The Boeing 767-100 - The Plane That Never Was
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 июл 2024
- The development of the Boeing 767 was originally envisioned to offer three main variants. These were the 767-200, which went on to be the launch version, the 767LR version, which would have 200 seats and three engines and a shortened version, the 767-100. Ultimately only one of these three versions was produced.
Article link: simpleflying.com/boeing-767-100/
Video source links:
707 Qantas • Qantas Boeing 707
Pan Am Boeing 707 1959 • VHS-Rip Pan Am Boeing ...
Airbus A330-800 in the making www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSBVQ...
A330-900 First Flight • A330-900 First Flight:...
767 FedEx • Tàu Cargo ở Nội Bài: B...
767 Freighter cargo UPS • UPS 767-300F [N356UP] ...
767 American Airlines • American Airlines Boei...
757 Icelandair • Icelandair 757-200 [TF...
757 FedEx • FedEx 757-200 [N962FD]...
787-8 British Airways • British Airways Dreaml...
Photos:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
www.flickr.com/photos/aero_ic...
www.flickr.com/photos/aero_ic...
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ca...
Website: simpleflying.com/
Instagram: / simpleflyingnews
Twitter: / simple_flying
#Aviation #Flight #Avgeek
Look at the A319neo. Only 76 orders compared to 7,000+ for the A320neo/A321neo
Not to mention there isn’t an A318neo. The A220-300 is just way more efficient than the A319neo. The only airlines that order it is the budget airlines that want the same pilots to fly all their aircraft. In the same way, the A220-500 will never happen as there is the A320neo
.
737 Max 7 sales are also a joke thanks to A220-300 even under its former Bombardier C Series name
Plane Facts yes because the A220-300 (CS300) is the bigger version of a smaller plane. The bigger version of a smaller plane will always be more efficient than the smaller version of a bigger plane.
Doge Bomber I agree. I also think Airbus needs to cancel their A319neo and their A330-800 programs. Two shrinks that didn’t work
@@rmaviationtravel no doubt, shrinks has nv worked with aircraft. The a319neo was already a sunken cost for airbus, so no benefits to cancel it. They should just keep it running to capture the orders of airlines looking for fleet commonality instead of efficiency. Airbus only acquired the Cseries when the A319neo was about to start flight test and they had no idea they had acquired such good design.
For the A330-800, my take is that airbus took the wrong approach with it. They should have lowered the nominal thrust such that the range and payload was optimised for the 800 variant. That would have given the A330-800 fuel burn rate that is as good as the B787-8 or even better since its going to be a smaller engine. The A330-900 will in turn have better operating economics than the B787-9 for routes under 4000NM (since now the margins are almost the same). Only catch is that this will result in the A330-900 having a short range of just under 6000nm (vs the current 7000+nm).
I believe the only way to salvage the A330-800 is to get GE to offer the smaller, lower thrust engine option as an alternative to the Trent 7000 now.
767LR didn't become the 777, it became the 767-200ER
Yes, it did not become the Boeing seven seven seven.
everyone else: triple 7
simple flying (once again): SEVEN SEVEN SEVEN
Satria Kukuh Well in the UK and much of the Commonwealth (even Canada), it is very commonplace to hear a Boeing aircraft being called a ”seven seven seven” or ”seven four seven” etc and has been from the beginning of the Boeing lineup dating back to the1950s...Now in a previous video, he referred the L1011 as the L-1-0-11…unforgivable...😉 Though he correctly called it the Tristar, so all is forgiven 😊
Me: SEVEN SEVENTY-SEVEN
Now die mad about it
@@cameraman655 well we all can agree on that 😂
rest in peace 767-100 you had potential....
Very interesting video! Thanks for sharing! However, it must be noted that Boeing also produced the 767-300 and 767-400 series, each of which were larger than the 767-200. You didn't mention this in the video, so I just wanted to add this. :-)
Thanks for the info! - TB
This is a great video but there are some big errors that I believe he should of known. Like when he said that the 767 was the first aircraft to be etops certified when in fact that title goes to the A300 wich was etops certified in 1977 wayyyy before the 767. Also ik he is talking specifically about why the 100 wasn't built but since he's talking about the 767 line he should of also talk about the 300 and 400 models and explain why they were built and how successful they are( like in orders and deliveries).
But overall this was a great video! I just wish next time, he will double check what he says and when talking about a specific aircraft model, he also includes all types of that aircraft model.
Thanks for the feedback. We'll take it onboard for future. - TB
What gets me is airlines are now asking for smaller aircraft over larger ones, yet they always go for the bigger version of what ever aircraft the manufacturers are offering them!
1st: smaller versions are usually less fuel efficient
2nd: the 767-100 came too close to the 757-200, airlines wanting the capacity of the 761 should go with the 757
3rd: that was then when the manufacturers offered these aircraft, nowadays it’s a different scenario with the middle of the market being neglected
amazing content.
you need more subs for all that work
There was also a 757-100, which was supposed to have greater range, but no orders were there, and Boeing canceled it due to it being too 737-like.
Great video
Excellent video !
Glad you liked it! - TB
Sad 757-100 noises
I think the plane maker needs to revisit the 757 project
Nice video!
Thanks! - TB
amazing video simple flying, just one question, are you a part or associates with the channel simply aviation ?
got ur first like lol
They aren’t
As always, awesome Video!
bear17 Thanks Bear 17 - TB
Since 2022 is coming up in another 10-11 months I think Boeing should make certain special aircrafts in commemoration of 25 years of the merging of McDonnell Douglas with it by making The Boeing 737 Max 6 DC 10 Twinjet Combi based on DC 10 Twinjet undeveloped variant using Windshield design of the McDonnell Douglas DC 10 , Boeing 767 Super Max 500 SLR( Super Long Range) DC 10 Twinjet Stretch 340 based on DC 10 Twinjet Stretch undeveloped variant also with DC 10 Windshield design, Boeing 777 Mega Max 400 SER(Super Extended Range) MD 11 Twinjet based on undeveloped MD 11 Twinjet with the windshield of MD 11 design, Boeing 777 Mega Max 500/600 Long Extended Range/ Super Long Extended Range MD 20 / MD 20 Super Stretch based on the undeveloped MD 20/ MD 20 Super Stretch with MD 20/ MD 20 Super Stretch design windshield
Does the FedEx 767 look wobbly @0:45?
Can we get the range in km under the nm value too
Awesome, please do a video on the success of the 777 series
Buxton Andrew only If he says triple seven and not seven seven seven
David Molina hahaha 😂
What is this airlines when manufectures give you smaller models you say maybe but when it a bigger model you say yes but when it comes to the A380 and the 747-8 NOPE please tell me ai am getting confuse
There's bigger, and there's too big.
A 380 are very big, and you have to sell a majority of the seats if you want to operate them economically. Also the A 380-800 (the only version built) has the structure and the wings of a bigger, heavier, never developed - 900 version, so the wings are bigger than needed, which means also more weight and more drag.
380s work good on some routes between big hubs where the seats are mostly all sold, but this routes are limited. With smaller aircraft you can use 2 on a major route, and only one if the demand is lower, but this don't work economically with a big one like a 380, if only half the seats are sold it's a loss for the airline.
Simple flying: 767LR with 200 seats and 3 engines.
Me: Say what? Did he say 3 engines? Goes back to listen again.
Me: That's interesting, a 767 with 3 engines.
Now make a video about the 757 please
The a300 was the first one to have etops rule wasn't it ?
Yes you are right. In 1977 the A300 was the first aircraft to be compliant with ETOPS.
2:17 is this a model ?
Remember that the 757 was supposed to be the replacement for the 727-200, at roughly 150 seats, while the 767-200 was supposed to replace 707s.
Eastern Airlines talked Boeing into stretching the 757, so that it seated 180 to 190.
That forced Boeing to stretch the 737 into the -300 and -400 variants, to replace both versions of the 727.
Meanwhile, the 767 -200ER and -300ER sort of became Boeing's answer to the DC-10-30 and the L-1011-500. Smaller than the 747, but able to carry 190 to 230 passengers from New York or Chicago to London, Paris, or Frankfurt.
@col loc I was an American Airlines shareholder in the late 70s and early 80s. I remember in the annual report that the 767 was ordered to replace the 707, which was being retired. The 757 was ordered to work 727 routes. During the recession, AA canceled the 757 order and then famously took some MD-80s on the cheap.
The A300, frankly, was a competitor to the DC-10 and the L-1011. The A300 could fly into some airports that its competitors couldn't, like Chicago-Midway. But, it couldn't fly into LaGuardia, because its main gear weren't far enough apart to spread the weight.
By the same token, the 777 originally was bigger than the A330. The A330-300 was introduced, because the 777-200 did so well.
Remember that the A340 was supposed to be the big jet flying trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific, while the A330 was supposed to be a trans-continental jet (New York-LA or London-Athens). Airbus learned the hard way, along with McDonnell Douglas with the MD-11, that no one wanted more than 2 engines, no matter how far the plane flies.
The 767 LR version with 200 seats and ... 3 engines ? Did I hear that correct ? A 767 with 3 engines lol 0:20. Didn't know that was a planed idea , kinda cool to think about
The 777 was also originally planned to have 3 engines
@@PlanesAndGames732 yea I know that
Tri jets are not cool, twins are the future
@@richarddastardly6845 just because something is cool doesn't mean that it's best . Tri jets are cool but there is no chance of any more being made , twin jets are obviously more fuel efficient and cheeper to operate . Tri jets are cool but that doesn't mean that I said they are the future , I didn't say anything about them being the future , your comment is just stupid
h-44 -39 - My comment is not stupid it’s just my opinion
I'm thinking Boeing NSA/NMA merge and cover 738~753 range. since 737 and 738 are no longer in need.
737* 757*
737*
Therapist: 777-100 can hurt you it does not exist
777-100
78th april 30 2020 5:10pm.philippine time.listening from.pasay city.thank u for your very informative.video.corona virus update 3.2 million.people infected with 227,847 dead.
Mmh maybe you could talk about the 6R-71 blackbird
How about 787-3
ruclips.net/video/evh9tbFhKTA/видео.html - TB
@@SimpleFlyingNews just watched it😁
777-100 also never existed
Simple flying in two years: the 777x, the plane that never was
Yoav Hofstein What do you mean? The 777X will definitely happen
@@rmaviationtravel check out this video
ruclips.net/video/TT506F7RBeo/видео.html
@@yoavhofstein3658 I've watched that video. I know the 777X is delayed. But its definitely going to happen. There is demand for that aircraft, Boeing has dumped billions, even if 1 or 2 years delayed it will still happen.
@@rmaviationtravel I just don't think that this is what the market need. The a350, 777-300 er, 787 and a330 neo are doing a fine job. The folding wing is expensive to maintain, expensive to develop, and more importantly, the A350 is cheaper and already exists. While the folding wing tip has some advantages, it's one more option to delay the aircraft (what if the wing doesn't fold on the runway?), require additional training for pilot who transforming from a regular 777 (what to do if the wing tip fold mid flight), and will cause major delays at airports ( it takes about 30 seconds to open the wing tips)
@@yoavhofstein3658 The 777X is what the market needs. It might not be today, but in 5 years, when air travel is back to normal, we need something to replace the 747-400s, 747-8s, A380's, and the older 777-300ERs. The 777-9 is a dual engine quad jet replacement. The A350 is a good aircraft, but its not big enough. The A350-1000 fits 50-75 less passengers, and is nowhere near the level to compete as a true A380 replacement. Even the 777X isn't, but its the closest we have. Look at all the airlines ordering the 777X. Mostly for A380/747 replacements. And as time passes, and the 777-300ER's get old, more airlines, espcially the North American once will continue to order them.
I'm the 100th comment!