Talk:Boeing 767

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.See comments
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related WikiProjects and/or task forces: Aircraft WikiProject

The 767 and 757 have identical Accident Summaries. It looks like somebody copied and pasted without changing the numbers.

I noticed this too. I'm sure one of them is incorrect. I'll try to find the correct numbers and fix it, but I'm at work right now (most websites blocked). So, no promises. -GamblinMonkey 12:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I checked. It looks like the numbers are supposed to be for the 767. However, I'm still coming up with more fatalities than those listed, but less accidents. Also, should hijackings that resulted in hull-loss, Sept 11th for example, be counted as hull-loss as well? -GamblinMonkey 12:40, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I changed the description of the Lauda Air accident. It was caused by the un-commanded deployment of the left engine reverser in-flight. There was no explosion. The in-flight fuel fire that occurred, happened only after the plane began to break apart because of G-forces in the dive that exceeded the maximum strength design of the plane. Also, changed the date from the 23rd, to the 26th.EditorASC 10:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Anyone know how much the of these things might cost? I've been thinking of buying one ;) Peoplesunionpro 22:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

A commercial Boeing 767 200ER goes for anywhere between 112.5 to 124 million dollars. The -300ER goes for 128 to 141.5 million, and the -400ER for 139.5 to 153.5 million.Source 青い(Aoi) 11:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Ram Air Turbine 2 chinese state aircraft 3 Weight? 4 KC-767 5 Blank space 6 767-200LRF

[edit] Ram Air Turbine

I've corrected the trivia about the RAT, but I think its removal is needed since many widebody aircraft also have RATs. -DeAceShooter 17:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree, esp. since it's mentioned in the Gimli incident already. Josh59x 20:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed since aircraft since the 60s have had them (VC10) and all Airbuses have them. I think most Boeings have them too, they're nothing to write home about.

[edit] chinese state aircraft

how about a reference link?

[edit] Weight?

Why there is no information about the weight of the aircraft?--Pokipsy76 13:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Because you haven't added it! This is a reader-written encyclopedia so you're allowed to add stuff - Adrian Pingstone 08:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I added Max Takeoff Weight (MTOW) entries. Might get plane weight later, although I don't think that's so important. -Fnlayson 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Added a row for empty plane weight. -Fnlayson 18:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KC-767

Given that there is a KC-767 article, I don't think we need more than one short paragraph. Any additional info ought to be in the KC-767 page. As other editors have recently worked on this section, I'm not unilaterally cutting it back. - BillCJ 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• That's fine to cut it back. But how much to keep? Just this: The KC-767 Tanker Transport is a 767-200ER-based aerial refueling platform is being developed for the Italian Air Force and the Japan Self-Defense Forces. ? -Fnlayson 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Cutting it back that far is fine with me, especially since Bill added the "main" template. Akradecki 18:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• I cut the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs back. They could be removed if you think the first paragraph is enough. -Fnlayson 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What you've done looks good. I just added some additiona KC-X information to the KC-767 article, you might want to see if you want to tweak any of it. I'm also wondering at what point we might want to start a separate article on the KC-X RFP, especially if Boeing fields a KC-777 instead of the 767. Given the controversies, and the availability of citations, maybe move some of the political stuff out of the aircraft articles so that they just reflect the actual aircraft? Akradecki 21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'm going to move this over to the KC-767 talk page. -Fnlayson 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Looking better. I think the "first hook-up" info should probably be moved too. - BillCJ 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blank space

We seem to have a bunch of blank space in the 767-300 and 300ER sections. Our friend who likes Pluna seems to have added a pic, and theres another one too. To me, it looks like only one pic will fit well (either one -300 or one -300ER); any more looks like it will still leave blank space. So atleat 2 pics need to go, and maybe move the third somewhere else. Comments? - BillCJ 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I removed an extra 300ER image and moved the images above the variant subsections. I checked in IE and it looks that took care of the blank space. There may still be blank space for users with large thumbnail size perference. -Fnlayson 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I just checked in Netscape, and it looks good. If there's a desire for any more pics, I've got a few of 767 scrappings, since the early ones are now getting cut up. Akradecki 23:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 767-200LRF

Info on KC-767 entrant in the KC-X contest states that it is based on the 767-200lrf, which is in development. Yet there is no ifo in this article on that variant. Anyone have anything more on this model? - BillCJ 19:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds more like the 777 freighter, which is combination of 777-200LR and -300ER. -Fnlayson 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Any chance this is the freighter that UPS just ordered? Akradecki 19:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
    • UPS ordered -300ERs [1] (this link also has info in -200LRF and KC-X). - BillCJ 23:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The KC-X press release says the tanker "will be an advanced derivative of the future 767-200 Long Range Freighter". They're using the tanker program to develop the variant, it seems. -Fnlayson 19:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess if you're going to continue producing a model you were going to discontinue, you might as well try to sell a civilian version of it too, and update both in the process. I'm surprised they're not calling it the 767-8LRF! - BillCJ 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• They'll offer a commerical version at least. Although it'll be shorter than the exiting 300F. -Fnlayson 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the KC-767 is competing against the much larger KC-30, why are they not offering a version of the larger -300? - BillCJ 23:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Good question. The KC-X is just asking for refueling and range capability to match the KC-135. -Fnlayson 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Plus Boeing has to charge for actual costs, and I would think the -300 or -400 cost more than the -200. - BillCJ 23:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)