Aha! The three-man 767 rears its ugly head...
Robert Dorsett
I knew I wasn't going mad... In a recent post, I commented on a three-man
767. Karl hadn't heard of it, which surprised me, so I went looking for
it--and couldn't find it--which surprised me even more. I finally ran across
this blurb.
I have no recollection of a picture of one of these critters, though. Can
someone clear up this matter?
FI, 3/20/82, p. 685:
"So far, most of the "live" flight-test experience has been with a three-
pilot-configured flightdeck on the first four 767s. [...] All 757s, and
the fifth and many subsequent 767s will have a two-pilot-configured cockpit.
In the two-man flightdeck, the early 767's conventional bank of engine
instruments on the center panel is replaced by the two CRT screens. These are
the display element of the engine-indicating/crew-alerting system (EICAS),
which replaces normal engine instruments and continually scans the aircraft
systems for abnormalities, relaying any findings."
I interpret that as meaning the three-man ships had electromechanical in-
struments, which means there had to be a real, live, flight engineer.
I am certain three of the four were retrofitted to two-man configuration,
but am almost certain the first one lingers on, somewhere. Memory suggests
it's Boeing's 767 testbed. The maddening thing is, I read an article within
the last two or three years, which went into all this in great detail, but
I can't remember where it was published... This article seemed to indicate
that the customer (UAL, I THINK) which initially wanted three-man ships saw
the two-man configuration, fell in love with it, and abandoned all plans for
three-man operation.
R.
Hayes N. Press
>I knew I wasn't going mad... In a recent post, I commented on a three-man
>767. Karl hadn't heard of it, which surprised me, so I went looking for
>it--and couldn't find it--which surprised me even more. I finally ran across
>this blurb.
>I have no recollection of a picture of one of these critters, though. Can
>someone clear up this matter?
I don't know if I can clear this up but I can assure you that you are not
going mad, unless madness is common in aerospace professionals.
The original design for the 767 was indeed for a 3 person-crew (even though
the anthropometrics were probably 3 man-crew biased). There was an extensive
article done in Harvard Business Review (sorry I don't recall the year but it
is pre-1990) on the design/production aspects. The article dealt with the
management approaches used to determine whether the production line of the
first 30 or so, 767 should be stopped and retrofited "in-position" or whether
the line should be allowed to continue with the first ~30 being 3 person-crew
and the ~31st and then on being the two person variety. In summary, the
decision was to build the first ~30 as 3 person-crew and then if (when) they
got certification of a two person configuration they would tear-out the third
station and make the other necessary changes needed by use of "RAMS" teams.
These teams would then have only one learning curve on the modifications
needed, rather than ~30 since the aircraft on the line would all be at
different stages of production.
There was even one airline (which I don't recall either, but it may have been
UAL or someone in the South Pacific) that accepted their aircraft in the
three person configuration, whether that configuration has since been changed
or not I'm also not so sure.
The extra flight station being removed from the original design may also
explain the roominess of the 767 cockpit. It is by far the largest I have
been in with more free space and comfort for the jumpseat passenger.
Speaking only for myself.
Hayes N. Press
e-mail address: Hayes...@qmgate.larc.nasa.gov
phone (804) 864-2715 fax (804) 864-7793
Good old Postal Service: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Co.
144 Research Drive MS 156A
Hampton, Virginia 23666
Mitchell Weiss
>
>I knew I wasn't going mad... In a recent post, I commented on a three-man
>767. Karl hadn't heard of it, which surprised me, so I went looking for
>it--and couldn't find it--which surprised me even more. I finally ran across
>this blurb.
>
a three-man cockpit to a two man cockpit. It seems that the initial
production runs of the 767's were three-man. Now, as a case study
they never said what Boeing did. Did they change them before sale?
I don't know. I know little about airlines, except of course
how to buckle a seat belt and pray that my luggage arrives. :-)
Karl Swartz
>I have no recollection of a picture of one of these critters, though. Can
>someone clear up this matter?
Yesterday I flew back from Chicago on a 757, and since United takes
advantage of the common rating for flight crews on 757s and 767s I
figured the guys up front might be able to answer this question.
They agreed that none of the United 767s have a three-person flight
deck, including the second 767 built (N601UA; the first is still with
Boeing) which one of the guys had been on recently. As far as either
could recall these aircraft were delivered without the third position
though they pointed out that the luxuriously roomy cockpit was because
the original design did have the third position, and one mentioned
that the first simulators had the FE panel.
Note that the first 767 actually delivered (to United) was the ninth
built. The second one (again, Boeing kept the first) was delivered to
United six months later, time which could well have been spent removing
the FE panel as well as restoring the aircraft after the flight tests.
--
Karl Swartz |INet k...@ditka.chicago.com
1-415/854-3409 |UUCP uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
|Snail 2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airl...@chicago.com
Tony Heatwole
the Boeing 767 (#9-688-040, Rev. 2/89). It's a fascinating
look at technology, manufacturing, and the culture of the
Boeing Corporation. With regard to the 767 crew size:
"In August 1981, eleven months before the first scheduled
delivery of Boeing's new airplane, the 767, Dean Thornton,
program's vice president - general manager, faced a critical
decision. For several years, Boeing had lobbied the FAA
for permission to build wide-bodied aircraft with two-, rather
than three person cockpits. Permission had been granted late
in July. Unfortunately, the 767 had originally been designed
with a three-person cockpit, and 30 of those planes were
already in various stages of production.
" . . . Engineers concluded that the thirty-first 767 was
still far enough from completion that it, and all subsequent
planes, could be built with two-person cockpits without
modification. Thirty planes, however, were in relatively
advanced stages of production. Some were nearly ready to
to be rolled out and flown; others had complete cockpits but
were not yet tested; others had bare cockpits without any
electronics installed. But since all thirty were being built
according to the plane's original, three-person cockpit design,
all would require some modification.
" . . . Customers were notified of the additional cost and
delivery delay they could expect on these thirty planes. The
impact was not large: a small percentage increase in costs and
an average delay of one month from promised delivery dates.
All but one airline chose to have their planes built with
two-person cockpits."
So, the interesting question is, what was the *one* airline, and
what has become of their 3-person cockpit 767s? Were these
planes later converted to 2-person cockpits? I don't know the
answers, but I'm curious.
Interestingly, Boeing decided to complete the first 30 767s as
originally designed, for 3-person cockpits. Then, they converted
the 30 (less the set to be delivered as 3-person cockpit) to
2-person operation as a batch. This avoided the safety and
manufacturing problems of trying to convert a number of planes in
different stages of manufacture.
Tony Heatwole
Gaithersburg, MD
heat...@hns.com
Karl Swartz
> "In August 1981, eleven months before the first scheduled
> delivery of Boeing's new airplane, the 767, Dean Thornton,
> program's vice president - general manager, faced a critical
> decision ...
> " . . . Customers were notified of the additional cost and
> delivery delay they could expect on these thirty planes. The
> impact was not large: a small percentage increase in costs and
> an average delay of one month from promised delivery dates.
> All but one airline chose to have their planes built with
> two-person cockpits."
>
>So, the interesting question is, what was the *one* airline, and
>what has become of their 3-person cockpit 767s? Were these
>planes later converted to 2-person cockpits? I don't know the
>answers, but I'm curious.
Here are the first thirty-one 767s:
ln sn model first flt customer reg'n
-- ----- ------- --------- -------- -----
1 22233 767-200 8/26/81 Boeing N767BA
2 21862 767-222 11/ 4/81 United N601UA
3 21863 767-222 11/24/81 United N602UA
4 21864 767-222 12/19/81 United N603UA
5 21865 767-222 1/18/82 United N604UA
6 22213 767-232 2/19/82 Delta N101DA
7 21866 767-222 3/25/82 United N605UA
8 22307 767-223 10/ 6/82 American N301AA
9 21867 767-222 7/20/82 United N606UA
10 21868 767-222 8/13/82 United N607UA
11 21869 767-222 7/19/82 United N608UA
12 22214 767-232 8/27/82 Delta N102DA
13 21870 767-222 9/17/82 United N609UA
14 22564 767-231 10/15/82 TWA N601TW
15 21871 767-222 10/30/82 United N610UA
16 22517 767-233 10/ 9/82 Air Canada C-GAUB
17 22215 767-232 9/25/82 Delta N103DA
18 22681 767-209 11/23/82 China Airlines B-1836
19 22308 767-223 11/ 1/82 American N302AA
20 21872 767-222 1/27/83 United N611UA
21 22565 767-231 11/13/82 TWA N602TW
22 22518 767-233 11/ 9/82 Air Canada C-GAUE
23 22309 767-223 11/16/82 American N303AA
24 22692 767-277 5/ 4/83 Ansett VH-RMD
25 22310 767-223 1/18/83 American N304AA
26 22216 767-232 11/24/82 Delta N104DA
27 22217 767-232 12/17/82 Delta N105DA
28 22693 767-277 5/20/83 Ansett VH-RME
29 22566 767-231 12/14/82 TWA N603TW
30 22567 767-231 1/28/83 TWA N604TW
31 22218 767-232 11/10/82 Delta N106DA
I know United's are two-man and would bet the same for American,
Delta, and TWA. Probably Air Canada. That leaves China Airlines
and Ansett. I suspect the latter as I recall hearing about some
Australian airline having three-man 767s. Any Aussie friends know
for sure? Do their later 767s have three-man crews as well?
BTW, I believe all thirty-one of these are still with their original
owners with the possibly exception of TWA's -- some TWA 767s were
sold earlier this year though I'm not sure if they were the oldest
or newest ones.
Christopher Davis
KS> They agreed that none of the United 767s have a three-person flight
KS> deck, including the second 767 built (N601UA; the first is still with
KS> Boeing) which one of the guys had been on recently.
The aforementioned first 767 was last seen (by me anyway :) at Boeing
Field, looking kinda lonely (it's been sitting there a fairly long time).
Unfortunately I don't have anywhere near enough influence to get a look at
the cockpit layout...
Just for kicks, I looked it up in JP; here's the pertinent info.
N767BA, Boeing 767-200 (that's right, 00, a reserved customer code), msn
22233, line number 1 (duh), built in '81, delivered 0981, uses a pair of PW
JT9D-74RDs, configuration is listed as "prototype", and remarks are "Boeing
Co./ US Army AOA program".
The AOA (Airborne Optical Adjunct) program modifications include a "growth"
along the top of the fuselage, with some sort of hatchway about where first
class would have been. I'm not really familiar with the program and don't
have a good back index of AvLeaks to look it up in...
(Other notes on the 757/767: the 757 prototype, N757A, was sitting nearby;
the AWACS version of the 767 is looking to be launched by Japan soon [see
AWST 4 Jan 1993 pp 22-23]; UPS has launched the 767 cargo variant.)
--
Christopher K. Davis | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<c...@eff.org> EFF #14 | for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF | Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665 [CKD1] | --Peter da Silva <pe...@ferranti.com>
Karl Swartz
>The aforementioned first 767 was last seen (by me anyway :) at Boeing
>Field, looking kinda lonely (it's been sitting there a fairly long time).
I'm surprised it's been that long -- I thought it had been involved
with the AOA development fairly recently.
>Unfortunately I don't have anywhere near enough influence to get a look at
>the cockpit layout...
Hmmm ... anyone else?
>Just for kicks, I looked it up in JP; here's the pertinent info.
>N767BA, Boeing 767-200 (that's right, 00, a reserved customer code) ...
I thought that code interesting as well. The info I have says that 20
is supposed to be the code for Boeing itself, including prototypes.
>Other notes on the 757/767: the 757 prototype, N757A, was sitting nearby
It's supposed to become the flying testbed for the 777's fly-by-wire,
er, fly-by-light system quite soon now. Were there any signs of
activity?
>the AWACS version of the 767 is looking to be launched by Japan soon
I wonder if 767 #1 will be any sort of prototype for this program?
>UPS has launched the 767 cargo variant.
I wonder how different it will be? The 757-200 PF (Package Freight),
also for UPS, is notable in being the highest MGTOW 757 (250,000 lbs.
vs. 220,000 to 240,000 for the passenger variants) with correspondingly
higher thrust engines. And FedEx's launch of the A300-600 cargo
variant seemed to generate a surprising amount of attention ...
David M. Eklund
>In article <airliner...@ohare.Chicago.COM> c...@eff.org (Christopher Davis) writes:
>>Other notes on the 757/767: the 757 prototype, N757A, was sitting nearby
>
>It's supposed to become the flying testbed for the 777's fly-by-wire,
>er, fly-by-light system quite soon now. Were there any signs of
>activity?
Due to extensive modification from the YF-22 program on N757A the decision
was made to take a 757 off the production line for a flying testbed
of the 777's flight control laws. It successfully completed its tests
a couple of months ago and will now be modified again and sold to its
respective customer.
--
David Eklund | In no way, shape, form, size, structure,
System(no s) Engineer | magnitude, configuration, or conformation
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group | is my opinion that of Boeing's
Karl Swartz
>Due to extensive modification from the YF-22 program on N757A the decision
>was made to take a 757 off the production line for a flying testbed
>of the 777's flight control laws. It successfully completed its tests
>a couple of months ago and will now be modified again and sold to its
>respective customer.
Ah! Is there anything else in the works for N757A, then, or is
it just parked until something new comes along? And, the $64,000
question, *which* production 757 was used for the tests? 8-)
Christopher Davis
ckd> The aforementioned first 767 was last seen (by me anyway :) at Boeing
ckd> Field, looking kinda lonely (it's been sitting there a fairly long time).
KS> I'm surprised it's been that long -- I thought it had been involved
KS> with the AOA development fairly recently.
Well, it's been there the last few times I've been up to BFI, going back to
at least December 1990 (I remember because I was looking at it and fell on
my rear end due to an icy parking lot at the Museum of Flight :).
Of course, I just could have been there on the days it wasn't flying, but
it never seemed to have moved at all.
ckd> N767BA, Boeing 767-200 (that's right, 00, a reserved customer code) ...
KS> I thought that code interesting as well. The info I have says that 20
KS> is supposed to be the code for Boeing itself, including prototypes.
They've probably changed that since the 707 days, rightly (IMHO) deciding
that it made more sense for the prototype to be the 7x7-x00.
ckd> Other notes on the 757/767: the 757 prototype, N757A, was sitting nearby
KS> It's supposed to become the flying testbed for the 777's fly-by-wire,
KS> er, fly-by-light system quite soon now. Were there any signs of
KS> activity?
Nothing at the time, but the fact that it was there when it hadn't been
before was a sign in and of itself.
ckd> the AWACS version of the 767 is looking to be launched by Japan soon
KS> I wonder if 767 #1 will be any sort of prototype for this program?
AvLeak didn't say, but it didn't sound like there were any plans to
prototype it; the first two airframes would presumably be used as
"deliverable prototypes" much as the 747-400 test planes were. The planes
will be pretty much stock, sent to Wichita for strengthening of the rear
fuselage and other modifications, then returned to Seattle for the
electronics. Of course, this all assumes that the procurement passes the
Japanese Diet.
(I don't remember which of the N books about Boeing I read this in, but
during testing of the 767's wing strength, they never found out how strong
it really was; at 117% (or so, don't remember the exact number) of rated
strength, the fuselage gave way. I'll try to find where I read it.)
Bob Topping
>AvLeak didn't say, but it didn't sound like there were any plans to
>prototype it; the first two airframes would presumably be used as
>"deliverable prototypes" much as the 747-400 test planes were. The planes
>will be pretty much stock, sent to Wichita for strengthening of the rear
>fuselage and other modifications, then returned to Seattle for the
>electronics. Of course, this all assumes that the procurement passes the
>Japanese Diet.
>
>(I don't remember which of the N books about Boeing I read this in, but
>during testing of the 767's wing strength, they never found out how strong
>it really was; at 117% (or so, don't remember the exact number) of rated
>strength, the fuselage gave way. I'll try to find where I read it.)
>
I think it may have been in _Legend & Legacy: The Story of Boeing and
Its People_. It the most recent Boeing book I've read, and I remember
that story fairly well. Even if its not, its still an excellent book to
read. Take it along on your next flight! :)
Just found the reference: Pg. 391, _L&L_
The 767 emerged from a tremendous amount of wind tunnel
work; it was what [Dean] Thornton called a "clean paper"
airplane--everything started from scratch. One of the de-
sign's chief virtues was the potential growth built into
the airplane; the wing, huge for the plane's overall size,
was structurally so powerful that the static destruction
test failed to break it. The wing went far beyond the 100
percent of design load limit, and it was not the wing that
failed but the aft fuselage near the area of a rear cargo
door.
"We extrapolated from that test all the data we needed to
assure us the airplane had tremendous growth potential,"
Ben Cosgrove remembered. "We never did find out how much
it would take to break the wing--the static test ended when
the rear fuselage broke, and we decided to use the wing for
other test purposes."
--
@ "Our lives are better left to chance; **** PLEASE! E-Mail to: @
@ I could have missed the pain, but **** bob.t...@um.cc.umich.edu @
@ I'd have had to miss the dance." **** phy_as...@emunix.emich.edu @
@ Garth Brooks, The Dance. @>-,'-- **** :::RETURN OUR HURON!::: @
Bob Topping
>AvLeak didn't say, but it didn't sound like there were any plans to
>prototype it; the first two airframes would presumably be used as
>"deliverable prototypes" much as the 747-400 test planes were. The planes
>will be pretty much stock, sent to Wichita for strengthening of the rear
>fuselage and other modifications, then returned to Seattle for the
>electronics. Of course, this all assumes that the procurement passes the
>Japanese Diet.
>
>(I don't remember which of the N books about Boeing I read this in, but
>during testing of the 767's wing strength, they never found out how strong
>it really was; at 117% (or so, don't remember the exact number) of rated
>strength, the fuselage gave way. I'll try to find where I read it.)
>
I think it may have been in _Legend & Legacy: The Story of Boeing and
Kevin Driscoll
>er, fly-by-light system quite soon now.
Unless something has change very recently, it is fly-by-wire. The only
fiber optics (FO) on the 777 is the non-essential ARINC 636 OLAN (FDDI).
The proposal for an FO prox system died.