor the longer plane. Factory workers arenow faced with assembling an aircraft withtwelve skin panels, each more than 33ft(10m) long, something they have neverdone before at the Renton plant. The pan­els are 13ft (2.96m) longer than those ofthe -200 model, and help to form the

122 123

THE FAMILY GROWS THE FAMILY GROWS

Specification - 757-300 vs. 757-200 The 767-400

As arch rival Airbus was coming out withthe A330-200, a shorrer and longer-rangeversion of the A330-300, on 6 January 1997Boeing's board of director authorized themarketing of a further stretch of the 767­300, the 767AOOER (Extended Range).According to Boeing, the upgraded model,scheduled to enter service in May 2000, willcat 15 per cent more passengers than the

767-300ER, while offering 4 to 7 per centbetter direct operating costs compared withthe similar-sized A330-200.

Boeing officially launched the 767­400HZ on 28 April 1997, with an order for21 aircraft from Delta. The first aircraft isscheduled to rollout of the factory inAugu t 1999, to be delivered to Delta inMay 2000. Continental Airlines hasordered 26 of the aircraft and Internation­al Lease Finance has added five to the orderbook. Boeing estimates a market for 900 ofthe aircraft after the turn of the century.

The 767AOOER was launched afterBoeing decided it would not shrink the777-20 toaproposed-l Oseries;the767­400 is si:ed between the 767-300 and the777-20 . It will eat 245 passenger inthree-class configuration, or 303 in a two­clas' layout, compared with 229 and 269,re'pectively, in the -30 . The added seatswill lead to operating cost even lowerthan the -300's, which are already the low­est in its class. The stretch will add II ft(3.36m) fore and 10ft (3.07m) aft of thewing for a new fuselage length of 197ft(60m), or about 21ft (6.4m) longer thanthe -300ER.

The 767AOOER will be the first in the757/767 family to offer wing tips, verticalextensions of the wing that help to boostperformance. This enhancement increasesthe model's wingspan to 170ft 4in (52m),compared with 156ft lin (47.6m) for the-300.

Although the wing tip will add rangecapability, the AO ' range of 6,4 0 miles(l0,430km) will till be somewhat Ie'sthan the -300ER's. till, the new modelwill be ahle to erve nearly all the sameroutes as the -3 OER, including Chica­go-Frankfurt, Seattle-Osaka, Atlanta­Honolulu and Los Angeles-London.

peed and other performance measureswill remain the same as the existing 767s'.

The 767AOOER is designed to be themo t efficient aircraft in its size ategory,making it an ideal replacement for the age­ing L-IOll, DC-I0 and A300 models. In

55ft ',n(16.79m)

68in(172.7cm)

68,n(172.7cm)

~--- 19.0in (48.3cm)

~ 18.0in (45.7cm)

eventually sell big among European andAsian carrier. Indeed, just after rollout,Boeing acknowledged thm it was discussingthe aircraft with a large airline; it maysecure from this company the kind of orderthat will really kick-start the programme.

It remains to be seen how the newest757 will perform, but Boeing project amarket for 400-600 models. It i likely,however, that the aircraft wi II be exam­ined closely under the industry's micro­scope before orders really begin to flood in.

201ft 4,n(61.37m)

245 passengers,

767-400 aircraft characteristics. Boeing

to ~e concerned about the practicalities ofoperating the aircraft. Its length and singleaisle may result in long times required toload and unload pas engers. Thi couldresult in a negative passenger appeal. Longturnaround times result in a reduction inaircraft productivity, while also pos iblycausing di ruptions to the co-ordinatedarrivals and departure at hub airport.

A Ithough the initial response to the air­craft ha been cautious, Boeing believes thatthe 757-300's outstanding economi swill

Roll -Royce RB211-535E4or Pratt & Whitney PW204

155ft 3in (47.32111)

124ft lOin (3 .05m)

44ft 6in (1 .6m)

12ft 4in (3.7m)

201 (2-class),231 (inclusive tour)

] ,790 cubic ft (50.7 cubic 111)

11,526 gallons (43,625 litres)

255,0001b (I 15,700kg)

757-200

• There are about 70 miles (l17km) of wire in a757-300.

• There are about 700,000 parts in the plane.fastened with 690,000 bolts and rivets.

• An average of about 120 gallons (450 litresl ofpaint are used on the 757-300. That paint weighsabout nOlb 1325kg).

• More than 670 suppliers from 24 differentcountries make parts for the aircraft.

757-300 Facts

The test programme was the shorte tever conducted by Boeing for a derivative- 5Y2 months. During that time, moreflight-test hours were packed into a short­er amount of time than for any other majorBoeing derivative. Tests pecific to the-3 0 included evaluation of theretractable tail skid and slight changes tothe flight controls. Alteration have beenmade to the control logic of the poileractuation ystem, which will prevent threespoiler panels deploying on each wing incase of a so-called 'abused landing'.

To obtain certification, Boeing usedthree 757-300s to conduct 1,286 hours ofground testing and 912 hours of flight test­ing. Certification requirements were a lottougher for the -300 than for its parent;those requirements, including wiring, bird­strike, smoke detection and structural reg­ulations, have become more stringent inthe years since the 757's original launch.

While the -300 offers the advantage oflower seat-mile cost, it has been ratherslow to sell after its launch. Airlines appear

757-300

2,387 cubic ft (67.6 cubic m)

]] ,490 gallons (43,490 litt·cs)

270,0001b (122,500kg)

Roll -Royce RB211-5 5E4r Pratt & Whitney PW2043

17 ft 7in (54.5m)

124ft] Oin (3 .05111)

44ft 6in (13.6m)

12ft 4in (37m)

243 (2-class), 258 (I-class),279 (inclusive rour)

Wingspan:

Passengers:

Engines (two):

Fuel capa ity:

Max. rake-off weight:

Cargo volume:

Tail height:

Body width:

Overall length:

sands of computer-users right to the Ren­ton runway. It was the first live Internetbroadcast of the first flight of any aircraft.

After heading north over Lake Wash­ington, Leon Robert, the chief engineer­ing te t pilot, and Jerry White, seniorengineering test pilot, flew the newestmember of the 767/757 family - dubbedNU7 1 - we t towards Port Angele ,Washington. The 72 million aircraftthen headed south to Astoria, Oregon,and back and forth over WashingtonStme's Olympic Peninsula before landingat Boeing Field. During the inauguralmission, which lasted for 2 hours and 25minutes, Robert and Whites conducted aseries of tests on the aircraft's systems andstructures, incl ud ing the wi ng flaps, mai nlanding gear and flight controls. Thepilots also evaluated the aircraft's han­dling qualities and performance. Behindthem, in the passenger cabin, sat 14flight-test instrumentation racks, whichrecorded data on engine performance,urface positions and flight-control in­

put. The information was sent back toflight-te t personnel sitting in a controlroom at Boeing Field, in a process calledtelemetry.

Also in the ~ lane were 32 keg-shapedwater barrel, which were used to changethe aircraft's centre of gravity and simulatethe weight of passengers and baggage.'This airplane flies great; everything isnormal,' Robert said during the flight. 'Itflies like a 757-200, which is what weintended.' The flight reached an altitudeof 15,000ft (4,570m).

First Flight and Testing

While the 757-200 was launched at thedawn of the computer era, the -300debuted right in the middle of it. The 757­300's first flight, on 2 August 1998, wasshown live on the Internet, bringing thou-

in just 19 months, had brough t the aircraftfrom concept to reality. The rollout dateremained on schedule, despite productionproblems with the Renton-built 737s thatbacked up the entire factory. To introducethe derivative to the world, 100 Boeingemployee, customers and suppl iers, wear­ing white coveralls, tugged the first 757­30 into view of the crowd. Its greatlength ompared with the -200 was sonoticeable that it was immediatelydubbed 'Long Tall ally' by Kirchner.

The theme of the -300 among employ­ees had been 'Bringing the Family Togeth­er'. The motto had several meanings. The757-300 brings the 757/767 family togeth­er by adding an aircraft in the 240- to 289­scat niche. A family of suppliers fromaround the world worked together to pro­duce the plane. Also, as Boeing puts it, theaircraft's low seat-mile co t will helpmake air travel more affordable, allowingpeople to bring more of their family alongon trips.

Another family theme was the cadre ofBoeing veterans who contributed to thedesign of the stretched 757. uch formercompany leader a' Everett Webb, Joe ut­ter and Dick Taylor served on its configu­ration advisory board, no doubt bringingback memories of the day when theyworked on the origi nal 757 -200.

Mooney credits Condor's Kirchner for'eeing that the 757-300 could be used tobuild up routes that arc not big enough forlarger, more expensive aircraft. 'He sawvery clearly what the ber'iefits of the -300would be - economics,' Mooney says. 'Foran inclusive-tour operator with loweryield, thm is important.' While Boeingresearched the viability of the model formore than a year, its evolution came downto customer demand. Finally, by January1996, ix months before its official launch,serious development began.

'He's a great sale'man,' Mooney says ofKirchner. 'He was telling us there reallywas a good market and business case for it.He" very excited about the model andconvinced it will be a money-maker. Wereally wanted this to be a longer version ofthe 757, not a next-generation aircraft.'

124 125

THE FAMILY GRO\ S THE FAMILY GROWS

applications (CATIA) to define aircraft parts as three­dimensional solids. Boeing enhanced CATIA capabili­ties by creating avisualization tool called Fly-Thru. Thissoftware uses CATIA data to help engineers analysethe position of three-dimensional parts in relation toeach other. From the comfort and safety of their desks,they used Fly-Thru to zoom in and around large assem­blies to discover where parts would not match up orwould interfere with other parts.

The design team used CATIA to create the aircraftshape virtually, and Fly-Thru to simulate its movethrough the final stages of production. Using input fromfactory employees, the team came up with differentmanoeuvring paths for the aircraft and options for alter­ing final assembly positions. The virtual production-linesimulation showed other 767s just ahead or behind the767-400ER in the production sequence. These station­ary aircraft are depicted as overlays in three differentsizes, to account for all three models of the 767 on thesame manufacturing line.

As the 767-400 is towed out of final body join, the dri­ver must avoid the tooling. In the digitally designedenvironment, Fly-Thru allowed the team to compute theclearance, which was 24in (60cm). As the aircraft in thelast stall position rolls out of the factory, it must stayclear of the aircraft parked in position NO.2 and thetooling. The virtual simulation helped designers realizethat the 767-400 could be built alongside other 767swithout the building being changed, but that the air­craft's right wing tip should be installed only after theaircraft has moved out of the final body join.

Once Boeing was confident that the new aircraftwould move through the facility free of hazards, assem­bly of the first 767-400ER was able to begin in January1999.

developed for the 767-400ER, and it newelectronics bay and interior, and transferthem to an improved ver ion of the 767­300. Itimately, the 767-400ER's newcockpit will be moved to the 757 as well.

The wing tips, made primarily of com­posite material, serve the same purpose ,l;,

those on the 747 -4 - they gi ve the planemore Iift, added range and increased fl ightefficiency. In testing, Boeing has foundthat the 767-400's patented raked wingtips will decrease fuel burn by about 3 percent on a 3,450 mile (5,520km) mission.Rather than extend the 767's wing to getmore lift, which would have cost millionsof dollars, the extensions - 7ft 7in (2.3m)long - are bolted to the end of a 767­300ER wing, and no additional designchanges are made to the tip or leadingedges. The wing tips are known as 'raked'because, rather than sticking straight up,they lie flush with the wing and rake back,giving the plane considerable lift with

Hundreds of planners, tool designers, production work­ers and others are involved in the 767-400 programme.However, on this aircraft programme, employees areworking together and communicating in new ways.Through the use of powerful computers, different areasof Boeing's scattered operations are able to work at thesame time, rather than waiting for one unit to finish itswork. Through computer-aided design, an engineer inone area can see whether a part will fit with anothersection designed thousands of miles away.

This virtual teamwork. along with valuable supplierpartnerships and innovative thinking, enabled Boeingfactories and suppliers in May 1998 to begin tool fabri­cation and parts assemblies for the new aircraft. Engi­neers at Boeing's Douglas division in California usecomputing technology that allows them to be virtuallyco-located with team members in Everett. The Douglasdivision is designing the wing tips and the aft-most sec­tion of the plane.

Computers have also helped employees to evaluatehow the longer aircraft will move through the existingproduction lme in the Everett factory. Tooling will needto be lengthened, and clearances will have to bechecked if large assembled parts are to be moved byoverhead cranes. Moving the aircraft from the finalbody join to each subsequent production stall requiresprecise choreography. Contact with tooling or anotheraircraft could cause damage, resulting in losses fromrework and materials.

Boeing employees had to determine if changes in the-400's pathway would be required to accommodate theaircraft's larger size. To visualize the manufacturingrequirements, Boeing used a set of computing toolsoriginally developed to engineer the 777. Designersused computer-aided, three-dimensional interactive

Computer-Aided Design------------

of reducing training requirements. Forexample, ymbols on the screens can beswitched to match the layout of older flightdecks on the 737,757 and 767 or the 777.In addition, many analogue instrument inthe -400 are being replaced with flat pan­el', so that a pilot looking at the flat panelwill see what looks like a knob. This devel­opment reduces training time for the newmodel and makes it an enticing investmentfor leasing companies whose aircraft movefrequently between fleets. The configura­tion also accommodates future growth andenables flight crews to readily qualify for awider range of assignments. A crew trainedon the 767-400 could, with additionaltraining, fly the next-generation 737, the747-400 and the 777 - as well as the entire767/757 family.

Enhancements to the -400's cockpit willeventually be shared within the 767/757family. By the year 2000, Boeing plans totake the new, large-panel flight deck being

growing markets, it willt e able to fly morepassengers on routes erved by existing767s, A 300-6 Os and A31 Os. Because of it'commonality with the 767/757 family, aswell as the 777 and new 737s, Boeing alsohopes to capitali:e on airline' alreadyoperating 767· for growing air routes. The767/757 common type rating can, with the757-300, extend to five aircraft types: the767-200, -300 and -400, as well as the 757­200 and -300.

In addition to the stretched fuselage andwing tips, the 767-400 offers a gross take­off weight of 440,0001b (200,OOOkg), com­pared with a maximum 412,0001b( 187 ,OOOkg) for the heaviest existing 767.The -400 will require runway length ofbetween 10,OOOft and 1I,500ft 0,050­3, 500m). Older versions need between8,700 ,md 9,400ft (2,650-2,860m).

To maintain rotation angles, the 767­400ER's landing gear has been lengthened.Wheels, tyres and brakes borrowed fromthe 777 programme are used to accommo­date the greater weights. Onboard electri­cal power output is being increased by one­fourth, to accommodate projected in-flightentertainment needs. A new auxiliarypower unit will meet expanded air-condi­tioning and power requirements. The air­craft fuselage is being strengthened, and anadditional outboard slat will be built intoeach wing to accommodate the longerwing span that will result from the additionof wing tips. The aircraft will use existingengines, giving 62,0001b (270k ) thrust,from all three manufacturers, with an eyetowards more powerful future variants.

The 767-400ER's passenger cabin, withnewly sculpted sidewalls, ceilings andoverhead stowage bins, creates a feeling ofspaciousness similar to the 777, offeringgreater clearance around the head andshoulders. The stowage bins offer morestorage volume than existing 767s. eatizes will remain the same.

The newest model features an upgradedflight deck with displays similar to exi-;ting767 models, but more in line with the 777.Six in square (51.6 sq cm) liquid crystalflat-panel displays are laid out, two in frontof each pilot plus over and under centrepanel screens for engine instrumentation,weather radar or back-up in case of failure.This set-up is called the large formal dis­play system (LFDS), a software-loadableformat that enables the cockpit instrumen­tation to be quickly converted to matchdi 'play layouts of other Boeing transportsin an airline's fleet. This is another way

The 767-400ER, shown here in a computer­generated photo, is the first in the family to featurewing tips. It is due to enter service in May 2000.Boemg

......... , .s=-~

.............., .

Max. range 6,4 0 mile (10,430km)

Prarr Whirney PW4062, General Electric F6- 0 2B7F-l and CF6-OC2B F-l or Rolls-Royce RB211-524G/H

Overall length 201ft 4in (61.4m); heighr 55ft lin (l .79m); wing pan 170fr4in (52111); body widrh 16fr 6in (5m)

245 (three class), 3 4 (rwo c1as ), up ro 375 (inclusive rour)

4,5 0 cubic ft (129.6 cubic m)

24,140 gallons (91,3 70 lirres)

Plane weight 227, OOlb (103,100kg); max. tak -off weighr 450,000lb(204,100kg)

pecific3tion - 767-400ER

argo volume:

Weighr:

Performance:

Pas engers:

Fuel capaciry:

Engines (rwo):

Dimen ion:

726 727

THE FAMILY GROWS

pecification - 767-400 vs. 767-300

300ERX would have a range capacity ofalmost 7,705 miles (l2,400km), slightlygreater than that of the Airbus A330-200.

The effort to increase range came inresponse to requests from British chartercarrier Britannia, which operates morethan twenty 767s and 757s. The airline isinterested in operating the stretched ver­sion on non-stop flights to Asia. Boeingseriously considered the request, especial­ly in the light of the fact that other UKcharter carriers, such as Air 2000, Airtoursand Leisure International Airways, whichoperate 767s and 757s, chose the longer­range Airbus A330-200 for their futureneeds rather than the 767 -400ER.

Boeing and its customers reached agree­ment about the basic design of the aircrafton 9 January 1998. That gave engineersthe go-ahead to begin releasing designinformation to Boeing factories and sup­pliers, beginning the fabrication of parts,tools and assemblies. The longer -400ER,like the 757-300, required Boeing todevelop new tooling and make adjust­ments to the production line, to accountfor a longer fuselage. The -400 will be builtalongside -300s in the same line at Everett,and will complement rather than replacethe -300.

The 767-400 is the first widebody air­liner to be stretched for a second time.

Even before Boeing's merger withMcDonnell Douglas, the two companieshad signed a technical agreement to sharesome of the work. Douglas was to havereceived work on the empennage andwing-tip area. The two companies also

pioneered the 'virtual teaming concept',which Boeing now uses regularly for long­distance design efforts with subcontractorsand partners on several programmes.

Boeing hopes to control costs on the newderivative by establishing the certificationbasis much earlier than usual in the devel­opment cycle. The sooner regulatory agen­cies in the United States and Europe agreeon requirements, the sooner Boeing canstabilize the design and test programmes.This helped Boeing develop the 767-400into more than a simple 767-300 stretch.

The -400 will extend the life of the 767family as it enters its third decade. Todevelop what is almost a new model, yet toretain commonality with previous 767 ,the -400 incorporates the best of the new­generation 737, the 777 and the 717. As aresult, configuration objectives includednot only the usc of existing 767 structures,fuselage design, engine nacelles and struts,but also the introduction of dramaticallynew features such as a 777 -style flightdeck. The new fl ight deck was adopted latein the programme.

In addition to the new-look flight deck,other changes include a new main instru­mentation panel and glareshield, centreconsole, two-position landing-gear selec­tion lever and a new air-data/inertial-ref­erence system that integrates the air-datacomputer and inertial reference units.

Sales of the 767-400 were expected togrow substantially in 1999, reflecting sig­nificant interest from airlines looking tofi II the capaci ty gap between the 767-300and the 777.

cases stamped with an image of the planeand the date.

The next day, the aircraft began serving aroute linking San Francisco, Denver, Chica­go, New York and Boston, replacing DC­lOs. A second 767 soon joined the fleet,followed by six more by December. Unitedinitially employed the new aircraft on routesfrom its Chicago and Denver hubs to theEast Coast, but quickly discovered that

on each side and one row of three downthe m idd Ie.

During its send-off in Chicago, MayorJane Byrne had splashed champagne onthe nose of the new jet, christening it the'City of Chicago.' She did not break thebottle, to avoid denting the nose. Passen­gers in first class received leather passport

there were 175 passengers and eight crewmembers on board. Among those enjoy­ing the inaugural 2-hour and 20-minuteflight was 82-year-old Lucille Wright, anaviation buff who had been on 20 maid­en flights, including the first DC-3 voy­age some 50 years earlier. 'It's like ridingin a cradle,' she said about the aircraft,wh ich for the fi rst ti me featured econo­my-class seating of two rows of two seats

In Service

First Revenue Flights

The 767 era began on 8 September 1982,when a United model touched down at1.05 pm local time to complete its firstcommercial flight, from Chicago'sO'Hare International Airport to Den­ver's Stapleton International Airport;

Delta Air Lines is the largest operator of the 757-200. with 110 in service or on order. Gary Liao

CHAPTER ELEVEN

20 of 39 767s for delivery in 1983 and1984. Eastern Airlines, the 757 launchcustomer, had threatened to cancel itsorder for 27 of the aircraft amid a tax dis­pute. Despite the early hurdles, however,the new planes quickly caught the atten­tion of the flying public as comfortable,quiet aircraft. And it did not take long forairlines to recognize the savings that couldbe made by flying these new types.

The 767 and 757, designed during the oilcrisis to cut fuel consumption and reduceoperating costs, entered service during arecession, when serious questions werebeing raised about the ability of a dis­tressed airline industry to absorb a surge ofnew aircraft. United Airlines, for example,asked Boeing to stop work temporarily on

16.5ft (5m)

218 ( -class), 269 (2-cla

4,030 cubic ft (114.2 cubic m)

PW4000GE F6-80 2Rolls-Royce RB2J 1-524G/H

24,140 gallons (91,370 lines)

412,000Ib (187,000kg)

767-300

156ft lin (47.57m)

180ft in (54.94m)

52ft (I5.85m)

PW4000GE F6-80C2Rolls-Royce RB21 J-524G/1-I

24,140 gallons (91,370 litres)

440,0001b (200,000kg)

767-400

170ft 4in (52m)

201ft 4in (61.4m)

55ft lin (l .79m)(due to lengthened landing gear)

16.5ft (5m)

245 ( -clas ),30 (2-class)

4,905 cubic ft (137.3 cubic m)

Body width:

Passenger:

Max. take-off weight:

Engines (two):

Fuel:

Cargo volume:

Wingspan:

Overall length:

Height:

minimal air resistance or drag. They pro­vide about the same range capability asother wing-tip designs, but these wouldhave required the wingspan to be extend­ed by another 10ft (3m). This design hasthe added benefit of giving the 767-400ERmore gate and taxiway flexibility. It canusc the same gates as the DC-IO, M D-IIand L-I011, unlike the competing A330­200, which must use gates sized for largeraircraft. The -400's wing tips are beingconsidered on future, longer-range ver­sicms of the 777.

'To improve low-speed petformance andcruise efficiency, we looked at various wingtips, including winglets,' says John Quinli­van, programme manager for the -400.'Studies showed that a raked tip providesbalance in fl ight efficiency, maintenance,petformance and reduced weight. The wingtips have a blunter leading edge and a high­er sweep angle than traditional winglets.'

Because the -400's airframe stretch leadsto a reduction in range of 500 miles(800km) compared with the 767-300ER,Boeing has studied ways to further extendits range even before assembly has begunon the new family member. These includeincreasing take-off gross weight by about10,0001b (4,535kg) to 460,0001b(210,000kg), and adding higher thrustengines. Most of the range extensionwould come from extra fuel in a new tankin the horizontal stabilizer, a modificationsimilar to one made to the 747-400. Boe­ing estimates that the tail tanks wouldhold up to 2,000 gallons (7,580 litres).

Another plan to increase range - andmarketability - is to fit additional fueltanks in the belly of the aircraft. The-400's stretch fuselage can accommodateup to three auxiliary tanks, each capableof holding around 1,740 gallons (6,585litres) of extra fuel. The tanks would beinstalled in the aft belly compartment,behind the aircraft's wingbox, in the spaceprovisionally reserved for additional cargocontainers. The aircraft is being designedto carry up to five freight pallets in the for­ward hold and a maximum of 18 luggagecontainers in the aft belly. Some airlines,however, will not need to use the whole ofthe -400's lengthened belly for cargo, andwould rather use the extra space for addi­tional fuel.

This design would extend the aircraft'srange by up to an additional 400 miles(640km). The same modification is alsobeing considered to extend the range ofnew 767-300ERs. The resulting 767-

128 129

IN SERVICE I SERVICE

the end of January 1983. The aircraftreceived Civil Aviation Authority certifi­cation on 4 January, after 53 additionalflight-test hours devoted to CAA require­ments. BA introduced the 757 to Europewith a service on 9 February 1983.

Since their first revenue flights, the 767and 757 have become the most versatileaircraft in the world.

plane flew non-stop from Miami to BuenosAires, Argentina. 'On the return flight,during a refuelling stopover in PanamaCity, one of our directors looked up at thetail, saw the numbers "757" and said howgood they looked in our own colours,' saysBorman. 'So we decided that all our 757swould have the model number on the taiL'

British Airways became the first airlineoutside the United States to operate the757, when it took deli very of two planes at

Eastern advertised its introduction ofthe 757 with the numerals '757' paintedprominently on the tail in blue letters tomatch the double-blue Eastern cheat lines.The story behind this is recalled by FrankBorman, the airline's former chairman.Eastern's board of directors was invited ona flight test to South America on a Boeing­owned 757 bearing Eastern's colours. The

Once in service, Eastern found the 757much cheaper to fly coast-to-coast thanexisting planes. It placed the new plane onsuch routes as Philadelphia-Los Angeles,Miami-Seattle, Atlanta to the WestCoast, and Kansas City to both the Eastand West Coast. Eastern recorded a sched­ule reliability rate of 99.1 per cent in thefirst 20 days of service. During that time,the planes recorded 166 revenue fl ighthours during 112 flights.

told reporters on the inaugural flight thatthe 757 would enable the airline to moveone passenger 700 miles (l,120km) onlOA gallons (42 litres) oUuel. During thefirst quarter of 1993, Eastern's inaugural757 served Boston-Miami, Miami-Nas­sau, Newark-Atlanta, Newark-West PalmBeach, Albuquerque-Atlanta and Chica­go-Atlanta.

Delta Air lines is the largest operator of the 767-300. with seventy-one. that are used on domestic.transatlantic and latin American flights. Ed Davies

it was an ideal transcontinental aircraft aswell. By ovember 1982, the 767 wasa frequent vi itor to Detroit, ewark,Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles and Wash­ington.

The world's first 757 entered servicewith Eastern Airlines on January 1, 1983,linking the carrier's Atlanta hub withTampa, Florida. Upon its return toAtlanta, the 757 flew a round-trip missionto Miami. Financially strapped Eastern

. ( 0,1(1111·111.1'

••••• ••• •

A Continental 757 is shown at San Francisco. The aircraft is commonly used on flights linking the east andwest coasts of the United States. Ed Davies

American Airlines is the largest operator of the 767-200 model with thirty examples. Ed Davies

730 737

IN SERVICE

American Airlines is the second-largest 757 operator, with 102 in service or on order. The 757 can operate

in noise-restrictive airports such as Orange County, California. shown here. Darren Anderson

US Airways uses its fleet of thirty-four 757s on domestic routes. Chris McDowell

732

IN SERVICE

America West. Delta and TWA are among the US airlines operating 757s at Orange County. Darren Anderson

733

IN SERVICE IN SERVICE

America West is known for dressing up its 757s in special colours. This example honours the state of Ohio,

the location of the airline's smallest hub in Columbus. Darren Anderson

ed Airlines (19). Including orders, Deltahas the largest -300 fleet, with 71, usedboth on domestic and transatlantic flights.American (49), All Nippon Airways (40)and United (37) follow. British Airways

around the world operate 228 767-200s,but nearly 500 -300s. The largest operatorof the -200 is American Airlines (30planes) followed by Air Canada (23),Japan's All Nippon Airways (20) and nit-

near-defunct Airbus A300/ A310 combina­tion. The 757 rolls out about four times amonth.

Due to its lower cost per seat, the -300 isthe most popular 767 model. Airlines

American Airlines has a hefty fleet of forty-nine 767-300s for use domestically and internationally. Ralph

Olson/Flying Images Worldwide

US Airways employs the 767-200 on its transatlantic routes. Bob Polaneczky

fast US customers - Delta, American,Continental and United.

On the 757 programme, 1992 was alsothe busiest year, when 99 planes weredelivered. The slowest year was 1984,when just 18 left the lines, a result of thelingering recession. Deliveries were up to

54 in 1998. For the 757,1989 was the ban­ner year, when 200 planes were ordered.

Boeing produces an average of four 767sa month. The 767 family has outsold the

annual average of 43 767s rolling out ofEverett, and 49 757s coming off the line inRenton. For the 767, the busiest year was1992, when 63 planes were delivered. Just20 had been delivered in its first year,1982. In 1998, a banner year for commer­cial aviation, Boeing delivered 47 767s. In1997, Boeing received orders for 98,including 56 of the new -400 models. Ofthe 98 orders, 73 came from just four stead-

long, overwater routes. The 757 transportsmore people and cargo farther for less moneythan any other single-aisle transport. It alsopermits airlines to serve far more of theworld's airports than competing jets.

Deliveries of 767s and 757s have grownsteadily over the years. Through 1998,Boeing had recorded orders for more than860 767s and more than 950 757s, deliver­ing more than 725 of the widebodies andmore than 830 757s. That represents an

a home in a deregulated US airline industrythat welcomed new point-to-point service.The aircraft offers carriers a proven combi­nation of performance, economy, flexibilityand reliability that no comparably sizedtwin-jet can match, enabling airlines to flyboth short feeder routes and intercontinen­tal non-stops profitably. Over the years, the757, designed for short hops, excelled in anarea that Boeing had never considered -

Market Successes

month, crossing the Atlantic, West, Cen­tral and South Pacific and Indian Oceans,and the Caribbean and Tasman Seas. Atabout half the trip cost of a 747, the 767allows airlines to offer more frequentflights and more non-stop routes betweencities that could not support regular ser­vice by three- or four-engine jets.

The 757, the most fuel-efficient airlinerever built, actually made its debut after therise in fuel prices had subsided, but it found

The 767 is a multi-market success, servingmore city pairs over a greater variety of dis­tances than any other widebody twin-jet.Its abil ity to fly between ci ties separated byvast expanses of water, or remote terrainfar from airfields, has revolutionized airtravel. More than fifty airlines log morethan 14,600 extended-range flights each

734 735

IN SERVICE IN SERVICE

replaced with a different design and theproblem was thus solved.

One idiosyncrasy with the 757 involveda slightly swaying tail. Boeing made modi­fications in 1990 to reduce the side-to-sidemotion that passengers were feel ing at theback of the aircraft. With the fix, 757shave no more wiggle than other Boeingplanes. On a long aircraft like the 757, it ismore likely that the ride will be bumpier inthe aft portion.

over-sensitive yaw dampers, broken plasticsun-visor holders, cracks of compositematerials, and poor air-conditioning whileon ground power. Some 767s also recordedthese problems, which were subsequentlyfixed.

The environmental-control system ini­tially had difficulty clearing cigarettesmoke from the cabin and providing suffi­cient cooling for equipment and subsys­tems. It was found that the blades on therecirculation fan were stalling and causinga reduction in the air flow. The fan was

tioning ducts. The cause of the aft cabinnoise was determined to be improperdrains for door seals and lavatory faci Iities.

Other airlines noted excessive enginenoise, and this led to modified enginemounts. Some airlines also reported ultra­sensitive brakes when taxiing and makingturns; this problem required a change inthe metering valves in the hydraulicbrake-con trol system. In the earl y daysof the 757, pilots also complained of

Minor Problems

As on all new aircraft, a few mechanicalproblems cropped up in the new planesafter service entry, but these were quicklyfixed.

In the early days of 757 service, DeltaAir Lines received letters from passengerswho claimed to hear excessive rushing airsounds between rows 20 and 24, and ahigh-pitched noise in the aft cabin. Deltadetermined that the rushing air noisecame from inadequately muffled air-condi-

American Trans Air is a US charter and scheduled service carrier flying the 757. Ralph Olson/Flying Images

Worldwide

ulators, because it was so new. However,perhaps because of rigorous pre-deliveryte ting, the all-new glass cockpit did notcause any major problems when it enteredservice on either the 767 or 757. Onesmall complaint was that the crew alertingystem was at times over-sensitive, and

gave many false warnings. Flight crewswere put in the position of either choosingto ignore some warnings, or paying atten­tion to many that were probably false.

drinks without interfering with passengerswalking back and forth through the singleaisle to the rear lavatory. This allows formore coffee refills and additional personalcontact between passengers and crew.Having the galley and the lavatory mid­way in the cabin splits the coach sectioninto two parts - a IS-seat section behindfirst class and a larger aft cabin.

Initially, the automated flight deck ­full of high-tech equipment and mind­boggling computing power - caused enor­mous concern to both the airlines and reg-

leg room, and airline managers were delight­ed to note immediate savings in fuel costs.

'Many airlines thought flight crews wouldnever want to fly these things, but they justate it up,' says John Armstrong, the 757 testpilot. 'Airlines thought it would take a greatdeal of time to train pilots, but it didn't conledown to that. The airplane is much easier tomaintain with the glass cockpit.'

Eastern fl ight crews surveyed by AviationWeek & S/Jace Technology magazine shortlyafter the 757's debut said that it was the bestaircraft they had flown. 'I like it becausegreater thought has been given to both pas­senger and flight attendant,' KatherineBennett, an Eastern attendant, told themagazine. 'Unlike most airplanes, lavato­ries are away from galleys. Service carts arewell designed, unlike the Airbus A300,where you run to the galley, grab trays andserve the passengers. In the 757, the serviceflows smoothly, with well-designed carts.'

Because of the location of a full galleyand lavatory midway along the cabin,flight attendants are able to serve food and

A Positive Response

Soon after entering service, the 767 and 757received positive responses from pilots, whoappreciated the advanced avionics, naviga­tion and flight-management systems, andthe amount of information made availableto them on the CRT displays. Cabin crewsfound the layout of lavatories and galleys animprovement over previous aircraft for foodand beverage service. Passengers werepleased with slightly wider seats, roomieroverhead luggage compartments and more

million for a used model. However, it isbeing overshadowed in this role by thecorporate version of the 737, the BoeingBusiness Jet, and the Airbus A319 Corpo­rate Jet. About a dozen 757s have beenconverted into executive transports,including one for Paul Allen of Microsoftand the late Sir James Goldsmith. Someprofessional sports teams in the UnitedStates also travel in privately owned 757s.

This Air Canada 767-200, one of twenty-three in Air Canada's fleet, bears a special livery in honour ofDonovan Bailey, Olympic sprinting champion. Stephen Wilcox

flies 28 of the type, and United Parcel Ser­vice flies 30 767-300 freighters, includingorders. Delta, with 86 767-200s and -300s,is the largest overall 767 operator, followedby American, with 79. American tookdelivery in May 1998 of the 700th 767.The 767 family has outsold the near­defunct Airbus A300jA31 0 combination.

Delta flies the most 757s. By 2000, it willhave 110 of the type, followed closely byAmerican (102) and United (98). North­west A idines is another large operator, with73 in its fleet, including orders. United Par­cel Service flies 75 freighter versions.British Airways is the largest Europeanoperator, with 57. Nearly two-thirds of 757sales are to US airlines. In fact, seven of thetop ten American airlines - United, Amer­ican, Delta, Northwest, Continental, USA irways and America West - fly the model,using it both for long, coast-to-coast routesand for quick regional hops.

The 757, despite its relatively large size,is also a popular executive transport forbusiness people willing to pay about $40

736 737

The 767's interior features two-by-three-by-two seating. With this layout. the planewould need to be 87 per cent full before the centre row has to be used. Boeing

I SERVICE

Several airlines use both the 767 and 757 in their fleets. since pilots qualified for one can fly the other. TWAis among the carriers enjoying the savings of such an arrangement. Ralph Olson/Flying Images Worldwide

138

British Airways, which used the 757sto replace de Havilland Tridents, spenttwo year debugging the 757 to correctome minor problems. 'We had a lot of

what you might call infancy problems,particularly during the first nine or tenmonth of the aircraft's operation,' BarryBooth, British Airways' project engineerfor the 737 and 757, said at the time. Oneproblem the carrier encountered was afatigue in the engine support strut. TheBritish Airways cabin crew was fond ofthe 757, but noted that meal service onthe aircraft could be difficult because ofthe large number of passengers carried,compared with the Trident, the single­aisle plane it replaced. On short flightswith meal service, the crew found thatthere may not be enough time to servefood if the seat belt light remains on.

Versatility and OtherAttractions

The planes' versatility was quickly graspedby carriers around the world. Ju t as Unit­ed had discovered the 767's transconti­nental abilities, other carriers soon beganto use the 757 on lucrative coa t-to-coastservice, including some new long-haulroute. orthwest Airlines, for instance,initially u ed the 757 to replace Boeing727s on heavily travelled routes of 1,000miles (l,600km), but soon expanded itsscope. 'The beauty of the 757 is its versa­tility,' Benjamin G. GriggsJr., Northwest'sexecutive vice-president of operations,said at the time. 'It can do economicallywhat the DC-tO does on transcontinentalroutes where loads are not large enough,and can replace the 72 7 on short-haulroutes. It will do anything we want.'

orthwest opened new routes, includingew York- eattle, a link it had! ad to drop

in 1984 when it was served by the DC-tO,which was too large for the route. The 727did not have the range for the 2,421-mile(3, 73km) flight.

The 757 wa also increasingly attrac­tive on a number of short-haul routes,which, up to two or three years earl ier, hadbeen flown with widebody aircraft. Briti hAirways had been using LlOlls on suchrou tes, wh iIe com peti tors were usi ngcheaper, smaller aircraft. When B 's 757sentered service in February 19 3, theyreplaced many Tri tars, leaving the wide­bodies for such routes as London-Parisand charter service. 'That i the kind of

I SERVICE

flexibility we have always said we needed,and which th 757 gave us,' Watts said atthe time. By 1984, Briti h Airways hadenough 75 7s to establ i h a shuttle fleet offive to six aircraft equipped with 220 seatswithout galleys. With its added size overthe Tridents, the 757 eliminated the needfor one back-up flight on high-densityshuttle routes, saving the airline 1.2 mil­lion a year.

When it struck a deal with Boeing for 60757s, Delta Air Lines required that aircraftcost efficiencies should exceed the original

19 0 Boeing proposal by 10 per cent. Ini­tial operations of the 757 four years latershowed a 14 per cent improvement, whichresulted from engine and aerodynamicefficiencies. Delta negotiated normal guar­antees for reliability, costs, fuel efficiencyand total performance, and also a guaran­tee that its Pratt & Whitney PW2037engines would perform better than theRolls-Royce engine. Delta was the first air­line to choose Pratt to power its 757s.

139

Flying the Twins

767 Configurations

The 767 has always been popular amongthe travel-weary. Its economy-class cabinlayout - two seats on either side of twoaisle and only three seats in the middle­i a welcome ight compared with 747s,Dis, and L-I0lls that have four oreven five seat in the middle of the cabin.The layout ensures that six out of seven, or87 per cent, of the seats are next to either

a window or an aisle, meaning an aircraftwould have to be close to full before themiddle seat is taken. It has the smallestproportion of centre seats of any airlinerand the smallest body that can economi­cally be built around two aisles.

In the early days of service, Unitedreported its satisfaction with the 767'sseven-abreast layout, which of~ rs greaterpassenger appeal and comfort than six-seat,single-aisle configurations, particularly on

IN SERVICE

The 767's first-class cabin has a single seat in the

middle. making the aircraft a popular choice amongpassengers. Boeing

(Below) A cutaway drawing of the 767's interior.

Boeing

140

flights of more than two hours. 'We becameenamoured with the 2-3-2 seating,' saysRichard Ferris, United's former chairman.'We thought that was an attractive feature,especially for the business market.'

In first class, the 767's five-abreast seat­ing accommodates standard 747 -sizedsleeper seats for long-range flights, two

The business class section of a 767. Boeing

rows of two seats on each side and a singleseat in the middle. In business class, whereseats run six across, each passenger can sitnext to either a window or aisle. Eventhose in economy class can enjoy a taste ofluxury - the seats are slightly bigger thanthose on most widebody aircraft. Only the777 has bigger seats. The exception is

IN SERVICE

when a 767's cabin is configured in eight­abreast seating, for inclusive tours.

In a three-class configuration, the 767offers more stowage volume per passenger- 3 cubic feet (84 cubic cm) - than anyother widebody except the 777. The over­head bins in a -300 model, the longest inany jetliner, rise sharply and are recessed

into the c iling for more headroom andgreater perceived spaciousness. There is somuch room that a passenger of Sft 3 in(l60cm) could stand up straight at thewindow seat without hitting his or herhead. Short passengers, however, need toclimb on to the seats to put their bags inthe overhead compartments.

141

Straight, level aisles make the atten­dants' work easier and meal service quick­er on the 767. Doors and aisles are wide,for fast, efficient boarding and de-planing.On the downside, it takes some time to

exit a -300, particularly from the back, ifthere is just one gangway, which can leadto frustration among travellers in the rear.

Bulkheads, particularly in the -300model, serve to divide the cabin into cosysections, so passeng rs do not truly get a feelfor how long the plane is. The divisions alsoallow flight attendants to work a variety ofservice stations without clogging the aisles.

There are more than 100 different inte­riors, both original and modified, in the

II

IN SERVICE IN SERVICE

7 Galley Locations With Overwing Exits

Forward Service

Forward Entry

Mid Service

Mid Entry

Aft Service

Aft Entry12 first class38-in pitch

182 economy class32-in pitch

194 passengers

176 economy class32-in pitch

12 first class38-in pitch

With Four Doors

III Basic locations

D Optional locations

\

I12 Lavatory Locations

The 757 has galley and lavatory flexibility. This is the basic lavatory location on the four-door version.

*Basic lavatory location on four-door,available on four-door only

188 passengers

A; AttendantC; ClosetG; GalleyL; Lavatory

767 fleet. A difference in interior couldmean changing the location of <l magazinerack, or of a lavatory. Many airlines havemodified and certified their own 767s afterdelivery. There are too many customer­requested features to count; when a cus­tomer wants something unique to set a dif­ferent standard and is willing to pay for it,Boeing will customize an airliner.

The 767-200 has five lavatories (six inthe -300), two centrally in the main cabin,two aft in the main cabin and one or two for­ward in the first-class sections. Galleys aresituated at forward and aft ends of the cabin.

Unlike other widebodies, the 767 takesto the air surprisingly quickly. The aircrafthas a very high climb gradient. This isbecause a twin-engined plane, after reach­ing take-off speed, must be able to contin­ue the take-off in the case of one enginefailing. Both the 767 and 757 have twicethe power needed for take-off after mini­mum engine-out take-off speed is reached.In comparison, a three-engined plane,like the 727, with all engines running, hasone and a half times the power needed fortake-off at the minimum engine-out take­off speed, and a four-engined plane, likethe 747, has one and a third times thepower needed. In flight, the 767 flies qui-

erly and the reassuring drone of theengines is hardly noticeable.

Distinctly narrower than the 747, DC­10, LlOll, A340 or A330-300, the 767 isa treat on short hops normally reserved fornarrow-body routes. Its economic hourlyoperating efficiency - an average of$3,324for a 767-200 and $3,609 for a -300 ­allows for short flights, which are normal­ly an expensive proposition that is best leftto smaller aircraft.

Passenger-service units on both air­craft put call buttons, air and lights at thepassenger's fingertips. Both the 767 and757, in common with most large com­mercial transports today, feature tele­phones built into seat-backs, activatedby credit cards. This feature has beenretrofitted into older planes. Because the767 is a widebody, programming appearseither on monitors or on large screens onbulkheads. Seat-back video screens, afeature on the 777 even in coach class,are being offered for future models. Onthe 757, an in-flight video system isavailable, with monitors positioned offthe ceiling every ten rows, affording pas­sengers an unobstructed view of movies,television shows, news or onboard safetyannouncements.

757 Configurations

Unlike its wider cousin, the 757 offers nor­mal standard-body seating - two rows ofthree seats in economy class. (The two-by­two seating in the first-class section fea­tures wider seats than competing aircraft,giving operators a marketing edge.) How­ever, with the coach-class arrangementthe same as a 737's, the 757's cabin canseem rather long and cramped, making itamong the most disliked aircraft amongfrequent travellers. Passengers on transat­lantic or coast-to-coast orth Americanflights lasting five hours or more can feelquite claustrophobic. The 757, the longestsingle-aisle aircraft in the world, can beuncomfortable when a flight is full. Board­ing a full 757 can be a chore as passengerspause to put belongings in overhead bins.On the other hand, when a flight is empty,chances are that passengers will be able toenjoy a row to themselves. And, becausethe aircraft can operate in fog and otherconditions that may ground other airlin­ers, wi th the 757, passengers have a betterchance of arriving on time or making con­nections in foul weather.

The widebody A31 O's seati ng capaci ty isslightly more than the 757, but Boeing

With Overwing Exits

12 first class

201 passengers

With Four Doors

12 first class

195 passengers

Interior arrangements on a mixed-class 757-200.

189 economy class

183 economy class

A

AA

742 743

A TWA 767-200, like the one shown here, was the first 767 revenue passenger flight allowed with the 120-minute

ETOPS rule. On 1 February 1985 Flight 810 departed from Boston to Paris. Ralph Olson/Flying Images Worldwide

markets the 757 as a more modern, morefuel-efficient model, on which cost savingsoutweigh the comforts of a widebody. Boe­ing studies showed that, in short- to medi­um-haul flights, passenger preference hadlittle bearing on the type of aircraft pre­fcITed. Company analysis also showed that,for ranges of less than 1,500 miles(2,400km), a minor preference for twoaisles is more than compensated for by the757's ability to return a profit to the airlineswith substantially fewer seats occupied.

Even before its first flight, the 757 wasavailable with two different engines, achoice of three take-off weights, two doorlayouts and a remarkable choice of interi­or arrangements. Each interior style - thefabric, the seats - is determ ined by airI ines.They also decide on wh ich galley and lava­tory locations they prefer. Available witheither three or four entry doors, the 757offers a irI ines more galley and lavatorylocation choices than competing airliners.While Eastern and British Airways hadmuch to do with the original configura­tions, Delta has driven many of thechanges made since then.

The most significant characteristic a pas­senger notices when entering a 757 is theplane's length. When compared with othernarrow-bodies, it can seem never-ending.To break up the monotony of the seating,the 757's cabin can be configured into sec­tions, giving the airliner a club-like atmos­phere. The aircraft's multi-exit configura­tions allow passengers to board and exitsmoothly, reducing congestion at doorwaysand in the aisles. The mid-cabin doorwaysallow those travelling in first class to beseated and served while other passengersare boarding in the aft cabin. The three­door overwing-exit configuration incorpo­rates emergency exits over the wings, withlavatories in the aft end of the cabin, justahead of the galley. The four-door arrange­ment features mid-cabin lavatories, and gal­leys fore and aft. Airlines that fly two- orthree-class transcontinental and intercon­tinental routes prefer four doors. Thisarrangement breaks up the cabin for differ­ent levels of service, and also facilitatesmovement within the cabin by providingmore places for flight attendants and pas­sengers to pass by food and beverage carts.There are no less than nine galley locationsand nine \;watory locations, depending onthe emergency-exit configuration selected.Airlines can choose from options of multi­ple units of each at either forward, mid oraft positions. The 757 has four lavatories.

I SERVICE

The 757's galleys make better use ofspace than conventional versions. Settransversely against the aft bulkhead, theirdesign enables a cadre of five to sevenflight attendants to work side by side with­out interference. In contrast, convention­al two-sided galleys require attendants totake turns vying for floor space. The 757aft galley also lets cabin crews roll food anddrink carts straight out the door and up theaisle. Conventional galleys require atten­dants to manoeuvre carts through right­angle turns into the aisle. The galleys fea­ture large right-side service doors. Becausethey are located within the galleys, thesedoors enable provisioning to take placequickly within the galleys, leaving theaisle free for boarding.

The 757 can be configured into threeclasses, a four-abreast first class, five­abreast business class and six-abreast econ­omy class. First-class seats on the 757 havea 38in (96.5cm) pitch. The pitch in econ­omy class is 32 or 34in (81 or 86cm). Theaisle is 20in (50.8cm) across. Boeing devel­oped an attractive and functional interiorfor the 757's passenger cabin. Sculpturedceiling and sidewall panels made fromweight-saving composite materials, andaccented by recessed lighting, give theinterior a spacious look; indeed, the planehas a widebody feel, even if the floor widthis the same as the 727. The Kevlar­enforced overhead stowage bins provideabout 1.9 cubic feet (54 cubic cm) of spaceper passenger, and can store flat garmentbags. Each bin is 5ft (1.52m) long, andholds up to 180lb (82kg) of carry-on item.

The take-off in a 757, as in its larger sib­ling, is sudden and steep. Once up, the rideis quiet, except for some vibrations experi­enced by those seated near the engines.

The Pilot's View

In general, pilots love flying the 767 and757, and use the aircraft as a yardstickagainst which to compare others. Accord­ing to pilots, the aircraft are well designed,fun to fly, responsive, reliable, adaptable,and very manoeuvrable for their size. Theyare pilot-friendly aircraft, offering excel­lent performance, good navigation, handyredundancies and few, if any, recurringmechanical problems. Unlike the fly-by­wire Airbus family, the 767 and 757 offer acombination of high technology andgood, old-fashioned, take-control-of-the­stick flying, which pilots prefer.

144

For pilots, the reliability of the aircraftis the strongest suit. Both planes will regu­larly operate properly more than 99.5 percent of the time on any given day. Pilotssay that even more modern aircraft, suchas the McDonnell-Douglas (now Boeing)M 0-88, are less reliable, despite havingnewer computer-controlled fl ight decks.

The 757 is a pilot's aircraft, says Boeing.'It handles great, gives you all sorts of per­formance, and it will fly anywhere, anytime, it's quiet and has all kinds of capabil­ity,' says Doug Miller. The plane is so pow­erful that pilots rarely have to use fullengine power to take off. Throttling downsaves engine wear as well as fuel.

The identical flight deck - the hallmark,of these planes - can cause havoc for a pilotwho is daydreaming. Although someswitches and the electronic engine controlsdiffer between the 757 and 767, and the767's cockpit is slightly wider, even veteranpilots type rated to fly both aircraft mustcontinually remind themselves of the typethey are flying. For example, when taxiing,pilots must remember that the 767, espe­cially the -300 model, is wider and heavier,and requires wider turns. Landing is also dif­ferent, and this can cause problems unlesspilots are paying close attention. Hard land­ings in the 757 may be in parr due to the factthat the 757 cockpit is 6ft (1.83m) lower tothe ground than the 767 cockpit; the pilotmay forget which type he or she is flying,and be in for a quicker touchdown thanhoped for. The 757 offers a clean and lightlanding, so much so that pilots tend to cutall engine power when the plane is about30ft (9m) above the runway. Doing thiswhen coming in to land with the muchheavier 767 will cause a hard landing,because the 767 will drop immediately afterthe engine power is cut. Another differenceis that the 767 has two sets of ailerons at lowspeed. It is more responsi ve on turnsbecause of the second one, and there maybe a tendency for a pilot - thinking he orshe is flying the 757 - to over-compensatethe controls slightly.

A pilot working for an airline that hasboth planes in its fleet will frequentlyswitch between the 767 and 757, oftenseveral times a day. While there is a bene­fit in training just once in order to qualifyfor both planes, the real pay-off is the day­to-day flexibility that the airlines have.Pilots can operate aircraft seating 183 or252 passengers, with the same crew. Forexample, a Delta pilot who flies fromAtlanta to Cincinnati on a 757 may find

him or herself on a 767-300 for a flightfrom Cincinnati to Los Angeles. If thepilot could fly only one of the planes, twocrews would be required for the two flights- as well as two sets of reserve pi lots.

Because much of the programming forthe flight plan is done on the ground, the767 and 757 give pilots more time to sit backand observe during the flight; this was a spe­cific goal of the designers, who insisted onlower crew workloads. '] love the technolo­gy. I love the computer systems,' says oneTWA 767 pilot. They've engineered all theidiosyncrasies out of the airplane.'

John Armstrong, the first 757 test pilot,calls the 757 a pilot's aircraft that is greatto fly by hand. 'This airplane felt more likeyou were in an airplane that would per­form like a pilot would expect it to,' hesays. 'Pilots are comfortable in it. Theinstrumentation and everything in there iseasy and logical to understand. The logicwas a big thing. We made the flight deckintuitive, and even if a pilot had neverbeen in one before, he could still do a lot.'

IN SERVICE

Earning ETOPS

Perhaps the greatest legacy of the 767/757family is an ability to cross oceans or con­quer hours of barren terrain on just twoengines.

In the first years of the 767's commercialservice, certification authorities, such asthe Federal Aviation Administration inthe United States and the Joint AviationAuthority in Europe, required the aircraftto fly within an hour of a suitable airportso it could safely divert in the event of anengine failure. This was known in the

United States as Federal Aviation Regula­tion 121.161: 'Unless authorized by theadministrator, based on the character ofthe terrain, the kind of operation, or theperformance of the airplane to be used, nocertificate holder may operate two-engineairplanes over a route that contains a pointfarther than 1 hour flying time (in still airat normal cruising speed with one engineinoperative) from an adequate airport.'The Europeans allowed 90 minutes from

145

an airport, but with both engines working.Either way, the rules were made with goodreason, at a time when aircraft were pro­peller-driven, using reciprocating engines.

Flying long routes with two engines iscalled ETOPS - Extended Twin EngineOperations, or, affectionately, 'EnginesTurn or Passengers Swim'. Every month,.the 767 alone successfully completes morethan 14,600 extended-range flights. Theplane has come a long way from its earlydays, when doubters were more comfort­able with at least three engines, if notmore. 'The only reason I fly in a four-

engined plane,' the saying goes, 'is becausethere are none with five.'

ETOPS is granted to a specific twin­engine aircraft based on design and testing.ETOPS approval is granted to a specific air­line to operate an ETOPS-approved aircraftbased on its pilots, maintenance, flight plan­ning, training capabilities and history. Theunique aspect of an ETOPS flight is that, forpart of the flight, the aircraft is more than 60minutes from a suitable airport.

IN SERVICE IN SERVI E

With fifty-seven examples, British Airways is the lalgest 757 operator outside the United States. Peter Sweeten/Aviation Images Worldwide

Just as Boeing succeeded in convincingaviation authorities that, with the righttechnology, two-member crews are saferthan three, the reliability of high-bypassengines showed the world that twoengi ne' can he just as safe as - or safer than- three. 'We all got the failure rate data forjets and made the case that jet enginesdon't fail as much as they get bigger,' Tay­lor recalls. Today's high-bypass engines areten times more reliable than the pistonengines of the 1950s.

'We worked with the two engine com­panies to increase reliability. Everybody

had their minds on the engines heing thereal driver, but I took the po ition that allsystems hould be ufficient as an alternateto go a far as three hours from an airport,'Taylor ay . 'That meant y tems in dupli­cate or tripl icate so that if you started adiversion, three hours later you would ,tillbe operating.'

To appease the FAA, Boeing gathereddata on aircraft petformance. The compa­ny compiled every failure and shutdownever experienced in the first few years of767 service. Boeing told the FAA that the

enabled Trans World irlines to initiate a767 transatlantic service. Three monthlater, similar approval was granted to 767spowered by GE CF6- OA engine. ByDecember 19 6, twelve operator were fly­ing 49 ETOP -equipped 767s on long­range flights across the North Atlanticand the Tasman ea, and trans- ahara.Three years later, 152 ETOPS 767s flewmore than 3,000 flights a month, havingadded the South Pacific and Indian Oceanto the list of long-range routes, as thereach of the twin-jet was extended.

This allows independent systems to backup others, and contributes to a greatermargin of safety. Of cour'e, the same engi­neering that increases aircraft dependabil­ity creates a confusing network of inter­connected 'ystem '. Failure in onecomponent can affect operations of others.

The 767 fleet operated for more thantwo years before the FAA granted initialapproval for ETOP service. In May 19 5,the FAA released guidelines authorizingonly those 767s powered hy Pratt & Whit­ney JT9D-7R4 engine' to fly up to 120minutes from a suitable airport. This

ntil the early 19 Os, three- or four­engined aircraft handled all long-rangeroute, including those over water. Twin'were relegated to intracontinental travel.

ince then, the twins' range and reliabili­ty have increased because of the excellentperformance and fuel efficiency of theengines, and the capability and redundan­cy of systems, such as hydraul ics andavionics, which are equivalent to or betterthan those of three- and four-engined air­craft. Aircraft systems are made redundantby the linking together of components.

Air Canada was among the first carriers to operate ETOPS flights with 767s. Today there are 14,600 ETOPS

flights a month, most of them operated by 767s. Ralph Olson/Flying Images Worldwide

Twin-Engines Crossing Oceans

The extended-range 767-200 was the firsttwin-engine aircraft capable of cros'ingoccam. In the early 19 Os, the thought ofa twin flying passenger' across theAtlantic was unheard of. 'It'll be a cold dayin hell before I let twins fly long-haul,overwater routes,' FAA admini trator LynHelm~ told Boeing's Dick Taylor whenTaylor first approached him on the issue,in 1980. Helms was actually more worriedabout systems failures rather than enginesnot working.

CANADA"'" , . ,., .~~~~~~~~~~~::==:;'~'~';'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'.'.'..' =';;;;'::'::;'::'~~--...

146 147

probabil ity of barh engines failing at oncewas once in 5 ,000 years. The likelihoodof 767 diver ions to alternate airports sta­tisticall y was Ie s than that of a 747.

In fact, even if one engine were to failon the 767, it still bas substantial power.The aircraft can take off at maximumweight, lose an engine hortly afterwards­the most critical moment in a flight - and

IN SERVI E

Engine reliability does matter, however,and it play the most signifi ant role in thegranting, or otherwise, of ETOP . Afterall, a leakage of air, the failure of a sensorin an engine, or a leak of oil or hydraulicfluid might not harm the engine, but itcould lead to the eventual need to shutan engine down halfway aero s an ocean,and, just to be safe, the plane landing at a

rate, the FAA and Europe's JAA approved767s for long-range flights of up to 120minutes from a uitable airport. In 19 9,the time was extended to the maximum1 0 minutes.

In many ways, ETOP transformedcommercial aviation. No longer werelong-haul routes the domain of larger,more expensive 747s, L-lOlls and DC-

To demonstrate the range apabilities ofthe 767, Boeing scheduled a 7,SOO-milc(12,000km) delivery flight of an EthiopianAirlines 767-200ER from Dulles Interna­tional Airport out ide Washington, DC, toAddis Ababa, on 1 June 19 4. For theflight, Boeing received a pecial exemptionfrom FAA rules regarding overwater oper­ations. Two months earlier, an EI AI 767

IN SERVICE

minute barrier early on, most notably AirCanada, with a 75-minute exemption tothe Caribbean in 19 3.

The first fully qualified 767-200ER thatmet U and international certificationgoals for extended-range aircraft wasdelivered to Air Canada in October 19 4.The aircraft was the fir t to be equippedwith a fourth generator independently

petitioned the agency to use twin-engineplane on transatlantic cro sings. Beforethat could happen, the FAA required Boe­ing to establish 'statistical maturity' of spe­cially equipped 767s. To gain a l20-minuterating, a fleet of modified 767 powered byJT9D engine had to log 250,000 consecu­tive flight hours on commercial flights, andachieve a very low rate of engine failure.

Air Mauritius operates two 767-200ERs on routes to Europe. Peter Sweeten/Aviation Images Worldwide Austria's Lauda Air flies 767-300ERs from its Vienna base to charter destinations across Asia. Peter

Sweeten/Aviation Images Worldwide

still climb with the remaining engine. If anengine fails at a high cruising altitude, the767 will lose altitude for 400 miles(640km) and then can start a slow climbfor the rest of the flight-without u ing fullpower. The number of engines alon doesnot dictate afety when it comes to earn­ing ETOP . For instance, at 30 degreeswe t, in the middle of the Atlantic, itwould be better to be in a 767 than in afour-engine DC-8 in the event of a cargofire, because tbe 767 has a fire-suppressiony tem and the older DC-8 does not.

diversionary airport. When this happen,many headaches arise, including thenecessity of bringing parts in and accom­modating passenger, and chedules areleft in disarray.

Along with advances in engines,improvement to the 767 airframe, includ­ing additional electrical ource and a fire­extinguishing system in cargo holds, con­vinced authorities that the 767 would besafe over long distances, first for 75 min­utes, then for 90. By May 1985, after the767 recorded a very low engine- hutdown

148

lOs, or the remaining gas-guzzling 707sand D - s. In tead, smaller, more fuel­efficient aircraft carried more people tomore de tinations. With ETOP , trans­oceanic flights became shorter becau e air­craft could fly more direct, tim -savingflight paths; new routes were introdu ed,as airlines could profitably enter marketthat could not support larger aircraft; andairlines made money through fuel avingand increased traffic. It is no coincidencethat ETOPS ushered in the greatestexpansion in commercial aviation history.

had flown the type's first commercial non­top tran atlantic flight, from Montreal to

Tel Aviv, but that trip was within 60­minute ETOPS regulations. EI AI, Air

anada and TWA began using 767s overthe Atlantic in the pring of 19 4 afterreceiving exemptions allowing them to flyno more than 75 minutes from a uitableairport, b for the FAA's formal approvalof such flights. Australia's Qantas and AirNew Zealand did the same over the Pacif­ic. There were everal instances of 767 air­line g tting approval to fly b yond the 60-

powered by a hydraulic motor, additionalchemical fire-suppression capability, andequipment for cooling the 767's cathoderay tube instrum nt. These safeguardswere recommended by the InternationalCivil Aviation Organization, the Interna­tional Federation of Air Line Pilots As 0­

ciation, the U Air Line Pilots Associa­tion and the FAA.

In 1985, the FAA, at Boeing's behest,extended the range from 75 minutes to120, opening th way for transatlanticflights with twin-jets. everal airlines had

149

The Inaugural l20-minute ETOPS767 Flight

The first 767 revenue passenger flightallowed with the l20-minute ETOP ruletook place on 1 February 1985, whenTran World Airlines flight 10 departedfrom Boston to Paris. According to Avia­tion Week & Space Technology, 'passengerson the first flight sbowed mild enthu ia mfor participating in an aviation fir t and nooutward oncern that th air raft waspowered by two engines rather than tbree

IN SERVICE IN SERVICE

A'RPAC'F'C•• • •• •••• • ••••••••••••

/Gantas Airlines of Australia operates twenty-one 767-300s for domestic. regional and international routes.Peter Sweeten/Aviation Images Worldwide

that it retrofitted five of the aircraft forextended-range flights, at 2.6 millioneach. The investment paid off as newroutes, including New York-Munich, werelater launched.

Further Range Extensions

ETOP , an accomplishment of engineer­ing, actually began as a marketing con­cept. 'ETOPS evolved through the 767,and it was our marketing department thatwanted to u e the 767 to travel the lucra­tive alifornia-Hawaii route. They said,

that undertook the ta k of proving that 767extended-range op ration could be safe andreliable. Training for the first group of six­teen TWA pilot included a refresher cour ein intemational requirements, intensivesimulator flying, and procedures for landingat ondre trom, Greenland, a new alten,a­tive airport.

As the 767 approa hed landfall overorthern Ireland, London Control asked if

this was the first 767. The aviation airwavesexploded when the pilot confirmed it.'You're very lucky to have made it,' oneunidentified British pilot said. 'Are they

or four'. The new rule shortened the flightfrom 3, 5 miles (6,216km) to 3,797 miles(6,075km). It was not a big difference, butwhen it was multiplied by the dozens offlights a day that would follow, the savingsquickly became clear.

TWA's inaugural 767 transatlantic flightaw the Boeing model replacing an L-I 0 II.

February, with traditionally low load factors,was a good time to start any experiment.The first time that most passengers on boardheard abom the history-making flight wawhen an announcement wa made from thecockpit. A commemorative postcard, writ-

~ .JP. ,ijii: ~ ./Q\. "g]1 •••••••••••• i ••••••.......

Far Eastern Air Transport of Taiwan flies the 757 on intra-island domestic flights. Wung Te Chu

"What would it take it to get our 767sthere l '" recalls Dick Taylor, who wascharged with the re pon ibility.

While it was first used over the Atlantic,where diver ionary airport exist, the 767­200ER's proven track record of 120-minuteETOP cleared the way for Hawaiianroutes, flying over nothing but water,betw en the US west coast and the island .

In 1989, the FAA extended the twin-jetrange to 180 minutes, making it possible

both still running l ' asked another. They ranquite well, their every vibration monitoredby the crew and by eleven FAA observerswho focused on the Pratt & Whitney]T9D-7R4D engines throughout the flight.

Flight time for this historic flight was 6hours and 32 minute. Fuel burn on thetrip was about IO,OOOlb (4,550kg) per hour- 7,0001b (3,175kg) an hour less than theL-lOll it replaced. TWA was so con­vinced of the 767's cost-saving abilities

Air Pacific of Fiji uses its only 767-300ER on ETOPS routes to Australia and the United States. PeterSweeten/Aviation Images Worldwide

ten l y a student and mailed from Paris, tat­ed,' ow they tell me it's a two-engine air­plane, as if I don't have enough trouble .'

In the cockpit of Flight 10, the moodwas one of accomplishment as the aircraftapproached the Irish coa t. The flight wasthe end result of more than two years ofeffort by pilots Walter E. Grayum, NormanFausett and William Sonnermann. Sonner­mann headed the Air Transport Associa­tion's Flight Systems Integration committee

750 157

IN SERVICE

Condor Flugdienst of Germany is among the many charter airlines operating 767-300s. Tomas Frocklin

Uzbekistan Airlines operates two 767-300ERs to modernize its fleet of ex-Soviet aircraft. Peter

Sweeten/Aviation Images Worldwide

152

IN SERVICE

British Airways, with twenty-eight examples, has the largest fleet of 767-300s in Europe. Kurt Roth

.". iirrl~

Delta Air lines is the largest 767 operator, including fifteen of the -200 models. Ed Davies

153

IN SERVICE IN SERVICE

Japan Airlines operates 767-300s to augment the larger 747 on domestic and international routes. Michael

Pellaron/Flying Images Worldwide

The Boeing 767 has now flown over Imillion ETOPS flights, more than anyother aircraft. Since 29 May 1985, whenthe FAA gave its official blessing to the767 as the first aircraft to receive approvalfor nO-minute ETOPS flights, more than60 airlines have flown ETOPS flights.

Engine-shutdown rates on ETOPS routeshave proven to be outstanding. Major carri­ers are exceeding no more than 0.02 shut­downs per 1,000 hours of flight on 180­minute ETOPS, showing that enginereI iability has grown exponentially since thedays of the early 707s. Typically, shutdownsoccur when the plane is 30-60 minutes froman alternative airfield in the North Atlantic.Careful monitoring of each shutdown, plus

II I

airline industry took a nose-dive and 767sand 757s replaced half-full DC-lOs and747s on many routes.

On 31 July 1990, the FAA granted 180­minute ETOPS certification for 757sequipped with the Rolls-Royce RB21I­535E4 and RB211-535C engines. Thoseengines had received 120-minute ETOPSapproval in December 1986. In April 1992,the FAA granted 180-minute ETOPS cer­tification for the 757-200 equipped withPratt & Whitney PW2000 engines. TheFAA had certified Pratt engines for 120­minute ETOPS in March 1990.

For added reliability on ETOPS flights,the 757, like the 767, is available withextended-range features, including a

•••• II ••• iI •• ,'I'" •• I I •• • I I.' • • •

not make it to an airfield with only oneengine in service. Happily, history has con­founded these doomsayers.'

Steve Zigan, retired manager of aircraftprogrammes at GE Aircraft Engines, creditsthe efforts of Boeing's Dick Taylor for usher­ing in ETOPS. 'Had it not been for Dick,ETOPS probably would not have happenedso early,' he says.

'The whole industry has moved up anotch because of ETOPS popularity,' Zigansays. 'We never thought it would be so suc­cessful. Early on, no one could possiblyimagine that twin-engine aircraft woulddominate the Atlantic routes. That successis a tribute both to engine technology andthe 767.'

from 15 per cent of all crossings in 1990 to20A per cent. Today, more than half of alltransatlantic crossings are by 767s.

United Airlines, the 767's first customer,operated its 100,000th ETOPS flight inApril 1998. United's first ETOPS flight tookplace in spring 1990 between Washington'sDulles International Airport and Frankfurt,Germany. Newer -300s later became thebackbone of the airline's ETOPS fleet forservice from the United States to Europeand South America. United enteredETOPS service on the 757 in 1995. The 757

RB211-524H engine received 180-minuteETOPS approval in 1992.

ETOPS recorded nothing but success inits early days. According to Boeing, by 30June 1990, 767s had performed more than100,000 ETOPS flights and only two per1,000 had to turn back or divert to analternative airport. During the first fiveyears of operations, 767 crews had to makea decision to turn back, divert or continueonly 279 times. Only 7 per cent of theseincidents related to the ETOPS portion ofthe flight, when the aircraft was more than

for 767s to fly from the US mainland toHawaii, a route that reached the midwaypoint at 150 minutes. However, to gain180-minute approval, an aircraft/enginecombination had to accumulate 12 con­secutive months of successful 120-minuteETOPS flights, as well as meet even morestringent engine-failure rates.

Officially, 767s won their first 120­minute ETOPS approvals in May 1995,using Pratt & Whitney ]T9D-7R4engines. The 767s powered by GE's CF6­80A won approval three months later. Due

A LOT 767-300 at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. Michael McLaughlin

to their extraordinary reliability records,the CF680A/C2 engines were the first toreceive FAA approval for 180-minuteETOPS on the 767, in 1989. The ]T9D­powered 767 did not receive 180-minuteETOPS authority until April 1990.ETOPS approval (120 minutes) for the767-200 and -300 with PW4000 engineswas also granted in April 1990. Theengine was certified for 180-minuteETOPS in August 1993. The Rolls-Royce

60 minutes from an airport. During thattime, the 767s had achieved a 99.8 percent non-stop arrival rate, only two flightsin 1,000 having to turn back or divert.

By late 1991, the number of NorthAtlantic crossings by US carriers actuallyexceeded the number of three- and four­engined crossings. The number of twin­engined aircraft from all nations grew by 27per cent from 1990 to 1991. During thattime, the proportion of 767 crossings grew

fleet specializes in California-Hawaii opera­tions, particularly to Kona and Maui, whereload factors are lower.

'In 1985, all commercial flights across theAtlantic were operated with four- or three­engine aircraft,' says Louis Mancini, Unit­ed's vice president of engineering. 'Andthere was some resistance to twin-engineoverwater operations. It was contended thatifan engine had to be shut down three hoursfrom an airport over water, the plane might

ETOPS for the 757

The success of the 767 ETOPS service ledto extended-range clearance for 757s aswell. Once again, marketeers played a role,eyeing the smaller twin as an ideal transat­lantic aircraft for charter operators. The757 received nO-minute ETOPS approvalin 1986, and the first ETOPS fl ight by a757 occurred on 1 May 1988, with Britishcharter Monarch Airlines. The 757 firstcrossed the Atlantic on a regularly sched­uled flight in May 1990, in time for therecession of the early 1990s, when the

back-up hydraulic-motor generator andan auxiliary fan to cool electronics. Highgross-weight versions of the aircraft canfly 4,500 miles (7,240km) non-stop, withfull passenger loads. These developmentsgive the 757 the ability to serve moremarkets.

Shutdown Rates

Today, all new 767s and 757s are automat­ically certified with 180-minute ETOPSapproval, a testament to hard work andengineering expertise.

the requirement that the carrier take correc­tive action, provides a strong incentive tomanufacturers and operators to identify andeliminate problems. Maintenance is sched­uled at shorter intervals and inspections aremore demanding on ETOPS aircraft. Many767s and 757s even have 'ETOPS' paintedon their noses, so that ground crews willknow that they need to give them partiCLI­larly careful scrutiny. Operators are encour­aged to conduct external inspections to findfrayed wires, missing clamps and loose nuts;such pieces have all caused in-flight shut­downs on ETOPS aircraft.

754 755

SERVICE IN SERVICE

Air Seychelles has one 767-200 (pictured) and a -300 model. Michael Pelialon/FIYlng Images Worldwide Asiana of South Korea is among the many Asian carriers relying on the 767-300's capacity and fuelefficiency to fly regional routes. This example is shown navigating the famous Checkerboard turn atnow-closed Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong. Michael Pellalon/Flying Images Worldwide

M AfNLINL~.,L I;."" .I II I' • •

-H'~h-/~ 7////'/AI' •••••••

.", , -., I" r f'"

EI Salvador's TACA uses the 767-300 on routes to the United States. Michael Pellaton/Flying Images WorldwideVietnam Airlines operates six 767-300ERs, providing some much-needed lift on growing routes. MichaelPellalon/FIying Images Worldwide

156 157

IN ERVICE IN SERVICE

---.---~--

~-=----=:::::._-- ------ ------

The 757 has found its way into the former Soviet Union. as seen in Baikal Airlines colours. Peter

Sweeten/Aviation Images Worldwide

Iberia is one of twenty-five European carriers with 757s in their fleets. Peter Sweeten/Aviation Images Worldwide

er international market. As a companionto the 747, the 767 provides widebodycomfort during off-peak or sea onal mar­ket demands. That means better serviceand schedule flexibility for passengers, andcompetitive opportunities for airlines.

Because of its range, capacity, reliabilityand fuel efficiency, the 767 is by far the

nRAM

with Au tralia. The 767 also economical­ly serves north-south routes betweenNorth America and South America, andEurope and Africa an I the Middle East.The 767 has th versatility to meet thedemands of a variety of air-travel markets,on domestic, regional or intercontinentalroute, opening up new route around theworld. Today's 767 routes are just thebeginning of more extensive point-to­point services and the expansion ofinternational hub networks, because theaircraft is an economical choice for small-

premier long-range twin-jet, while the 757is increasingly popular for long interconti­nental f1 ights.

The 767

The 767 is ideally suited for routes linkingorth merica with Europe, and Asia

a choice of engines and thrust ratings thatallow airline to tailor their twin-jets tomarket requirement. Whether operated indomestic, regional or non- top interconti­nental service, each member of the familydel ivers economic efficiency and marketflexibility. As an example, a 757 operatorcan use the plane on high-demand shuttleroutes in the morning, then fly the same air­craft on a non-stop intercontinental servicelater in the day. Over the year, both planeshave filled roles beyond those envisionedby Boeing: the 767 has emerged as the

Royal Air Maroc is one of only three African airlines operating the 757. Peter Sweeten/Aviation Images

Worldwide

climactic conditions. More than 70 air­lines around the world rely on the dynam­ic duo for efficient, safe and comfortableair transportation.

The 767/757 family provides broad,effective market coverage. One ingredientis the wide selection of design weights,which provide range flexibility. Another is

Flying Around the World

Both the Boeing 767 and the 757 operateon every inhabited continent and in all

One factor that could deter the use oftwin-engined aircraft on ultra-long routesis speed. While the 767-300ER cruise atMach. 0, the 747 has a speed of Mach .85,which could account for nearly an hour'sdifferen e in flight time on a flight of tento twelve hours' duration.

758 759

I SERVICE I SERVICE

most popular aircraft employed on theheavily travelled orth Atlantic corridor.More than thirty airlines make more thantwice a many transatlantic cro sings permonth with the 767 as with the AirbuA300-600 and A310 twin-jets combined.Among the airlines that fly the 767 acro sthe Atlantic are Aeromexico, Air anada,

ir France, American Airlines, Avian a,Britannia, British Airways, Canadian Air­lines, Delta Air Lines, El AI, Lan hile,LOT, Malev, SAS, TWA, United and USAirways.

The 767 also links primary and sec­ondary population centres in Europe,

Thanks to 1 -minute ETOPS, the air­craft i also popular from orth Americato Hawaii, from Australia to A ia, andfrom japan to points in south-east Asia, oreven from orth America to A ia. Acrosportions of the Pacific, the 767 is flown byAir Canada, Canadian Airlines, AirChina, Air ew Zealand, Air Pacific, AllNippon Airway, American Airline,Asiana, EVA, Gulf Air, japan Airline,LA Chile and Qantas. Air Canada,Canadian, Air ew Zealand and Qantaare operating between Honolulu and rhewest coast of Norrh Ameri a. Air ewZealand and Qantas also fly more than

and 767s also fly such routes as ewYork-Los Angeles, Vancouver- Honolulu,

eattle- eoul, Washington-Frankfurt,Vienna-Bangkok, Tokyo-Hong Kong,

ydney- ingapore, antiago- ew Yorkand Miami-Rio de janeiro.

With its range advantage, and as are ultof the economics of operating a twin­engined plane, the 767 is used by airlinesconstantly to open up new non-stopflighrs. The 767 connects smaller citie ,where rraffic is not heavy enough to justi­fy larger widebodies. In recent years, suchroutes as Hamburg-Atlanta, Manches­ter-Chicago and Washingron-Muni h

have emerged simply because rhe 767 searsjusr enough people, and flie efficientlyenough for rhe roure to be profitable. DeltaAir Lines has also used the 767, replacingL-l lis, to aggressively expand itinternational network.

767s are used with 757s to provide rhebulk of rranscontinental service withinrhe Unired Stares. By far rhe mosr non-

2,000 ETOP flight a month betweenew Zealand and Ausrralia, and to inga­

pore, japan and other points in A ia.The 767-300 is an important plane in

Asia, where jumbo jers are widely used ondomestic flights. The type is also used ondensely travelled intra-European routes.British Airways, for in rance, uses the 767­300 on short routes such as London-Paris,

VAAIH, .

Africa and Asia wirh direcr intercontinen­ral services. Among the airl ines using theplane to connecr Europe with Asia andAfrica are Air China, Air France, AirMauritius, Air Seychelles, Air Zimbabwe,All ippon Airways, Britannia, Condor,Egyptair, El AI, Erhiopian Airlines, EVA,Gulf Air, Lauda, LOT, Malev, Martinair,Royal Brunei and SAS.

Taiwan's EVA Air operates four 767-300s (pictured) and four -200 models. Peter Sweeten/Aviation Images

Worldwide

--

,- I • • ,. II '\._

-----

,........ "'r ..... '·II\N

.."........------=:::....~~=-~--- .....,----::~-;;;.=.. • •• • ~·~·~·~·~·~·~~~~~~~f~~~~~~~~;~:-~::;i~:f~~'

Israel's EI AI flies the 757 on routes to Europe and Asia. Peter Sweeten/Aviation Images Worldwide

Ethiopian Airlines flies to many high-altitude airports in hot climates, a hindrance for many aircraft, but not

the 757. Peter Sweeten/Aviation Images Worldwide

760 767

IN SERVICE I SERVICE

Another example of a Japan Airlines 767-300, taxiing at Haneda Airport. Ito Noriyuki

•

altitude or hot weather. The 757 candepart from hiah, hot airports such as Den­ver, Mexico ity and airobi, with fullpayloads and virtually without compro­m ising range capabil ity.

Airline fly the ver atile 757 on a widevariety of routes. The plane can serve citypairs as far apart as 4,636 miles (7,417km),and as close together as 41 miles (65km)with equal aplomb. The 757 flies an aver­age of nine hours a day. Like its larger

........• ........, .......

-.."

more efficiently than any other single­aisle twin-jet.

The plane is both an intercontin ntalairliner and a rugged, dependable trans­port that meets rigorous demands of com­muter schedules. The 757 flies farther forless money per trip than any other airlin­er. It eat- and ton-mile operating costsare lower than those of any aircraft ofcomparable size. The plane addresses thespectrum of mission requirements -

stop flights between the east and westcoasts are operated by the family.

The 767 has carried more than 800 mil­Iion passengers on more than 3 mill ionflights, for more than 1 million fighthour. The 767-3 a is in the air for anaverage of 11 hours per day. The dispatchrate, a measure of fleet reliability, is about99 per cent, a is schedule reliability, anindustry measure of d parture from thegate within 15 minutes of scheduled time.

A Japan Airlines 767-300 takes off from Tokyo's Haneda Airport on a high-density domestic fight. Ito Noriyuki

The 757

Although originally designed as a replace­ment on hub-and-spoke systems, the 757 isused today to bypass crowded hubs andoffer point-to-point ervice on lower­demand routes that many competing jet­liners cannot fly because of economic orperformance reasons. The 757 can flymore passengers to more destinations

whether point-to-point, multiple-stageregional, non-stop transcontinental orinclusive tour.

The 757 serves busy hubs and small air­ports wi th equal case; wherever the 737can operate, so, too, can the larger 757. 0

other airliner in it clas can maintain itsrange and passenger capability when oper­ating into airport limited by runwaylength, strength, weight restrictions, high

cousin, the 757 also has a di patch relia­bility of about 99 per cent.

The 757 can easily fly non-stop fromthe US East oast to any city on the West

oast. From London, the 757 can coverall of eastern Africa and well into theMiddle East. Out of Bahrain, the aircraftcan reach Europe, and from Hong Kongthe 757 can cover all of India, and touchdown in Australia. Japan's All Nippon Airways operates twenty 767-200s, seen here taking off from Haneda. Ito Noriyuki

II

162 163

All Nippon also flies forty 767-300s to go with twenty -200 models, making the carrier the largest 767operator outside the United States. This version is shown in Pocket Monster colours. Ito Noriyuki

In the United States, the largest com­mercial aviation market in the world, the757 has helped to spur new routes, such asBoston-Portland, Oregon, and ew York­San Diego; before, connections would havebeen needed in order for passengers to com­plete their journeys. Today, it is the mostpopular plane on coast-to-coast routes, aneconomical alternative to a widebody. A

dramatic increase in international servicehas led US carriers to shift their 767s tooverseas routes instead of long domesticflights. In 1982, only one daily transconti­nental flight was flown with a narrow-bodyaircraft. Today, more than 100 of theseflights are served by single-aisle transports,and the bulk of them are 757s.

Despite its billing as a medium-rangeairliner, the 757 can serve a unique varietyof long-haul routes. Germany's Condoruses the plane on its longest regularlyscheduled flight 4,636 miles (7,417km)from Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic to

IN SERVICE

Cologne, Germany. Mexicana employsthe aircraft on its Cancun-Buenos Airesrun of 4,281 miles (6,849km). TWA, hav­ing disposed of its ageing fleet of 747s andL-I0lls, uses the 757 from St Louis toHonolulu, a route spanning 4,121 miles(6,593km). Russia's Transaero flies the 757from Moscow to Yuzhno Sakhalinski, cov­ering 4,134 miles (6,614km).

Because the 757 is economical on short­er routes, it is employed on such hops asSarasota-Tampa (41 miles, or 65km) andSt Croix-St Thomas (45 miles, or 72km)by Delta Air Lines; from Tenerife-Las Pal­mas (73 miles, or 117km) by Spanair; andby United Airlines from Denver to Col­orado Springs (74 miles, or 118km), andSan Francisco-Monterrey (78 miles, or124km).

The 757 can serve routes from NorthAmerica to Hawaii, South America toEaster Island, Brazil to Europe, Australiato Southeast Asia, and from Europe to

764

Africa and points in the Middle East. It isalso popular from the United States toSouth America, where many of the air­ports are in hot and high locations.

Some of the 757's diverse array of regu­larly scheduled routes are Boston-Seattle,

ew York-San Francisco, Miami-Cali,London-Cairo, Hong Kong-Beijing,Orlando-Reykjavik, Chicago- an Diego,

Pittsburgh-Los Angeles, Los Angeles­Hawaii, Newark-Shannon, Toronto­Manchester, Bogota- ew York and ewYork-Madrid.

On the heels of the 767, 757s areincreasingly popular across the Atlantic.New city-pairs are opening up with theaircraft, and one of the new ci ties is Binn­ingham, England. British Airways starteda daily 757 service from Birmingham toNew York's John F. Kennedy Internation­al Airport and Toronto in 1996, whileContinental Airlines opened an addi­tional service to ewark, New Jersey,

IN SERVICE

The 757 is found in the fleets of six Chinese airlines, including China Southern, shown here on finalapproach at Hong Kong. Carlos Borda

Avianca of Colombia is one of six Latin American airlines flying the 757, shown here landing at LosAngeles. Kristian Damboulev

165

IN SERVICE IN SERVICE

to Izmir, Munich to Mali, or Zurich toLuxor.

The 757 is a perfect fit for two northernEuropean airline, Icelandair and Finnair.Both airlines take advantage of the air­craft's size and range to fill market niches.I elandair, a 757 operator ince 1990,works its aircraft hard, logging an average14-hour daily block times. The airline has

one of the rop three utilization rates in theworld, with an average stage length of 3.7hours. Because of Iceland's location, in themiddle of the Atlantic, the airline serveboth North America and Europe. One ofIcelandair' 757s is used for Greenlandair,ferrying passengers between Denmark andGreenland. Icelandair achieved a recordengine time-on-wing milestone for aRolls-Royce RB211-535E4, of more than32,000 hours.

Finnair received its first 757 in 1998, tofill the seating gap between its MD- sand MD-lls, and to acid additional leisure­traffic capacity. One popular route isHelsinki-Las Palmas, a route too small foran MD-ll, and too far for the 757's prime

The 757 is a favourite aircraft amongEuropean charter carrier, which employthe type from north rn Europe, particular­ly Britain, the etherlands and Germany,to the sun-drenched beaches of the CanaryIslands, pain, Italy and Greece. All six ofBritain' major charter carriers - BritanniaAirways, Airtour International, MonarchAirlines, Air 2000, aledonian and Air-

167

world - operate 757s. The type is equallywell adapted to flights from the to theCaribbean i lands, which have notoriouslyhort aitfields. It i a workhorse of the

leisure-travel industry. Tour operatorschoose the 757 because it give them lowoperating costs, exceptional range andI O-minute ETOP ability, and they areable to change the aircraft' interiors.

As charter airliner, 757s can fly fromEdmonton to Maui, Los Angeles-Mon­tego Bay, Toronto-Havana, ew York­Aruba or Boston-Tenerife. From Europe,virtually any major city can be reachedalong the US East Coast and the Midwest,as well as Caribbean resorts. The 757 canfly from Glasgow to La Palmas, Hamburg

lTU. a German charter airline. flies 757s from Germany to southern Europe. Africa and the Middle East.

Thorsten Eichner

with a 757 in 1997. This city in the Mid­land is an example of the trend towardnew non-stop transatlantic services fromregional citie using medium- ized twin­jets.

The 757 is also commonly used by air­line to enter new markets with lowerdemand - the so-called 'long, thin routes'.One of these i leveland-London, a

route which, in the past, would have beenimpossible to inaugurate profitably with alarger aircraft. The 757's efficiency andlow operating costs make launching a newroute an easier proposition.

The 757 i the perfect aircraft for Conti­nental Micronesia, a Pacific carrier thatfeeds Asian cities to its hub on Guam, onroutes on which larger aircraft are simplytoo expensive to operate for relatively lightloads. The 757 is also reliable enough to flyover thousand of miles of open ocean,without a dot of land - let alone a landingstrip - in sight. For Continental Microne­sia, which covers far-flung destinationsscattered across the vast South Pacific, the757 is efficient and reliable.

A'N2UUU, .. . .. ..

166

•••••••••••••••• • • •••••

767s and 757s are popular among charter carriers because of their fuel-efficiency. passenger capacity and

schedule flexibility. Brittania is among those flying 767-200s. with six examples in its fleet. Ralph

Olson/FlYing Images Worldwide

Air 2000 is among a handful of British charter carriers operating the 757. which can reach

North and South America. Michael Pellaton/Flying Images Worldwide

I SERVICE

CHAPTER TWELVE

The 757 is a perfect fit for Icelandair to fill niche routes. Miguel Snoep

Continuous IDlproveDlent and Records

competitor, the A321-200. For Finnair,the 757 was the right solution.

Besides the Concorde, the 757 is themost-sought-after aircraft for round-the­world charter flights, for which passengerspay £10,000 or more. It is used frequentlyon routes that include stops at EasterIsland and Mongol ia, places where theConcorde or larger aircraft cannot land. Itsrange makes it an ideal choice for such amission.

Because it can land on short runwaysand operate efficiently at high altitudes,the 757 has also been used to open new,seasonal routes into ski resorts in the

merican Rockies in the state of Col­orado. merican Ai rI ines uses the 757 onflights from New York, Dallas, Chicagoand Miam i to such resorts as Aspen andVail. Delta and Northwest also use the757s for the same purpose from their hubsin Atlanta and Minneapolis, respectively.The servic bypasses busy Denver airport,getting passengers to the slopes morequickly, eliminating a commuter flight oravoiding a long, hazardous drive along icyhighways.

The 757, like the 767, is a good neigh­bour, particularly in Europe, where the most

stringent noise restrictions are imposed.Since the 1960s, high-bypass engines havereduced jetliner noise by about 75 per cent,or 20 decibels. To put that in perspective,20 decibels represents the difference in vol­ume between a large truck passing nearbyand wind rustling through trees. Noiseimpact of a 757 take-off is typically con­fined within airport boundaries. Because itis so quiet, its operators can serve even themost restrictive airports, day or night, and ithas, as a result, helped to open up routes tosuch noise-sensitive airports in the UnitedStates as Washington's National Airportand Orange County California's JohnWayne Airport.

Coupled with the 767, with its largercapacity and longer range, the 757 offersairlines a 'one-type' solution for medium­and long-range markets. The fuel andoperating efficiency of both aircraft ismost important to airlines. Trans WorldAirlines, which teetered on the verge ofbankruptcy twice in the 1990s, made the757 and 767-300 a vital part of its fleet­renewal plan, replacing ageing 747s andL-I0lls on transcontinental and transat­lantic routes. The newer jets helpedimprove TWA's on-time performance and

768

beefed up a meagre bottom line, and theyhave been a major weapon in the airline'shard-fought recovery from bankruptcy.Through much of the 1990s, TWA hadthe oldest fleet of the major Americancarriers, but it is now able to catch upquickly. The 757 is about 25 per centcheaper to operate than the L-I0ll itreplaced. A 757, for instance, costs anaverage of $2,571 per hour to operate,compared with 2,470 for a 727, but cancarry 35 more passengers, or 3.42 peravailable seat-mile against 4.67 for a727 -200. This includes crew cost, fuel andoil, taxes, insurance, depreciation andmaintenance.

Not all 757s are the low-cost jets thatBoeing's marketing people like to talkabout. Royal Brunei Airlines' three 757sfeature leather seats, and have gold andcrystal adorning the interior. The oil-richsultanate employs the 757s on routes tosouth-east Asia and one-stops to London.The a irline's order in 1985 was the first ofthe 757s to feature three-class configura­tion. The lavatory, twice the standard size,has a marble-look counter, gold-and-crys­tal fixtures, laser-carved walnut trim and aleather bench to hide the toilet.

Designers and engineers constantly striveto improve the products we usc. From carsto computers, light bulbs to lenses, virtual­ly every product on the market hasimproved over time, as developments intechnology have gathered pace. Commer­cial aircraft are no different. The 767s and757s produced today are, on the inside,completely different from the aircraft thatrolled off the assembly lines in the earlydays of the programmes. New technologyand designs, and cost-saving measureshave all been incorporated into thisdynamic duo, with lTIore changes plannedin the future. This aircraft, which wasintroduced at the time when vinyl 45swere still popular, must keep up with aworld that craves the portable CD player.

Boeing works closely with airlines toidentify technologies that might enhancethe aircraft. Since the introduction of the767 and 757, hundreds of improvementshave been built in, or added as options. Aswell as systems and performance enhance­ments, which increase safety, simplify oper­ations and maintenance, and reduce costs,interior flexibility has been improved inorder to increase the revenue potential ofthe aircraft and passenger convenience.

Changes to the 767

Changes in the 767 have helped toenhance its ability to fly over oceans, low­ered its weight, reduced maintenancecosts, improved electronic engine con­trols, increased safety standards, extendedthe aircraft's life, and improved communi­cations. Since the aircraft entered servicein 1982, some of the changes have includ­ed: nO-minute ETOPS ability (1985),windshear detection (1986), carbonbrakes (1987), 180-minute ETOPS(1988), improved fire-worthy interiors(1990), improved fuel system (1991), pro­visions for Global Positioning System(1992), improved autopilot (1992),expanded and improved corrosion protec­tion (1992), take-off performance

improvement (1994), improved acrylicpassenger windows (1994), and a SAT­COM communications system (1997).The precision of GPS - which can tellpilots the aircraft's position within feet­along with automated air traffic controlfunctions and advanced guidance andcommunications features, was made avail­able as part of the new Future Air Navi­gation System (FANS) flight-manage­ment computer, introduced in 1998.

To improve the model's capabilities,Boeing introduced the 767-200ER in1984, the 767-300ER in 1988 and highergross-weight -300ERs in 1991 and 1993.The first flight of the -200ER took placeon 6 March 1984. The model featured alarger centre fuel tank and increasedgross weight of 345,0001b (156,490kg).The first ER was delivered to EthiopianAirlines on 23 May 1984. Optional high­er gross weights offered arc 351,0001b(159,200kg), 380,0001b (1 72,400kg) and387,0001b (175,500kg).

Development of the 767-300ER beganin January 1985, offering increased grossweights of 380,0001b (I 72,400kg),387,000lb (175,500kg) and 412,0001b(186,900kg). The type was certified in late1987, with delivery to American Airlinesbeginning in February 1988.

As well as these improvements, whichchanged the scope of the fam iIy, otherchanges were made to keep the aircraftsafe. In one example, Boeing redesignedthe latch mechanism on the overwingemergency escape hatch after three inci­dents in which the slide came loose fromthe aircraft during flight. The slide isstowed in a small hatch in the wing-bodyfairing, just aft of the overwing escape exit.It was designed so that when the emer­gency door is moved, a spring is released,popping the hatch open and deploying theslide. Boeing also had to redesign a remov­able cover for the recess containing thehandle that activates the escape slide aftera de-planing passenger inadvertentlydeployed the slide, using the handle tohelp himself out of his seat.

769

New Brakes

The 767 family has new carbon brakes. AlliedSignalBendix has been developing them for three years,using a material called CARBENIX 4100. They areexpected to have a longer Iife, offer smoother opera­tion and be quieter than existing brakes. The brakes,to be installed on new 767s or retrofitted on olderones, are a step beyond the advanced carbon systemfound on the 777, and a far cry from the first 767brakes, which were made of sleel.

To certify the brakes, Boeing borrowed an AmericanAirlines 767-300 and flew it to Edwards Air ForceBase in California. There, a team performed a maxi­mum brake-energy rejected take-off (RTO) test. oneof many tests required to be undertaken beforecertification.

What pressure did these brakes face? The force ofa 767-300 landing at nearly 200mph (320km/h)- farfaster than the average landing - creates intenseheat exceeding more than 3,400°F (1,649°CI. In thefirst 15 seconds after stopping, the brakes generateenough energy to power a home for three to fourmonths. After such aviolent event, the carbon brakesglow white hot and the tyres deflate, for safety rea­sons. The brakes passed the test and were certifiedfor service.

Changes to the 757

Much has changed on the 757, too. Boeingintroduced overwing exits and carbonbrakes in 1984; a new, wide-aisle interior in1987; freighter improvements in 1989; 180­minute ETOPS, a cargo conveyor system, ahigher gross-weight version and improvedfire protection, all in 1990; enhancedflight-data recorder capability and a betterthrust-management computer in 1991; animproved flight-control computer, a newmovable class divider, passenger serviceunit and ceiling-mounted videos in 1992;an improved flight-deck lining in 1993; andcommunications enhancements in 1997.New avionics, provisions for GPS, a newfuel gauge and new leading-edge wing flapsare among hundreds of changes in an ongo­ing improvement process. The electricalcooling system has been updated, and insu­lation blankets were resealed because they

were retaining moisture. Cockpit windows,as on the 767, have also been replaced withglass, because the acrylic one showed finecracking. Recent development include animproved flight-deck lining and floor-beamcorro ion protection. Boeing introducedthe extended-range version of the 757 inMay 19 6, with delivery to Royal BruneiAirline.

'The airplane today is not the sameplane by a long shot,' ays Doug Miller,chief engineer on the 757 for seven years.'The changes have been subtl" aimed atincreasing reliability, maintenan e andpassenger appea\.'

New passenger service units (P Us),which contain the oxygen masks and read­ing Iights, arc among the most noticeableimprovements in newer 757s. PSUs onolder 757s were dedicated left- or right­hand units. The new ones, with slightchanges to the latches, arc used on bothsides of the aisle. The new units S<l\'e moneybecause all bulbs - whether for reading,flight attendant calls or passenger informa­tion - can be changed without opening theunit. They also weigh less and last longer;the reading bulb's life is twice that of the oldunit. lany airlines prefer to stoll' life vestsin the PS s to reduce the chances of pas­sengers walking out with them as souvenirs,a problem common in the early days of the757. Each P,'U can include an optionalsrand-alone life-vest module, with thecapacity for one life vest per scat. Eachmodule has three transparent lenses to ver­ify quickly thm the \'ests arc in place. A pas­senger-operated push-latch mechanism inthe door allows the door to drop open 45degrees to remove the vests.

In addition to saving money, the newPSU complements adjustable-pitch seat­ing, another feature of newer 757s. Eachunit can easily be repositioned to matchchanges in scat pitch. When changing(rom three-abreast economy to two-acrossbusiness seating on each side of the plane,one of the passenger reading lamps isturned off and the other two arc re-aimed,and this is done entirely from below with­out special tools. This versatility pennitsthe same plane to fly hub-and-spoke oper­ations during the week, and high-densitycharters on weekends.

Likewise, seat si:e on the 757 can bechanged, so that the same plane can beused for multiple market. A flexible-pitchquick-release mechanism for the seat­track fittings makes it possible to changescat-row pitch and add or remove scat rows

CONTINUO S I 1PROVEMENT AND RECORDS

within hours. A handle releases the seat­track attachment fittings, allowing theseat to move freely in the track, and it canbe locked in any Iin (2.5cm) increment.Telescoping seat-track covers attached tothe seat leg extend or retract to maintain aconsistent floor surface. \Vhen the scat isin the desired location, closing the handlepushes pins into the gaps in the scat track.A locking device prevents any tamperingwith the scat handle. To remove the scatfrom the track, the handle is fully rotatedto completely release the attachment fit­ting, and the seat is lifted away. Seats canbe added or removed by just one person.

Newer 757s also feature a movable classdivider that lets airlines adjust the ratio ofpremium- to e onomy-c1ass seating.Designed not to hind or jam, this improvedunit rolls smoothly on recessed tracksmounted beneath the overhead stowagebins. To move it, an airline employee sim­ply unlocks the divider, rolls it to thedesired location and locks it into place. Bycombining the divider with any or all ofthese features, airlines can gain clrt-effec­ti\'C cabin flexibility railored to their spe­cific operational requirements. This flexi­bility enables operators to adjust <l\'ailablebusiness-class seating capacity to meetbusiness tr,wel demand on a flight-by­flight basis, increasing re\'Cnues and pas­senger satisfaction. These features can beretrofi tted on older mode Is. Video screenson newer 757s are 13in (33cm) wide, andmounted under stowage bins. Unlike ceil­ing-mounted screens, under-bin screensmake it easy to adjust class dividers.

In 1986, a mechanized cargo-handlingsystem was developed to enable airlines tofill excess space on 757s with revenue-pro­ducing cargo, even with short turn­arounds. The system had been used foryears on 747s and 767s, but until then hadbeen absent from standard-body aircraft.In'tead of having to be loaded by handlersscrambling on their hands and kneesthrough a cramped hold, the system sendsa container up a belt ami into the aircraft,where lateral belts engage and move thecargo through the hold. The 757 was anatural for a mechani:ed system. Its cargodoors open outwards and up, whereas thedoor' of the 737, for example, open intothe hold, presenting an obstacle to bulkycargo. With the conveyor system, a com­plete load of containers can be offloadedand loaded by just one person in 10 min­utes - it would take three people about 45minutes to do the same job manually.

170

sing the system to unload baggage meansthat passengers will be able to claim theirbelonging about 13 minute earlier.

Re-contoured sidewall panels becameavailable on the 757 in 19 7. The newpanels provide greater clearance at thehead and elbow for passenger and give theentire cabin a more spacious appearance.Another change made to 757 was a Zin(5 m) increase in the width of the ai Ie.This move, also incorporated into 737s,was aimed at increasing the aircraft's com­petitiveness with the Airbus A320 family,which offered a 20in (50cm) aisle whenthe aircraft entered service in 1988. Thatsmall in rease can make a big difference,for example, allowing a passenger to slidtpast a food cart in the aisle. The wider aislecould have been achieved simply by shov­ing the scats outwards, but that wouldhave limited head and shoulder room.Instead, it was decided to IT-sculpt thesidewall panel. The air-conditioning out­lets were relocated, the overhead inwardcun'e of the plane was shaved and lightswere recessed behind stowage bim. Thechange also reduced the percei\'ed ma. s ofthe stowage bins, so the intenor appearedlarger. The change became standard inmid-19 '7 at a cost of 10 million; half wasspent on moving the air-conditioning sys­tem and half on the nell' sidewall tooling.Legroom was not affected.

In response to airline requests, newer 757interiors offer continuous handrails extend­ing the length of the passenger cabin, alongboth sides of the aisle. Designed to helpcabin crews work efficiently and safely dur­ing turhulence, these rails also provide sup­port during such routine rasks as servingwindow-scat occupants.

The 757 received some flak in the early1990s when a popular American maga­zine, C0)1S11mel' Re/)o1'ts, told the public toavoid the aircraft because of poor cabin-airquality. Boeing countered by saying thar,as on any of its aircraft, 50 per cent of theair on board a 757 i' filtered and combinedwith fresh air. The 757 changes its airevery two minutes, which is better thanmost buildings.

Safety Records

The 767 and 757 have been exceptionallysafe airliners, which have undertaken mil­lions of hours of service with just a hand­ful oHatal accidents. Both the 767 and 757completed their first eight years of airline

servi e with a perfect safety record, andone of their most significant achievementswas proving the reliability and enhancedsafety of the glass cockpit.

The perfect safety record wa brokenwhen a 757 found itself at the wrong placeat the wrong time. On 2 0 tober 1990, aChina Southern Airline 757 was waitingto take off from Guangzhou, China, whenit was hit on the left wing and top fu elageby a hijacked Xiamen Airlines 737. The737 touched down hard, the re'ult of astruggle in the cockpit, clipped a parked707, and then collided with the ChinaSouthern jet. One hundred and th irty-twopeople perished on both planes.

Lauda Air Flight 4

n Z6 May 1991, Lauch Air flight 4, a767-300 en route from Bangkok to Vien­na, crashed in a remote jungle hillside 130miles (2 10km) north-we t of the Thai cap­ita\. All Z13 passengers and 10 crew mem­hers were killed. The plane was nearly new- it had completed just 95 cycles.

The new plane was climbing at 25,OOOft(7,620m), in good weather conditions,when it disappeared from radar screens.Whatever caused the crash truck swiftly,leaving the crew no time to report trouble.Later, the reason for the crash was deter­mined to be an in-flight deployment of theport-side engine thrust reverser, whichhelps to slow down a plane after it haslanded. Investigators were not able todetermine what caused the uncommandeddeployment of the thrust reversers, butconcluded that either the hydraulic orelectrical systems could have been at fault.The destruction of the aircraft, plummet­ing straight into the jungle, wa' 0 exten­sive that no determination could be made.

The reverser is powered from anengine's hydraulic system and is controlledby two valves. The isolation valve is nor­mally off, to depressurize the reverserexcept when it is needed, and mechanicallocks keep the fan leeve in the stowedposition. The directional control valveapplies the hydraulic power to either openor clerc the reverser. Most 767 thrustreversers are commanded by mechanicalcables from the cockpit, but newer modelshave engines with electronically com­manded reversers. The Lauda 767 wasone of these. In a simulation conductedduring the crash investigations, the enginethrust automatically returned to idle whenthe reverser was deployed. The accid nt

CONTINUOUS IMPROVE~IENTAND RECORDS

prompted the FAA to order airlines to dis­able thrust reversers on all 767s with elec­tronic controls.

Two 757 crashe involved pilot ignoranceof ome aspect of the automated flight-con­trol or flight-management ystems.

American Airlines Flight 965

On 20 December 1995, an American Air­lines 757 collided into a mountain nearCali, Colombia, bringing into questionhow much pilot rely on the automatedflight systems that the plane helped to pio­neer. Flight 965 from Miami crashed 38miles (60km) north of Cali during descentunder instrument flight rules. The flightwas operating in a radar surveillance envi­ronment until a few minutes before thecrash. The plane was on autopilot, and itwas a clear night. Only four of the 156 pas­sengers and eight crew members survivedwhen the plane flew wildly off course.

The 757 crashed at ,900ft (2,713km)more than 1 miles (16km) off course. Airtraffic control read-outs left no clue to anymalfunction or difficulty in the flight deck.The fl ight data recorder, however, gave abetter picture of what had happened dur­ing flight 965's approach to Cali. Whenthe flight was cleared for approach to Run­way 19, it was just north of the town ofTulua. As the crew was entering theapproach into the flight-managementcomputer, the aircraft passed over Tuluacontinuing southbound. Because Tuluamarks the beginning of the approach, oncethe computer was programmed, the plane'sautopilot attempted to turn the aircraftback to Tulua, resulting in the plane flyingcast for ahout one minute. The crew thenre-oriented the air raft to proceed directlyto another nearby town, Row.

By thi time, they were far enough offcour e to the cast that proceeding directlyto Row would mean hitting the surround­ing high terrain. Examination of the cock­pit flight recorder how that there was con­fusion both between the crew members,and between the crew and the air trafficcontrol centre. The approach to Runway 19follow a cour e down a narrow canyon.The approach only just meets minimumcriteria for safe margins. The crew waapparently unaware of its position when theplane turned ea t after pa sing Tulua, oth­erwise they would have known they wereentering an unsafe flight path. The crewmade no mention to Cali approach thatthey had deviated from course. They also

171

seemed unable to orient themselves orproperly programme the flight-manage­ment system. From the beginning of theea terly turn, it was four minutes to impact.Transcripts of the cockpit voice recorderleave many que tions about what the crewwas attempting to do and exactly wherethey believed themselves to be. The crashbrought to light ju t how much crew' placetheir trust in the 757 and 767 flight sy·tem.

Birgenair and Aeroperu

On 6 February 1996, a 757 carrying 176passengers and 13 crew members for theGerman-based Turkish charter airline Bir­genair, bound for Berlin via Gander, Cana­da, crashed into the Caribbean Sea ncarPuerto Plata, Dominican Republic. Theimpact broke the plane apart. The aircraftwas climbing through 7,000ft (2,10 m)when it was observed on radar starting aright descending turn. It then disappeared.The ' ational Transportation SafetyBoard determined that the crash was theresult of a mechanical deficiency. Thecockpit voice recorder and flight datarecorder showed that the static port systemaboard the flight, which i' re'ponsil Ie forcalculating aiq,eed, transmitted an erro­neous indication. The discrepancy led to

confusion in the cockpit, and pilot errorwas a contributing factor. The cockpitcrew simply showed lack of comprehen­sion of what the aircraft was doing, andwhy. The pilot, on discovering that one ofthe plane's airspeed indicators had mal­functioned, failed to switch to one of theother indicators. He had thought the 757was flying too fast. In response to the erro­neous reading, the crew slowed the planedown until it stalled, causing it to plummetfrom the sky. The sensor in question mayhave been blocked by an insect nest. Theplane's black box, in 7,200ft (2,195m) ofwater, had to be recovered by unmannedsubmer ible. Ultimately, the crash wasblamed on both sy tem malfunction andcrew error.

The afety board found that the opera­tions manual for the 757 did not containprocedures either to identify an erroneousairspeed indication, or to select the alter­native air data source as a correctivemanoeuvre. The plane's EICAS system,whi h provides alert messages to advise thepilots of system failures and abnormal oper­ational conditions, does not produce amessage to alert pilots regarding an unreli­able airspeed indication. Following the

CO TINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND RECORDS CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND RECORDS

Liveries Liveries (continued)

twenty-seven people aboard died, includ­ing the hijackers. The captain and co-pilotwere among the 50 people who survived.

Three unemployed Ethiopian youthshad hijacked flight 961 and demandedthat the crew fly the plane to Australia. Itwas running out of fuel when the captaindecided to ditch the plane in the water offa resort beach on Grand Comoros Island.

Another 767 was the subject of anembarrassing and dangerous - although notfatal - mistake. Early in its service, an AirCanada 767 had to land at a remote gliderfield in Manitoba because it ran out of fuel.Why? The cockpit crew mistook pounds forkilos of fuel, and did not notice until it wastoo late. Thanks to the 767's large wings,the aircraft was able to glide for half an hourand make an emergency landing.

Minor Incidents

Both the 757 and 767 have had severalminor problems which have requiredaction from regulatory agencies. The FAAordered operators of older 767s to inspectall take-off and landing flaps in 1997 aftera Z1ft (6.5m) flap ripped off a Delta Air

know where he was, and that his instru­ments had gone haywire. The NationalTransportation afety Board found that,because of the partial blockage of pressure­sensing instruments, one automatic systemin the cockpit was indicating that theplane was flying too slowly and would fallout of the sky, while another sounded analarm that it was flying too fast. ccordingto the safety board, a partial blockage inthe static port would create a lag in air­speed and altitude readings, 'that willcause the readings to be too low whileclimbing and too high while descending'.Aeroperu said that pre-fl ight procedurecalled for the first officer to make sureports and vents arc not obstructed.

Running Out of Fuel

Perhaps the most dramatic crash of a 767was caught on videotape and shownaround the world. On 23 November 1996,an Ethiopian Airlines 767-200 en routefrom Addis Ababa to Abidjan, Ivory Coast,crashed just off the beach at Moroni,Comoros Islands, after running out of fuelduring a hijacking. One hundred and

America West uses a 757 to depict teamwork. The aircraft is pictured at the airline's hub in Phoenix. Bill Deliinges

accident, the safety board recommendedthat Boeing should revise its flight manualsto alert pilots to conditions that forward anerroneous airspeed indication, and includea detailed emergency procedure addressingthe identification and elimination of anerroneous airspeed indication. As a result,a 'caution' alert is now emitted when erro­neous airspeed is detected.

Another 757 crashed shortly after take­off on 2 October 1996. The Aeroperu 757plummeted into the Pacific Ocean aftertaking off from Lima on a flight to antia­go, Chile. All 70 people on board werekilled. The crash occurred because mainte­nance workers forgot to remove the tape­and-paper covers they had put over pressuresensors while polishing the plane. As aresult, safety officials recommended thatairlines should be required to use 'only stan­dardized, highly conspicuous covers withwarning flags attached' to cover static portswhen planes are serviced. Shortly after thecrash, Boeing began to manufacture bright­ly coloured covers for the pressure sensors,which are about lin (2.5cm) in diameter.

Just before the crash, the pilot radioedair traffic controllers to say that he did not

•

full 'Delta Air Lines' title replaced 'DELTA' on the fuselage. New shades of blue and redwere also selected, and the Delta widget logo was retained only on the fuselage, notthe tail. When Delta, in common with other airlines around the world, faced economicdifficulties in the early 1990s, employees purchased a767 through payroll deductions.Delta is not the only airline to promote the Olympics on a767.

United Parcel Service, in celebration of being acorporate sponsor for the 1998 Win­ter Olympics and the 2000 Summer Games, has applied adozen athletic images in thefive Olympic colours against an all-white fuselage on several 767-300 and 757freighters.

As a leading aircraft among charter carriers, both types are frequently painted invibrant. colourful hues reflecting holidays. Condor, for instance, has painted a757 with amural depicting fun-loving, sung lass-wearing holidaymakers surrounded by stars, birdsand hearts. This 'Riui-Bird' design was painted to mark the airline's 40th anniversary.

SAS painted its largest aircraft, the 767-300, in the colours of the Star Alliance, the global airline partnership of which

SAS is a founding member. Andreas Mowinckel

Both aircraft are often used by airlines to display interesting or unique paint jobs. Sev­eral757s in the fleet of US carrier America West Airlines are painted in unique designsto reflect the major states they serve, including Arizona, Nevada, California and Ohio.Two of its 757s also bear the colours and trademarks of two sports teams, the PhoenixSuns basketball team and the Arizona Diamond Backs baseball team.

To honour the 1996 Olympics in its home city Atlanta, Delta Air Lines repainted a767­200, renaming it Spirit of Delta. The plane, N102DA, was re-dedicated with the strik­ing blue, red, and violet colours of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games before an emo­tional gathering of 7,000 employees. It was the only aircraft painted in the speciallivery, although other Delta aircraft did sport a smaller Olympics logo. Delta's new liv­ery, unveiled in 1997, was first spotted on one of its 767-300s. After 35 years, a newcolour scheme was introduced on N190DN. The aircraft was ferried in white from Seat­tle on 26 March, painted in Atlanta and photographed prior to rollout on 2 April. The

Delta Air lines introduced its new livery on the 767-300 in 1997. Michael Peliaton/Flying Images Worldwide

772 773

Air New Zealand set a speed record with a 767 on 28 October 1997. The 767-300 extended-range model tookoff from Boeing's factory in Everett on a non-stop flight to Christchurch. It completed the 6,627 nautical-mile(12,273km) flight in just under 15 hours. Boeing

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

the range of the 767-300ER, and only atrickle of longer-range A300-6 Os are builttoday. The 767 also affected sales of theA 31 0, a shorter, longer-range version ofthe A300.

The 767's latest version, the 767-400ER,was developed largely as a response to anew medium-sized widebody aircraft from

The A330-200 and A321-100

The 767 enrered service partly to competeagainst the Airbus A 300, rhe world', fiNtwin-engined widebody, of whi·h about500 have been sold. In 1988, Airbusstopped developing the A300 familybecause the plane could not compete with

The CODlpetition and Other Uses

Following Boeing's ab'orption of McDon­nell Dougla ,airline today have jU't twochoices to fit their needs for jets seatingmore than 100 passengers: Boeing andAirbus. The industry has always beenhighly competitive, and, over the years,aircraft were developed as much to beatthe competition as to satisfy the customer.

The Airbus Industrie A330,200, which entered service in 1998, is the 767's newest and fiercest competitor.Airbus

where the air is thin and conventionalaircraft must limit payloads in order totake off. In 1995, China outhwest Air­lines inaugurated regular service to theworld's highest-altitude commercial air­port (14,219ft, or 4, 4m) at Bangda,Tibet, from Chengdu, China, using a 757.Boeing, China's Civil Aviation Adminis­rration ami China outhwcst Airlinescompleted a survey flight in Octoher1994 to prepare for regular service. Priorto the route, peorle travclling from

hengdu to Tibet had to travel for thrceto five days hy road to rcach Chengdu,between Chengdu and Lhasa, Tibet. Thetrip hy air takes one hour. The 757's pcr­formance at such a demanding altitud~

convinced the Chinese aviation authori­ties to order additional planes for variou~

airline' in China.In one remarkable 1991 demonstration,

a 757 took off with the power of just oncengine from Gongga Airport in Lhasa,Tihet. Gongga, one of the world's mo~r

challenging airfields, is the second-highe~t

commercial airport in the world. It sits ina box canyon 11 ,621ft (3,542m) high inrhe Himalayas. The 757 showcd its abilityto serve the airport safely hy circling wirh­in the canyon and landing again. Evenwirh onc engine our, the 757 out-pcr­formed the four-engined 707 that the Chi­ne~e use on ~uch difficult, remote routes.

Aviation Records

The efficient and versatile 767 and 757hold a number of aviation record.

On IJune 19 4,thefirst767-200ERforEthiopian Airlincs set a twin-jet airlinerdistance record, flying 7,5 miles(12,0 2km) from Washington, DC, toAddis Abaha, Ethiopia, in 13 hours 17 min­utcs. That mark was toppcd on 18 April1988, when an Air Mauritius 767-200ERflew 8,893 milcs (l4,309km) from GrandRapids, Michigan, to the eychelles in 16hours49minutcs.On lOJune 199 ,aRoyalBrunei 767-200ER set a new di tancerecord for twin-engined aircraft, with a9,253 mile (14, 9 km) flight from eattleto airobi, Kenya, in 17 hour 51 minutes.

Air cw Zealand set a speed record for a767 when its 767-300ER delivery flight set aworld speed record from Everett to

Christchurch, New Zealand, on 28 October1997. Thc four-pcrson crew and 18 passen­gers made the 6,627 nautical mile(12,27 3km) journey in 14 hour~ 54 minute~.

The 757 has demonstrated remarkablepcrformance at high-altitude airport~,

digital flight deck has 606 fewer lights,gauge and witches than the standard747,22 fewer than the 757 and 767, and100 fewer than the much smaller 737.

Lines model while the plane was preparingto land. Three of the six heavy titaniumbolts holding the 32ft (9.75m) flap to thewing had failed.

In July 1996, worn electrical systemsmay have triggered the explosion of aTWA 747. 747s were inspected for thisproblem, and, in 199 , 231 -registered767s were inspected to uncover any chaf­ing of fuel-tank wire insulation inside themetal conduits that enclose those wires.

everal incident have been reported inwhich small, general-aviation aircraft fol­lowing a 757 in a landing pattern havecrashed, due in part to the wake turbu­lence behind the 757. The accidentsprompted the FAA to determine whetherit should change separation distances foraircraft landing behind a 757. One expla­nation for this problem is that, since the757 can land at much smaller airport thanmost large aircraft, it interacts more with~maller aircraft. Another prollem is it~

size, which make it difficult to classify - iti~ not a heavy widebody nor a small 737.

Completing eight years of airline ser­vice with a perfect safety record - provingthe reliability and enhanced safety of thcdigital cockpit - was onc llf Boeing's mosrsignificant achie\'emcnt~with rhe 767 and757. And I3llcing learned from rhc dynam­ic duo, and madc furthcr impnl\'cmcntsin the 747-40 , whll~e two-member crew

774 775

THE CO 1PETITION AND OTIIER USES THE COM PETITIO AND OTHER USES

pecification - A330-200

pecification - A321-200

The Tu-204

A t first glance, the Russian Tupolev Tu­204 looks very much like the 757, exceptfor winglets extending upwards from thewings. The Tu-204 was designed to replacethe Tu-154 and 11-62 aiI'I iners, stalwarts ofthe former Soviet fleet. While not a majorthreat to the 757, the Tu-204 i expectedto sell at least 500 units in Russia and otherparts of the former oviet Union over thenext twenty years. There is also massivesales potential in China as both nationsmodernize their fleets and rid themselvesof accident-prone and inefficient equip­ment. While Rus ian-made plane maynot attract much intere t in the Westernworld, some European airlines are eyeingthe new plane for use as a medium-haulfreighter.

The original Tu-204 first flew in 1989,but the model on ly began to attract atten­tion when it made its first flight withRolls-Royce RB211-535E4 engines - thefir t Rus ian plane with Western engines­on 14 August 1992. The aircraft can seatI 4 passeng I' in two cia es and up to 212passengers in a ingle class, compared with

weight to 196,2101b (89,000kg), slightlyless than the 757, and in reased range by402 miles (648km) to more closely matchthe 757. Airbus had hoped that thechanges woul ~ give the A321 increasedmarket appeal on orth American domes­tic routes, charter routes from northern tosouthern Europe, and on flights betweenEurope and the Middle East. The firstflight of the A321-200 took plClce on 12December 1996. The A321 doe not quitematch the capacity or pelformance of the757, amI is a slightly mailer aircraft,including overall length, weight, heightand wing pan.

Length 150ft II in (46m); wingspan 137ft 9in (42m); width I ft 5in(4.lm); tail height 45ft 7in (l3.9m)

I 4 in two-class, 212 in single la s

6,261 gallons (23,700 lines)

Plane weight 130,070Ib (59,000kg); max. take- ff weight 244, 1551b

(1l0,750kg)

Range 3,930 miles (6,330km)

1996

Passengers:

Dimen in:

ervice entry:

Performance:

Fuel capaci ty:

Weight:

pecification - Tu-204-200

combination of its size and range makes itideal for many charter carriers, the A330­200 is also a suitable long-haul aircraft. Itoffer the'e carrier an additional 55 seat'in single-cla s layouts and 300 miles(5 km) extra range over the 767-300.The A330-200 has eight more seats thanthe new 767-400.

The A330-200 and 767-400 are enter­ing the market at a time when some oper­ators are consideri ng L-I 0 II or DC-Ireplacements to ab'orb growth on thenetworks that first-generation widehodytwins had pioneered.

John Quinlivan, the 767-400ER pro­gramme manager, maintains that hismodel is more efficient to operate than theA330-200 because it is easier and cheaperto stretch an aircraft than to shrink it. TheA330-200 weighs more, adding to fuelcosts and maintenance. Quinlivan claimsthat the 767-400 will be 4 per cent to 7 percent cheaper to operate than its chiefcompetitor. The A330-200 may also betoo big for some airlines, providing anopportunity for the 767/757 family. Airbuswill have to work hard to sell the new typeto existing 767 operators because of theadvantages of commonality.

ntil recently, the 757 has had nodirect competition in the 180-passengermarket, but, on 18 March 1994, Airbusintroduced the A321-100, a stretched ver­sion of the popular A32 twin-jet. TheA3 21-1 00 sea ts I 5 passengers ina two­class layout or 200 in a single class, acapacity fairly similar to that of the 757,but it offers less range than the 757. Toaddress that deficiency, in 1995 Airbuslaunched the A321-200, an extended­range version that features a reinfor edstructure, higher-thrust CFM56 enginesand an additional centre fuel tank holding766 gallon (2,900 litres) of fuel. Thechanges increased maximum take-off

Canada 3000 airlines in May j 998. Evenbefore the model's fir t flight, ten cus­tomers had ordered 99 aircraft, comparedwith three customers who ordered 56 767­400s. The A330-20 poses a serious threat,it eems, to the 767's undi puted leader hipin transatlantic travel.

'The A330-200 is a magnificent air­plane,' says Dietmar Kirchner, deputychairman of Germany's Condor. 'It willforce Boeing to come out with it new767-400 as quickly as possible, in order to

remain competitive.' Engineers at LTU,another German charter company, calcu­lated in 1996 that the A330-200 wouldshow nearly 25 per cent lower operatingcosts compared with the 767-300ER. TheA330-200 has a range of 7,500 miles(12,000km) in its standard version,which seats 256 passengers. The numbercan be increased to 350-3 0 seats toaccommodate charter companies. The767-300ER, by comparison, has a range ofabout 7,187 miles (l1,500km), and the­400 even less.

The introduction of the A330-200 ­which looks a lot like the 767, except forwinglets on the wings - provides Airbuslndu trie with yet another family memberwith a different capacity and range to com­pete effectively with Boeing. Airbus seesthe plane as a replacement for ageing DC­lOs and LlOlls, as well as MD-lls andearlier A300 and A31 Os.

The A330-200 is closely related to theA330-30 on which it is based, and harenear-identical systems, airframe, cockpitand wings. The only difference is that it is16ft (4.7m) shorter than the A330-300.To achieve the shrink, irbus took outtwo fu e1age plugs fore and aft of the wing.Because of the decreased length, theA330-200 features enlarged horizontaland vertical tail surface and a centre fueltank, which gives it a greater fuel capacitythan the -300. As Boeing did when it usedlighter material on the 767, irbus hasintroduced the aviation world to some­th ing new - the A330-200's rudder i madeof carbon fibres.

The A330-200 ha 5 more seats thanthe 767-300ER, in a three-cabin layout,providing airlines with a suitable aircraftto accommodate traffic growth for routesnow served by 767-300ERs. The A330­200' increased range allows transatlanticroutes from central Europe to the WestCoa t of orth America. Just a the767-300ER is an ideal long-haul aircraftfor the inclusive-tour market, since the

Airbus, the A330-200. The Airbus A330­200, touted as the 767's greatest competi­tor, has had the advantage of flying for twoyears before the 767-400ER is scheduled to

take to the air. The verdict among manyairlines is that the A33 -200, dubbed the'jet of the 21 't century', is the best andmost efficient plane ever developed andbuilt by the Europeans. The A330-200 is ashorter, longer-range version of the A 330­300. It was developed as a replacement forthe A 300-600 and launched in ovember1995. The A330-200 entered ervice with

Length 146ft (44.5m); wingspan 111ft lOin (34.lm); width 13ft (3.96111);tail height 38ft 9in (II. 1m)

185 in two clas s, 200 in single cia

1997

Range 2,992 mile (4, 15km)

6,261 gall ns (23,700 litre)

Plane weight 106, 1301b (4 ,140kg); max. take-off weight I96,2001b( 9,000kg)

Dimen ins:

ervice entry:

Passengers:

Fuel capacity:

Performance:

Weights:

253 in three cia s ,293 in two classe and 3 for charter

Length 193ft 6in (59m); wingspan 197ft lOin (60.3m); width 17ft 4in(5.2 m); tail height 5 ft 9in (17. 9m)

36,750 gallons (139,100 litres)

Plane weight 265,0001b (120,200kg); max. take-off weight 507, 100Ib(230,000kg)

Range 7,422 mile (11,900km)

199

Pa ngers:

Dimension:

rvice entry:

Performan e:

Fuel apacity:

Weight:

The Airbus Industrie A321 - a stretched versionof the popular A320 - was introduced in 1994 tocompete in the same capacity as the 757. Airbus

776 777

United Parcel Service found the 757 to be an ideal package freighter. Darren Anderson

up to 239 for the 757. The Tu-204, avail­able in cargo and combi version, ha amaximum range of 4,100 mile (6,600km),a good 400 mile (640km) less than the757. Compared to the 757, the Tu-204 hasa longer wing-span and is wider. The Tu­204 entered revenue service on 23 Febru­ary 1996.

While it does nor match the 757' per­formance, the Tu-204 offer one favourablefactor - the price. ized between the A 321and 757, iI' has a Iist price of 36. mill ion- half as much as a 757 or A321. till, theplane has a credibility issue to overcome,something which docs nor affect theproven Boeing and Airbus models.

In many ways, Boeing's biggest competi­tor is Boeing itself. As it develops morederi vati ves to fi II every concei vable mar­ket, Roeing is giving airlines more optionsto order different types of modeb. Thelongest version of the next-generation 737family, for example, the stretched 737­900, is expected to scat around I 0 pas­sengers, just a handful fewer than the 757.The n 7-900 is a response to the A irhusA 321, hut it will scat nine fewer passengersthan the A 321. Airlines flying n7s willundouhtedly prefer this model over a new757, for the ake of commonality with then 7 family.

Cargo and Military

The 767 and 757 can do more than fly pas­sengers and their belongings. Their rangeand reliability make them excellent as all­cargo aircraft, and the models arc abo usedon a variety of military missions.

767 Freighter Models

As the world's largest all-cargo airline flyingan extensi\'e fleet of ageing DC- s, nitedParcel ~ en'ice (UPS) looked to the 767­300 as a less expen.'ive alternative for itsshort- and medium-haul routes. The first767 freighter took off from E\'ererr on 20june 1995, carrying a load of flight-testequipment rather than parcels. The flightkicked off a relatively short test period of 6flight-hours and an additional 300 hours ofground tests.

The 767 freighter has the same airframeand engines as passenger models. A tissueduring certification were the require­ments for unique hardware and flight sys­tems. Those systems include air flow andsmoke detection in the main and lower

THE COMPETITION A D OTHER USES

cargo holds, the capabil ity to d i patch theaircraft with the cargo area unpre sur­ized, and an evacuation demonstration forcrew members.

The fl ight-test programme for the 767freighter involved three aircraft. The sec­ond rolled out of th factory on 1 july1995, and the third followed a monthlater. Boeing launched the cargo-carryingderivative when UP announced an orderfor up to sixty of the new freighters in jan­uary 1993, powered by GE CF6- OC2engines (only thirty were delivered). De­tailed design engineering began immedi­arely following the order, with designreviews completed in july 1993 and April1994. It entered produ tion in january1995, and was rolled out in May of thatyear. UPS took de Iivery of its fi rst 767freighter on 12 October 19 5, for servicebetween its base in Louisville, Kentucky,and Cologne, Germany, UPS's main Euro­pean hub. This purcha. e by PS was thelargest order for all-cargo aircraft everrecei\'ed hy Boeing.

The 767- 300 freighter is deSigned roaccept 11,990 cuhlc ft (339.5 cubic m) incargo containers on its main deck, plus3,2 2 cubic ft (92.9 cuhic m) of cargo inlower holds. A large cargo door on themain deck on the forward fuselage is usedto load goods. Flight crews enter the planethrough a single dL)or just aft of the cock­pit. The 767 freighter can carry 59 tons(53.56 tonnes) of payload for 3,450 miles(5,520km), or 45 tons (40.85 tonnes) asfar as 4,600 miles (7,360km).

Unique to the 767 freighter arc a 140 X

105in (350 x 262cm) main-deck cargodoor; a rigid barrier between the larger­than-normal flight deck and main-deckcargo compartment; a manual cargo-load­ing system; smoke detection; and otherenvironmental control system considera­tions. Below deck, the 767 can carry any oftoday's widebody cargo containers, includ­ing irregular shapes. Alrogether, the 767freighter can carry 24 modified A-2 con­tainers, seven LD-9s, two LD-2s and 43cubic ft (I2 cubic m) of bulk cargo.

The 767-300 i also available with pow­ered cargo-handling equipment both onthe main deck and in lower holds. The sys­tem provides complete automation of thecargo-loading process. An operator navi­gates the system with control panels andjoysticks. The aircraft's main deck hasboth interior and exterior master controlpanels, as well as local panels to providemaximum flexibility.

178

This version offers environmental con­trol sy tem change that make the 767-3suitable for transporting live animals andperishable goods. Plenty of fresh air is deliv­ered, and temperatures can be controlled tocool or heat the freight appropriately. Themain-deck cargo system offers the flexibilityof accepting virtually all types of pallets andcontainer, from those used on 747s to thoseused on 757s.

In 1998, Boeing began offering a versionof the shorter 767-200 to replace moreDC-8s still flying with cargo carriersaround the world. If successful, the devel­opment of the 767-200 could considerablya Itel' the dynam ics of the mid-sizedfreighter market. The first version is due to ,be delivered by the year 2000. The pro­gramme would involve converting older767-200s. Modifications, to he done atBoeing's plant in Kansas, would involvecompletely removing the existing floorand replacing it with a trengthened maindeck Lbigned originally for the 767-300F.That version's freight door would heinserted 111 the front left section of thefuselage. Boeing decided to offer 767 con­\'ersions to counter efforts to transformolder A irbus A 300s, Lockheed L I0 I IsandMcDonnell Douglas DC-lOs intofreigh tel's.

Older 767-200s are finding new life ascargo airliners. Instead of buying new air­craft, many cargo airlines arc convertll1gpassenger aircraft. Airhorne Expresshecame the first cargo airline ro convert apassenger-200 model, giving Airborne anaircraft with 35 per cent more capacitythan its primary workhorse, the DC-8.

All 767-300ER models boast a largercargo door than -200 models. As the - 300supplemented or replaced other widebodyaircraft on long-distance passenger flights,the larger cargo doors had to accommo­date larger air freight shipments, someconnecting from larger aircraft.

The larger door gi\'es airline. the optionof carrying both standard containers andlarge pallets. Freight is loaded on the pal­lets, which are specially designed metalsheets, restrained with straps and netting.The larger door enable' bigger shipmentsto be consolidated for easier handling, andnot mixed with passenger baggage.

757 Freighter Models

The 757 has also found a home in the air­cargo industry, and has become a valuableworkhorse, hauling both large container

hipment and ovemight express packages.The fir I' derivative of the 757 wasannounced on 30 December 19 5, whenUP ordered 20 freighter version. incethen, the cargo carrier has ordered 6 more,with leliveries beginning in eptember19 7. The 757F, a it is known, ha no win­dows, doors or interior amenitie . A largemain-deck cargo door is installed in the for­ward area of the fuselage's left-hand side.The flight crew boards the plane through asingle entry door immediately aft of thefl ight deck on the left side of the aircraft.

P to 15 container or pallets, eachmeasuring 8 X 125in (223 X 317cm) at thebase, can be accommodated on the maindeck of the 757F. The total containervolume i 6,600 cubic ft (187 cubic m).The two lower holds of the aircraft providean additional 1,830 cubic ft (51.8 cubic m)

THE COMPETITION AND OTHER USES

for bulk loading. These provide a com­bined maximum revenue payload of

7,500lb (39,690kg), including containerweight. With the maximum load, the 757can fly 2,900 mile (4,02 km).

The interior of the main-deck fuselageha a smooth fibreglass lining. A fixed rigidbarrier in tailed in the front end of themain deck serves a a re traint wallbetween the cargo and the flight deck. Asliding door permits access from the flightdeck to the cargo area. The 757F keepscosts to a minimum with its two-per on

flight deck and twin engines. This con­trasts with older cargo-carrying aircraft inthe standard-body class, such as 7 7s andDC-8s, which have three-person flightcrews and ar powered by four, old-tech­nology engines that consume much morefuel. The 757 freighter is the only stan-

179

dard-hody cargo airliner still in produc­tion. For airlines that do not want newone, more and more older 757s are beingconverted to package freighter, as an eco­nomical way to increa e cargo capacity.

In March 19 6, Boeing launched the sec­ond derivative of the 757 with an orderfrom Royal Nepal Airlines for a 757-200Combi with mixed main-deck cargo andpassenger capacity. In an unusual move,Boeing launched the Combi version de piteonly one firm order. Unlike the freighterversion, the Combi retains all passenger

window and doors. It i equipped with acargo door on the left forward side. The

ombi can carry two or three 10 in(274cm) tandard containers on the maindeck. In a thr e-container configuration,the ombi can carry 9 tons (8.17 tonnes) ofcargo and 123-148 passengers.

THE COMPETITION A D OTHER USES

44ft 6in(13.56m)

124ft 10,n(38.05m)

155ft 3,n(47.32m)

Interior cabinwidth

11ft 7in(3.53m)

Technical characteristics of a 757-200 freighter.Boeing

An example of what the 767-300 freighter can carry.Boeing(Below) A cutaway drawing shows the 757's cargo

capacity. Boeing

(Above) The first 757 freighter for UPS was introduced in 1987. It has no windows and a single cargo door.Boeing

780 787

THE COM PETITIO AND OTHER USES

Royal Nepal operates a 757-200 that is the only combi version - passenger and cargo on the main deck _ever made. Carlos Borda

• • • • I

distribution lines below the main cabinfloor. This concept leaves the main cahinfree for cargo or passenger transportation,allowing for imultaneous refuelling andairlift operations, or successive sortieswithout time-consuming reconfigurations.

In 19 7, the original 767-200 \Vasmodified for the Arn1Y's pace and Mis-ile Defense Command as the Airborne

urveillance Testbed (A T) projcct, atcchnology demonstration programme thatsupported development and evaluation ofdefence systems to counter intercontinen­tal and theatre ballistic missiles (ICBMs

out by 707 derivatives for thc air forces ofthe US and many other nations.

Reconfiguring a commercial 767 for thetanker/transport mission involves the addi­tion of pumps, auxiliary fucl tanks and fuel

Another military derivative of the 767 isa tanker/tran port to replace ageing KC­135s, military versions of the 707. As atanker, the 767 is an efficient, long-rangeaircraft suitably ized for a wide range ofrefuelling and airlift missions. The type alsohas the potential, like AWAC ,to serve asa common platform for a large number offuture military mi sion previously carried

The size and range of the 767 make it a logical replacement for AWACS. the Airborne Warning and Control

System. Boeing began studying adapting the 767-200ER for AWACS missions in December 1991 after the 707production line was closed. The first two AWACS 767s. designated E-767s. were delivered to the Japan Air

Self-Defense Force in 1998. Boeing

hody configuration, the 767 offers 50 pcrcent more floor space and nearly twice thevolumc of the 707. It can carry a heavierpayload, has greater range and fl ies higherthan the 707.

includes a flexible, multi-mode radar,which enables AWACS to separate mar­itime and airborne targets from groundand sea clutter that limit other radar. Itsradar ha a 360-degree view of an area, andat operating altitudes it can detect targetsmore than 200 miles (320km) away.

The 767 has several advantage over the7 7 for radar missions. Because of its wide-

r'l 'In' "'l"'."••••••••••••

the aircraft went through the same FAAcertification proces as Boeing's commer­cial aircraft.

AWACS is the world's standard for Air­borne Early Warning (AEW) sy tems. Itfill the need of both airborne surveillanceand command, control and communica­tions functions for tactical and air defenceforces. The 767 has the potential to

replace more than 60 AWAC now inoperation in the United tate, Britain,France, audi Arabia and with ATO.AWAC offers countries self-defencecapabilities well beyond the range of cur­rent ground-based systems. Its maritimesurveillance ability allows long-rangemonitoring of ships in regional and terri­torial waters. The surveillance system

Self-Defense Force in March 1998, withtwo more in january 1999. The aircraft isequipped with a rotodome-mountedantenna measuring 30ft (9m) in diameterand 6ft (1.8m) thick. The plane carries acrew of 21.

The first 767 AWAC aircraft flew on 9August J996, and completed flight testingin February 1997, three weeks ahead ofschedule. Take-off performance tests weredone at Edwards Air Force Base in Califor­nia and at Mose Lake, Washington. Cool­ing capabilities were put to test under thehot de ert sun in Yuma, Arizona. Tests werealso performed on a new electrical system,and on a special fuel that will be used by thejapan Air Self-Defense Force. In additionto normal government qualification tests,

The 767 and 757 are used on a variety ofmilitary missions, including radar andweapons monitoring, refuelling, aircrafttc,ting and government transportation.

Military Applications

Military Applications of the 767

The size and range of the 767 make it a log­ical replacement for AWAC , the Air­borne Warning and Control ystem. Boe­ing began to study the adaptation of the767-200ER for AWACS mi sions inDecember 1991, after the 707 productionline was closed.

The first two AWACS 767s, designatedE-767s, were delivered to the japan Air

782 783

THE COMPETITION AND OTHER USES THE COMPETITION A D OTHER USES

F-22 electronic systems in real time. Theconverted 757 can operate for up to fivehours in the air at once.

One 757, still wearing the silver andblue livery of Eastern Airlines, is now beingused by the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration's Langley ResearchCenter as a flying testbed. NASA uses theplane to test new technology to make low­visibility ground movements safer andmore efficient. This 757 replaced an old737 as Langley's prime research plane.

757's interior was gutted and replaced withconsole positions, data recorders and avion­ics racks. Among the features is an onboardmock-up of an F-22 cockpit. The 757's aux­iliary power unit runs continuously duringeach flight, to provide all electrical powerfor F-22 avionics and test systems. The fly­ing testbed, dubbed the 'Catfish' because itsnose bears the F-22's front end, should savehundreds offlight hours and millions ofdol­lars by pre-flying and debugging critical

.J ' •• ,I'"

sophisticated navigation equipment, amilitary transponder, a UHF satellite com­munications radio, and secure voice anddata transmission capability. The planesare configured for 45 passengers and 16crew and baggage space. The planes aredesigned for a 4,150 mile (6,640km) mis­sion, the distance between Washingtonand Frankfurt. Tile C-32's paint scheme issimilar to that of the Air Force One 747­white, black, gold and light blue. The C-

32As are powered by two Pratt & WhitneyPW2037 engines.

The military has found other uses for the757 besides transporting people and goods.The first 757 ever built is being used as a fly­ing testbed to test features of the world'snewest fighter, the Lockheed Martin-Boe­ing F-22 Raptor. The testbed is fitted withthe forward fuselage section of the F-22 aswell as the fighter's wing, placed on top ofthe 757 fuselage just behind the cockpit. Toprepare for this unusual assignment, the

The C-32A. a slightly modified 757. entered service in 1998 to transport US government officials.Boeing

Force bought the C-32As for $365 millionunder a new acquisition procedure, whichallows the service to buy the aircraft off theexisting production line in Renton.

The C-32As share commonality withtheir commercial cousins. The aircraftmeets FAA requirements relating to itscertification, design and airworthiness, aswell as its equipment for navigation,instrument approach and overwater oper­ations. The C32As differ from other 757sonly in that they are equipped with more

200s - designated C-32As - to meet itsrequirements to transport the vice-presi­dent, cabinet members and members ofCongress when on Government business.The C-32As are operated by the 89th Air­lift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base inMaryland, outside Washington, DC. Twoof the planes were delivered in March1998, followed by another two in October.The first version made a two-hour firstflight on 11 February 1998. The US Air

AST is based in eattle and can deploy toany national test range in a day. [t carriesa fl ight crew of 15, with room forobservers. Missions last from six to eighthours, and the aircraft usually flies some­what higher than commercial aircraft, atan altitude above 42,000ft (12,800m).

Military Applications of the 757

The smaller 757 also has a role in militaryaviation. It is the designated replacementfor the US Government's fleet of V1P707s, which includes Air Force Two, theplane that carries the vice-president.These planes, known as VC-137s, havebeen used since the late 1950s. Recently,the US Air Force has selected four 757-

, • , ••••••••••••• ;'·~"Jo.A

Alrbofn{' Surv~.lI(jnce TOSlbod

the cold background of space. [n testing,the sensor successfully demonstrated thecapability to detect, track and discrimi­nate warheads from missile components,debris and decoys, from both the ambienttemperature of an object prior to launchand from the heat generated during re­entry into the Earth's atmosphere. HughesAircraft Electro-Optical Data SystemsGroup designed and built the sensor.

While originally designed to tracknuclear missiles, the AST was used duringthe 1991 Gulf War to support the USArmy's studies on theatre missile defencesystems. With the threat of nuclear warremoved, the AST today observes missileslaunched across the United States and inthe Pacific, recording scientific data. The

7

One of the 767's most unusual uses. In 1987. the first-ever 767-200 was modified for the US Army's Spaceand Missile Defense Command as the Airborne Surveillance Testbed (AST) project. The plane features alarge cupola on top of the fuselage containing infrared sensors capable of tracking missiles at long range.Boeing

and TBMs). The plane features a largecupola on top of the fuselage containinginfrared sensors capable of tracking missilesat long range. AST test flights continuedthrough 1991, before the Cold War came toan abrupt end. Initial research was aimed atevaluating whether an airborne infraredsensor could reliably provide early warningusing detection, tracking and target dis­crimination. The programme later changedits scope to gather data for ballistic missiledefence development, and to resolve issuesassociated with target characteristics.

The sensor housed in the aircraft's cupo­la is made up of more than 30,000 detectorelements. It is sensitive enough to detectthe heat of a human body at a distance ofmore than 1,000 miles (l,600km) against

784 785

I TO TH E I'UTURE

aircraft to fit their needs, but may w<lit tosee how well the aircraft fare in ,ervice.Boeing studies .,how that sales of the nell'767-4 OER will increase overall sales of the767 model, but could detract from the num­ber of -30 ER deliveries. Meanwhile, 767­200, may be falling out of favour, but theyhave excellcnr potential as used aircraft oras freighter conversions.

Although it i, more than fifteen year,old, the design of the 757 and its rn1\'en ~ys­

tems will keep the tyre at the forefront ofthe world's fleets for another ten years.Environmcntal issues, which affect the 727in particular, may generate demand for used757s among operators seeking a replace­ment for the [J°i-jets. Boeing projects thm by2010, more th<lIl half of 757 ordcrs willcomc from outside the United Starc,.Thcrc is a concern that the 73 7-900, astretchcd version and the latest next-gener­ation 73 7 offering nearly the same seatingcaracity as a 757, will close the gap betweenthe two models, hurting 757 sales. HOI\'ev­cr, Boei ng', view i, that it prefers to gct anorder for any model a long as that orderdoes nor go to the competition.

Looking ahead to the future, Boeing isconsidering longer-range versions of the767 -400ER. There is also talk of anextended-range version of the 757-200ER,Jull ed the 757-2 OX, increasing range byas much as 690 miles (I, 100km).

Further develorment of the 767-300and -40 ER are under consideration. Theextended range 767- 300ERX would havethe aerodynamic and structural changes ofthe -400 - except for the lengthened fuse­lage and additional fuel capacity. Thesechanges would increase range by about540 miles (900km) to around 7,000 miles(II ,250km). The range of the -400 modelalso can be increased in what will beknown as the 767-400ERX. With thismodel, an additional tail fuel tank, furtherweight increases and more rowerfulengines would increase range to 7,5 0miles (12,00 km).

These projects will depend on how theworld's airlines welcome the 767-400ERand 757 -300, the future of this fine family.With these new models, offering anincreasing array of eating capa ities andarrangements, Boeing will be better pre­pared to ompete with Airbus. This com­mitment will ensure that the dynamic duowill continue to set standards in the newmillennium.

William Boeing wouldn't have wantedit any other way.

and embarra sing steps to keep it over­taxed factories orerating.

Despite the boom in orders, in 1997 thccompany recorded it, first loss in 50 years.The problem was not that the aircraft­building business is turning down; in fact,Boeing has never been busier. The prob­lem has been learning how to keer ur witha 'urge of orders. During 199 , Boeing'sfactories in Renton, Evcrctt and LongBeach turned out 47 aircraft a month. Inmid-1996, that monrhly figure was just 1 .

Faced with what it called the 'steepestproduction increases since the dawn of thejet age', Bocing's factories seized up undcrthe strain. While the 767 <lnd 757 pro­grammes were nor affe tcd, the companyhad to halt 747 and 737 assembly lincs tomake adjustments. Boeing was midwaythrough a I billion rrogramme to updateits manufacturing when it was hit by thesurge in orders. It could nor cope because it,systems of ordering and handling parts, andthe manufacture of several of its models,were still too inefficient and old-f<lshioned.Every alteration, cven a ,eemingly minorone, such a moving the location of anemergency flash Iight holder, consumesthou ands of hours of engineering time,involving hundreds of pages of detaileddrawings, and costs hundreds of thousandsof hours to execute. It is amazing that Boe­ing, a titan of A merican industry and anadmired exporter, h<ls survived <lnd, indeed,prospered using uch archaic methods.

In the future, 85 per cent of aircraft partswill be standard, with airlines specifyingthe rest. In addition, aircraft components,previously tracked through a mass of papersand 400 separate computer ystelTls, will befollowed on a single computer system. Boe­ing has also begun to ask its suppliers todesign parts on comruters, so that the air­craft are e<l ier to assemble. Thanks totechnology jumps made with the 767 and757, the Boeing 777 and the new-genera­tion 73 7 were de igned on computers.

The overall goal of the changes is toreduce the time it takes to launch a new air­craft from 60 months to 12, saving billionsof dollars.

The 767 and 757 can heir Boeing to

become more productive, cost-efficient andprofitable, providing revenue stream foryears to come. The two newest members ofthe family, the 767-400ER and 757-300,will fill the needs of airlines which need abig aircraft that is inexpensive to operate.Large airlines looking to replace their fleetsof older widebodies will be looking to these

especially since the type is already the cor­nerstone of the European charter fleet.Although the A321-200 is starting tomake inroads, 757 sales have not been hurtbadly by this model. The 757-300 and theupcoming 737-90 arc both in re,rome tothe A 321. In the future, therefore, the air­lines will have a choice between a 737/757mixed fleet and the A32 family.

Older 767s and 757s will continue theirservice well into the 21st cenrury. Theyaddress the future needs of the air-trans­r0rt industry - extending commonality,reducing pilot training, maximizingmixed-fleet operations, increasing on­wing times for engines, and reducingmaintenance costs. Both members of thedynamic duo are durable. Borh 767s and757s arc designed to fly for 40 years, orabout 100,000 hours of service. By 1998,the average aircraft had been used for justone-fifth of that time.

In the meantime, Boeing see' plenty ofdemand for its aircraft. Growth in air traf­fic and airline rrofitability arc the rrinciralfactors driving demand for new rlanes. Airtravel within and between different region'of the world has grown at a consistentlyfaster rate than underlying regional andglobal economic growth. In the five-yearperiod from 1993-97, the average annualgrowth rate for worldwide pa senger trafficwas about 5.7 per cent. Boeing's twenry­year forecast of the average long-termgrowth rate in passenger traffic is about 5per cenr. This growth in traffic, combinedwith the need to replace older aircraft inservice, is expected to generate demand for17,650 new aircraft by the year 20J7, val­ued at about 1.2 trillion. According to

Boeing's market forecast, seven out of tenof the new aircraft will be the size of the757, 737 or 717, including the AirbusA320 family. Intermediate-si:ed aircraft,including the Airbu A330/340 family, andthe 767 and 777, will represent one in fourfuture deliveries. Only 15 per cent of thenew aircraft demand will be for aircraft ofthe si:e of the 747, or larger.

To meet its projections, Boeing is work­ing to become more productive.

With airline deregulation spreadingaround the globe, with post-Cold War mil­itary budgets trimmed and Airbus Indus­trie becoming a powerful competitor, Boe­ing is making sure that it keeps its placea leader in the marketplace. t a timewhen it should be celebrating a strongsurge in demand for its jetliners, it hasbeen forced to take a series of expensive

70ft 7,n(21.50m)

60ft 9,n(18.51m)

68,n(172.7cm)

69,n(175.3cm)

r--- 18.5,n (47.0cm)

19.25," (48.9cm)

---8

235 seats. Forecasts indicate that aircrafteating 350 passengers or more, including

the 767-400 and A330-200, will accountfor 40 per cent of commercial transportsales over the next twenty years.

The 757 has less direct competition,and is expected to remain in demand. A ,boom in the British charter market shouldtranslate into renewed interest for the 757,

209ft lin(63.73m)

interiorcabin width

19ft 3in(5.87m)

8--·8,--

--------------------------------

and a replacement for the 767-200ER,DC-lOs and the A3 lOs, is a serious threatto the 767's market hare. Airbus hopes tosell 500-600 of the aircraft. Boeing'sresponse is the larger 767 -400ER. Bothnew aircraft are catering to market fore­casts that predict a 30 per cent increaseover the next twenty years in average per­aircraft capacity requirement, from 179 to

Schematics of a 777-200. The 777 began as a potential derivative of the 767. Boeing

CHAPTER FOURTEEN

Into the Future

The development of the 767 and 757 hastouched every other Boeing model in pro­duction. The gla s cockpit, first intro­duced with the dynamic duo, was hroughtover to the 737 and 747 lines. Fuel effi­ciency and low noise, once a trademark ofthe 767 and 757, are now vital to everycommercial aircraft made by Boeing.

The 767's legacy has gone beyond that,however, and has eventually inspired anentirely new aircraft, the giant twin­engined 777. When Boeing' latest modeldebuted in 1995, it filled a niche demand­ed by customer for an aircraft bigger thanthe 767, but mailer than the 747-400.The 777, in fact, first began as a potentialderivative of the 767. In late 19 6, just asthe 767- 00 was introduced, Boeing ware'earching larger variants of the 767. Thereaction from airline wa that the size wasright, but the range was too low, then thatthe size and range were right, but that the767 wing too small to generate the neces­ary lift. The wing wa redesigned and a

new version of the 767 - stretched by 46ft(14m) - was put in the works, to offer arange of almost 7,000 miles (II ,200km).In all, seven product scenario wereoffered, all based on the 767 design.

At this point, the decision was made tolaunch a new plane, freed from the con­straint of being a derivative of the 767.The all-new 777 emerged, with new wings,larger engines, more scats and greaterlength. A., it happens, many of the 767'scharacteristics are visible in the Triple

even, including a imilar shape, twoengines and the same nose section. With­out the 767's proven twin-engine trackrecord, particularly on long-haul flights,this new plane would never have taken off.

With their efficiency, reliability and rel­atively low capital cost, the 767 and 757will remain trong-selling products wellinto the 21 st century, although competi­tive pressures and new technology areforcing Boeing constantly to makechanges to the model to keep them mar­ketable. As outlined, the Airbus A330­200, a larger alternative to the 767-300ER

786 787

APPE DIX I

Operators of the Boeing 757 and 767

This IS a list of airlines and cargo carners operating Boeing 757 and Boeing 767 models; it does not Include private or military operators.Numbers In parentheses reflect aircraft on order. Information as of November 1998.

Boeing 757·200

Aero Peru 4 Flying Colors 5Aeromexico 6 Greenlandair 1Air 2000 12 Guyana Airways 1AirAlfa 1 Iberia 12 (8)Air Europa 2 Icelandalr 5 (1)Air Holland 4 Istanbul Airlines 3Alrtours International 5 LAPA 2Air Transat 5 Leisure International Airways 1America West Airlines 13 LTE International Airways 3American Airlines 96 (6) LTU 11American Trans Air 7 (4) Mexlcana 5 (1)

Arkla 1 Monarch Airlines 6AVlanca 4 North American 2Azerbaijan Airlines (2) Northwest Airlines 48 (25)Britannia Airways 25 (2) Qatar Airways 1British Airways 51 (6) Royal Air Maroc 2Canada 3000 Airlines 7 Royal AViation 2Challenge Air Cargo 3 Royal Brunei Airlines 1China National Aviation 1 Royal Nepal Airlines 3China Southern Airlines 18 Shanghai Airlines 7China Southwest Airlines 12 Spanalr 1China Xinjiang Airlines 3 (1) Star Air Tours 1Condor Flugdienst 18 TACV Cabo Verde 1Continental Airlines 29 (41 Trans World Airlines 16 (7)Continental Micronesia 3 Transaero 5Delta Air Lines 96 (14) Transavia Airlines 4DHL International 1 Turkmenistan Akhal 1EI AI 8 United Airlines 96 (2)Ethiopian Airlines 5 United Parcel Service 73 (2)Far Eastern Air Transport 4 (4) US Airways 34Flnnalr 4 (1) Uzbekistan Airways 1

Xlamen Airlines 5

TOTAL 807 (90)

757-300

Arkia (2)

Condor Flugdienst (13)

Icelandair (2)

TOTAL (17)

OPERATORS OF THE BOEING 757 A 'D 767

767-200 767-300 767-400

Aeromexlco 2 Aeroflot 2 Conlinental Airlines (26)

Air Canada 23 Aeromexlco 2 (1) Delta Air Lines (21)

Airborne Express 5 Air Algerie 3Air China 6 Air Canada 6 TOTAL (47)

Air Europa 2 Air China 4

Air Gabon 1 Air Europe 6

Air Mauritius 2 Air France 5Air New Zealand 3 Air Madagascar 1

Air Seychelles 1 Air New Zealand 9Air Zimbabwe 2 Air Namibia 1

All Nippon Airways 20 Air Nippon 2

American Airlines 30 Air Pacific 1

Ansett Australia 9 Air Seychelles 1

Avianca 3 Alrtours International 3Balkan Bulgarian Airlines 2 Alitalla 8 (1)

Britannia Airways 6 All Nippon Airways 40

Continental Airlines (10) American Airlines 45 (4)

Delta Air Lines 15 Ansett Australia 1

EI AI 4 ASlana Airlines 12 (4)

Ethiopian Airlines 2 Avianca 1

EVA Air 4 Britannia Airways 7 (2)

Japan Airlines 3 British Airways 28

LOT Polish Airlines 2 Canadian Airlines International 11 (2)

Malev 2 China Yunnan Airlines 3Qantas 7 City Bird 2South African Airways 3 Condor Flugdlenst 9SWISS World Airlines 1 Delta Air Lines 68 (9)

TACA International Airlines 1 Egyptalr 2

Trans World Airlines 12 Ethiopian Airlines 1Transbrasil 8 EVA Air 4

United Airlines 19 Gulf Air 11

US Airways 12 Hokkaldo International Airlines 1

Va rig 6 Iberia 2

Japan Airlines 17 (1)

TOTAL 218 (10) Japan Asia Airways 4

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 10 (1)

LAN Chile 14 (2)

Lauda Air 5 (1)

Leisure International Airways 2LOT Polish Airlines 3

LTU 6Martinair Holland 6Qantas 21

Royal Brunei Airlines 5SAS 14

Shanghai Airlines 2 (2)

Skymark Airlines 2 (1)

Sobelair 2Spanair 2TACA International Airlines 1

Transaero 1

Transbrasil 3Trans World Airlines 4

United Airlines 27 (10)

United Parcel Service 27 (3)

Uzbekistan Airways 2

Varig 6 (6)

Vietnam Airlines 6

188

TOTAL 494(50)

189

Source: Flight International.

APPE DIX II

DeliveriesNumbers of 767 and 757 models delivered by year. Source Boeing.

767 7571982 20 1982 21983 55 1983 25 ,1984 29 1984 181985 25 1985 361986 27 1986 351987 37 1987 401988 53 1988 481989 37 1989 511990 60 1990 77

1991 62 1991 801992 63 1992 991993 51 1993 711994 41 1994 691995 37 1995 431996 43 1996 421997 42 1997 481998 47 1998 54

TOTAL: 729 TOTAL: 836

790

757:757-300 118-25,187air systems 58as 7 7 13, 1assemhly 75-92auxiliary power unit 57-8aviation records 174certification 110changesmaJe 169-70cockpit reJesign 35commonality with 767 30,35,51-9competition 175-8composite material 5 1

configurations 142-4Jelivery 90-1JemanJ 14Jetail 49-52development 2 '-30fi re protection 5first fl ight 95-7first IT\'Cnue flight 131flight controls 55-6flight testlllg 93-110flight-testing results 104flying arounJ the world 162, 164,

167-8freighter 178(ue I efficiency 43, 46fuel systems 57future 186-7glass cockpit 6,35-9,51-4hyJraulic systems 57ice anJ rain protection 58-9in service 129-6landing gear 56-7liveries 172-3market needs 16market succes 134-6marketing IImilitary applications 4-5moJels 7painting 9-9passenger cal in 54-5pilot vielV 144-5rollout 72-4safety record 170-4equence 12

specification 15static tests 93Ttail 18,31

Index

versatil i ty 139wind-tunnel testing 10wings 44-5,57world tour 110

767:767-300 111-18, 186-7767-400 125-8, 186-7air systems 58as 7X7 13, 16-25assembly 75-92auxiliary power unit 57-aviation records 174brake, 169certification I 10changes maJe 169cockpit conversion 31-5colJ-weather certification 101configurations 139-42commonality with 757 30,35,51-9competition 175-)composite material 50Jclivery 90-1demanJ 14Jetails 47-9fi re protection 58fi rst fl igh t 94-5first revenue flight 129-31fl ight controls 55-6flight testing 93-110flight-test results 102-4flying around the worlJ 158,161-2freighter 178fue! efficiency 43,46fuel ystems 57future 1 6-7glass cockpit 6,35-9,51-4hydraulic systems 57ice and rain protection 5 -9in service 129-6landing gear 56-7launch 24liveries 172-3origins 13passenger cabin 54-5painting 9-90pilot view 144-5market need 16market success 134-6marketing 110

797

military applications 1 2-4moJels 7rollout 69-72safety record 170-4sequence 12specification 14static tests 93Ttail 18,24three-m 'mber cockpit crew 33trijet Jesigns 18, 26-8,winJ-tunnel testing 10wings 44-5, 57worlJ tollr 109

Airbus 13,42-3A 3 0 24,26,27,42-3, 175A31 24,27,32,42-3,175A321176-7A330-200 175-7,1 6-7

Armstrong, John 97- , 136

Boeing, William EJwarJ 9, 187Boeing:

247 I377 , tratocru iser 10707 11-12717 12727 11-12, 13,28-30,35737 6,11-12,13-147476, II, 13777 7B&W 9B-17 9factories 6, 75-92hi tory 9-12MoJel314 IModel 0 9

Borman, Frank 40-1,65Boullioun, Tex 24,41, 71, 74Briti h Airways 30,41, 74, 131

computer de ign 59, 127

de HavillanJ I

Eastern Airlines 30,41,65,74,104,131EdmonJs, Thomas 94-5,97ETOPS 144-6, 148-50, 154-5, 158

Ferris, Richard 24,40, 71

fI ight, how ach ieved 46

General Electric 17,60-9

Jackson, Duane 29

L-l0 I I 13, 46Lindbergh, Charles 9

McDonnell Douglas 11-12,42DC-8 16,46DC-JO 13,46

INDEX

Miller, Doug 30,35,119

oil crisis 6, 28

powerplants 60-9Pratt & Whitney 9, 24, 60-9

Rolls-Royce 17,60-9

suppl iers 58, 69Sutter, Joe 19,30,38

192

Taylor, Dick 32,35Thornton, Dean 71,102Tupolcv 204 177-8

United Airlines 9,24,32,40-1, 7J, 129

Wallick, Lew 97-8Webb, Everett 19,27,36,38Westervelt, Lt Conrad 9Wilson, T. 41, 71