This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The 767 and 757 have identical Accident Summaries. It looks like somebody copied and pasted without changing the numbers.
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)
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)
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.
how about a reference link?
Why there is no information about the weight of the aircraft?-- Pokipsy76 13:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Thanks guys! Looking better. I think the "first hook-up" info should probably be moved too. - BillCJ 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
In the current version of this article, there's a picture of an Ansett 767 with the caption that the 767 is being scrapped even as new ones are built. Ansett 767 had a cockpit crew of 3, not 2. Most airlines probably don't want this kind of 767.
Looking for source. It's possible that they converted those planes to 2 men crew but I'm not sure Archtrain 17:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Unlike most Ansett 767s which were delivered new and operated with a flight engineer, Ship 184 (N807AN/VH-RMO/G-BNCW) was second-hand ex-Britannia Airways machine with a two-man cockpit. MilborneOne 19:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There is currently very little in this article about the competition against the 767 by the Airbus A330. My understanding is that A330 competition has resulted in significant downward sales of 767 passenger aircraft, and was the main impetus for Boeing to start the 787 project. Anyone disagree? Shouldn't this be added to the article? Regards, Lester 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
"It is possible to squeeze an extra seat for a 2+4+2 configuration, as done by Skymark Airlines"
yeah it is. I flew with thomson last week from london to bulgaria and it was like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 ( talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep! Many charter airlines, especially in the UK, do this. I flew Thomson on a 767 last week and it's 2-4-2. 82.31.219.109 ( talk) 01:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This article has only one picture of the 767-400ER, and it's an interior pic. Anyone wanna include some exterior pics of the 764? -- Pilotboi / talk / contribs 16:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
One of the pictures is an interior shot, notable for its example of the Boeing Signature Interior. I modified the description to note this, since earlier in the article the BSI was mentioned but no example shown. Steuben ( talk) 13:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The lead, development sections have been expanded, and the variants sections organized. Hopefully this article can be improved further! Regards SynergyStar ( talk) 05:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
On 7 May 2009, SynergyStar added the following sentence to the lead of this article: "As of 2009, Delta Air Lines operates the largest 767 fleet of any airline." That sentence remained unchanged until 23 June 2009, when an IP editor expanded the sentence to read as follows: "American Airlines currently operates the largest 767-200 fleet of any airline. However, as of 2009, Delta Air Lines operates the largest 767 fleet, in general, of any airline." Under the misleading and disruptive edit summary of reverting the IP editor, BillCJ on 23 June 2009 deleted both sentences, in effect reverting both SynergyStar and the IP editor. On 24 June 2009, I restored SynergyStar's edit, only to be promptly reverted by BillCJ. When I again restored SynergyStar's edit, BillCJ again reverted me, which was his third reversion of this article in a 6-hour period. The warning I then placed on his discussion page can be found here, which he immediately deleted with the edit summary of, "Please stop being obnoxious". In context of his well-documented unconstructive behavior in the recent past, his actions are very troubling indeed. He is willing to edit war to exercise ownership of this article and ignore the wishes of three different editors in favor of his unilateral conception of how the lead of this article should read. Comments on what should be done next would be welcome. Thanks. ShondaLear ( talk) 08:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Refer to the immediately preceding section on this discussion page, where SynergyStar discussed his 7 May 2009 edits and which appear to have been agreed to by Fnlayson. That makes at least 4 editors in favor of those edits versus only 1 opposed. ShondaLear ( talk) 09:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I've switched the lead photo from the one I added a while back, it is still a Delta 767-300ER pic, in flight, but it faces the article text. Before, when the previous photo was added, the 747, 777 Boeing widebody articles had a right facing photo, but in those articles that has since been switched. With this change, the 707, 717, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 articles all have lead photos facing the article text. SynergyStar ( talk) 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Update: as the article gets further improvements towards possible future review, I'd like to propose changing the box image to the following: File:Delta Air Lines B767-332 N130DL.jpg; it is a similar photo, with the same airline, same takeoff configuration, and similar angle, but with higher resolution, sharper details, and fewer artifacts. It also shows the non-ER 767-300, which the article does not have a photo of at this time (the planform pic is a -300ER). This photo became available more recently. Regards, SynergyStar ( talk) 00:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed a sentence that compares the 767-400ER's sales to the A330-200, as it falsely misleads readers into believing that the 767-400ER was a failure, which we all know is not true as Boeing designed the aircraft primarily to suit the widebody trijet (L-1011 and DC-10) replacement needs of Delta and Continental, respectively. The 767-400ER in fact wasn't originally supposed to exist; Boeing strongly urged both airlines to order the 777-200ER to replace their widebody trijets, which both airlines snubbed due to the fact that it was too large for that need. Boeing then offered them a possible 777-100ER, which was again snubbed due to lack of efficiency vs. the 777-200ER. Thus, the 767-400ER was born. ANDROS1337 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Given the similarities between the Boeing 767 and 787, is there any plans to phase out the Boeing 767 after deliveries have begun of the 787. I don't know of any announcement, although it does seem likely that the 787 is the successor to the 767 given the similarities. If anyone knows of any confirmation or reliable sugestions that this is the case it should be reflected in the article. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 22:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Just flew home on an American Airlines B767-300 with retro-fitted winglets. The captain said it gave a 6% fuel improvement and that all AA's 767 fleet will be fitted with them. If anyone has good information about the winglets (and maybe a picture), it would be worth adding to the article. Mesdale ( talk) 10:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec3.pdf those listed are just plain wrong. 68.40.61.81 ( talk) 03:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the image in the description box should be changed to this:
Reason: Delta has changed its livery and is still a large 767 operator. Jhz94 18:21, 18 December 2010 (CET)
A livery change is no reason to change the lead image of an aircraft article. An image with new livery should be included in the Delta article though. -- Denniss ( talk) 19:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
If you look on the page for the A340, it says that the A342 directly competes with the B764ER. However, in the section of this article with information about the B764ER, it says the competition is directly with the A332. Perhaps this was a mistake and the direct competitor with the B764ER is the A342? I actually don't see any reason why they shouldn't be. The B764ER and the A342, despite have different fuel capacities, are similar in size and pax capacity. Thoughts? -- 98.250.92.159 ( talk) 19:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Airliners.net also says the B764ER directly competes with the A332. So, the A340 page is probably incorrect in saying that the A342 directly competes with the B764ER. But I guess it would be correct to say the A342 competes somewhat or "indirectly" with the B764ER. Like I said, they are similar in passenger capacity (though I think I was incorrect in saying that they are similar in size) despite the A342 having greater fuel than the B764ER. In addition, fuel efficiency for the two planes can be compared. -- 98.250.92.159 ( talk) 19:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Sp33dyphil started a peer review for this article. Check on the page and help make improvements suggested. Thanks for any help. - fnlayson ( talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems with all the recent edits, perhaps it is now time to check if this article meets A-class status. I wouldn't go to FA-class just yet, however. ANDROS1337 TALK 22:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The A-class review is at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Boeing 767. - Fnlayson ( talk) 19:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Greetings all, thanks to everyone's collaborative work, the article has been greatly improved from GA to A-class. Extensive copy-edits occurred during the A-Class review, as well as separately courtesy of the GOCE. Members of the GOCE have recommended taking the article to FAC, which I expect to do shortly. Looking at WP:WIAFA, I believe that the article as it stands has a good chance of meeting those high standards. The prose is of high quality, it is quite comprehensive, researched, neutral, and stable. It has a summary-style lead and body, good structure, consistent citations, and quality images. It is also reasonable in length. That being said, I believe that over the FAC review process, the following will likely occur, among others:
At present, there are two outstanding issues that I sought to address:
Thanks in advance for any suggestions or comments! Regards, SynergyStar ( talk) 01:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Update: the reference style has been aligned, and I have updated my comments accordingly; in my view no further action is required on the above issues at the moment. My latest examination sees the article in good, not perfect condition (note - variants section verb tense); FAC review input is needed to progress further. Hopefully contributor apathy will be overcome in the process (like the past A-class review). My comments here are mainly to anticipate, catalog, and/or pre-empt potential issues, but evaluators' opinions are a necessary arbiter. The forthcoming FAC review should be interesting. Thanks again to the top contributors and other editors who have helped!!! Best regards, SynergyStar ( talk) 19:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Per Dank's comments on the review page ( here), I would like to propose shortening the "see also" section. Specifically: remove 757, E-767, KC-46, KC-767, E-10 MC2A, A300/A310/A332, and the 767 operator list. Leave only portal and List of civil aircraft.
Here are some reasons, in addition to the MOS concerns I mentioned above:
Moreover, Airbus A330#See also has had a similar short "see also" section for months now. Hopefully by shortening the section to the minimum links, we can avoid making a mountain out of a molehill and preempt further trouble over this (IMO minor) list...pretty much everything is already duplicated in the article. To my fellow editors, thank you for your consideration of this proposal. Regards, SynergyStar ( talk) 05:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Good news, thanks to everyone's hard work, the article has attained FA status. Thanks again to everyone who contributed, including long-time and occasional editors, peer reviewers, copy-editors, and FA reviewers. By working together, responding to points raised by reviewers, we were able to bring the article up to top standards and overall produce a higher-quality result. SynergyStar ( talk) 01:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As you can see above, I added the stable version template. I did this because this article was just found to meet the Featured Article requirements, and should the quality ever fall for some reason (as unfortunately happens from time to time), this will hopefully preserve the hard work that has gone into this article thus far with an easy-to-access link. If you care to, you may read more about this new template in the template documentation, linked above. If for some reason you object to this template, feel free to discuss and remove it from this talk page. I just wanted to briefly explain what this is about! Note that it is a stable version, not a permanent version, and can be updated as necessary. Congratulations by the way on the featured article! Thanks, Falconus p t c 19:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The opening piece says that the B767 is fitted with a supercritical wing but I'm not absolutely sure this is right.
I remember at the time it went into service, Boeing engineers were saying that their wing (what I recall was a Boeing-modified NACA profile) was superior in some flight regimes to its nearest competitor, the A310. I seem to remember a quote along the lines of "We took the wing and beat them over the head with it" but I can't source it.
Of course, I could be wrong as it's about 30 years ago.
Anyone else got any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flanker235 ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
While I understand Boeing has removed pricing for the 767-200ER and 767-400ER, it doesn't necessarily mean Boeing can no longer build them, since the tooling still exists; both use the same tooling as other 767 variants, unlike the 757 which used different tooling from the 737NG and has since been destroyed.
Also, in the source provided, it says the 767-400ER was primarily an A330-200 competitor, and states that it failed to do so. That raises a red flag for me, since its primary mission was actually to suit the widebody trijet replacement needs for Delta and Continental to keep its two important customers exclusive Boeing customers, while competing with the A330-200 in the mass market was a secondary mission that was far less important to Boeing. The 767-400ER wasn't originally supposed to exist; Boeing initially urged DL and CO to order the 777-200ER to replace their widebody trijets, and both airlines said no due to it being too large for that role. Boeing then offered them a 777-100 proposal, which was again rejected due to its economics being poor. Finally Boeing gave them the 767-400ER.
I personally think the source provided is questionable at best, since it makes certain false claims. ANDROS1337 TALK 19:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Boeing 767/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
The Boeing 767 article has much less information than most of the other Boeing aircraft articles. The variants for the 767 do not have as much information (Specifically the 767-300 model) and there is not much history written about the 767. The intro only talks about what the 767 is intended to do and latest trends for the 767 market. Right now, I'm rating this as a Start-Class article. If these two issues are fixed, it could be a B-Class article. Starcity ai 22:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC) From its initial start-class state in October 2006, seen here, the Boeing 767 article underwent a reorganization and initial expansion in May 2009, resulting in this improved version. Further expansion and improvement resulted in its successful nomination as a good article in February 2011, with another subsequent major expansion as follows in August 2011. In each iteration the format and photos have been adjusted. SynergyStar ( talk) 03:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC) |
Last edited at 03:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The present article is already pretty well illustrated, but the following air-to-air photo just landed at Commons that may be worth a look. Perhaps as a replacement for the LAN 767 in the Operators section? Ariadacapo ( talk) 12:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
How about File:Boeing 767 over Mount Rainier, circa 1980s.jpg, which shows the prototype 767, N767BA? - Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Just a note on some new developments that might get incorporated into the article:
Regards, SynergyStar ( talk) 01:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I tried to alter the main page and it was purged in a few hours. In 2004 at the United Airlines ramp at IAD(Dulles Airport) tail skin wrinkles were observed. Myself and a captain discussed them. I might be a commercial pilot, I forget. I mentioned that every 767 on the flight line had wrinkles. Two were severe. The issued has not been resolved by Boeing correctly. No engineering analysis inclusive of the inferable frame distort has been conducted. If elevator failures are occurring it is likely due to captains using little if any rudder to fly. Aileron directional control requires aa downward nose down elevator movement. Turbulent air can cause a rather forceful control need. Why does the FAA allow skin distortion? 96.255.207.79 ( talk) 15:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Wrinkles on the underside of fuselage, and just ahead of the empennage, indicate a very heavy landing for any large airliner. More likely to happen with rear-mounted engines such as a 717, 727, or VC10, This is a discussion page, and users should be free to discuss these sorts of things. Perhaps the zealot controlling the article should go have a look for good refs himself. All too often zealots demand everyone else should supply refs, but they don't feel obliged to do it themselves. No mention is made in the article of cracks in part 1809B, the gusset supporting the inboard hinge of the inboard spoilers. Ansett discovered these cracks first. No mention is made of the public scandal and blame the Australian media labelled Ansett with for letting the crack happen. No mention is made that the 767 was the first of the fault tolerant designs. The 767 and 757 are sister ships and share much in the way of maintenance assets. The a/c is now at the end of its civilian life and the article needs to make it clear. It is now considered a 3rd world airliner. 220.240.225.135 ( talk) 11:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The 767 and 757 have identical Accident Summaries. It looks like somebody copied and pasted without changing the numbers.
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)
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)
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.
how about a reference link?
Why there is no information about the weight of the aircraft?-- Pokipsy76 13:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
Thanks guys! Looking better. I think the "first hook-up" info should probably be moved too. - BillCJ 23:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
In the current version of this article, there's a picture of an Ansett 767 with the caption that the 767 is being scrapped even as new ones are built. Ansett 767 had a cockpit crew of 3, not 2. Most airlines probably don't want this kind of 767.
Looking for source. It's possible that they converted those planes to 2 men crew but I'm not sure Archtrain 17:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Unlike most Ansett 767s which were delivered new and operated with a flight engineer, Ship 184 (N807AN/VH-RMO/G-BNCW) was second-hand ex-Britannia Airways machine with a two-man cockpit. MilborneOne 19:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
There is currently very little in this article about the competition against the 767 by the Airbus A330. My understanding is that A330 competition has resulted in significant downward sales of 767 passenger aircraft, and was the main impetus for Boeing to start the 787 project. Anyone disagree? Shouldn't this be added to the article? Regards, Lester 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
"It is possible to squeeze an extra seat for a 2+4+2 configuration, as done by Skymark Airlines"
yeah it is. I flew with thomson last week from london to bulgaria and it was like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 ( talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep! Many charter airlines, especially in the UK, do this. I flew Thomson on a 767 last week and it's 2-4-2. 82.31.219.109 ( talk) 01:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
This article has only one picture of the 767-400ER, and it's an interior pic. Anyone wanna include some exterior pics of the 764? -- Pilotboi / talk / contribs 16:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
One of the pictures is an interior shot, notable for its example of the Boeing Signature Interior. I modified the description to note this, since earlier in the article the BSI was mentioned but no example shown. Steuben ( talk) 13:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The lead, development sections have been expanded, and the variants sections organized. Hopefully this article can be improved further! Regards SynergyStar ( talk) 05:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
On 7 May 2009, SynergyStar added the following sentence to the lead of this article: "As of 2009, Delta Air Lines operates the largest 767 fleet of any airline." That sentence remained unchanged until 23 June 2009, when an IP editor expanded the sentence to read as follows: "American Airlines currently operates the largest 767-200 fleet of any airline. However, as of 2009, Delta Air Lines operates the largest 767 fleet, in general, of any airline." Under the misleading and disruptive edit summary of reverting the IP editor, BillCJ on 23 June 2009 deleted both sentences, in effect reverting both SynergyStar and the IP editor. On 24 June 2009, I restored SynergyStar's edit, only to be promptly reverted by BillCJ. When I again restored SynergyStar's edit, BillCJ again reverted me, which was his third reversion of this article in a 6-hour period. The warning I then placed on his discussion page can be found here, which he immediately deleted with the edit summary of, "Please stop being obnoxious". In context of his well-documented unconstructive behavior in the recent past, his actions are very troubling indeed. He is willing to edit war to exercise ownership of this article and ignore the wishes of three different editors in favor of his unilateral conception of how the lead of this article should read. Comments on what should be done next would be welcome. Thanks. ShondaLear ( talk) 08:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Refer to the immediately preceding section on this discussion page, where SynergyStar discussed his 7 May 2009 edits and which appear to have been agreed to by Fnlayson. That makes at least 4 editors in favor of those edits versus only 1 opposed. ShondaLear ( talk) 09:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi all, I've switched the lead photo from the one I added a while back, it is still a Delta 767-300ER pic, in flight, but it faces the article text. Before, when the previous photo was added, the 747, 777 Boeing widebody articles had a right facing photo, but in those articles that has since been switched. With this change, the 707, 717, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 articles all have lead photos facing the article text. SynergyStar ( talk) 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Update: as the article gets further improvements towards possible future review, I'd like to propose changing the box image to the following: File:Delta Air Lines B767-332 N130DL.jpg; it is a similar photo, with the same airline, same takeoff configuration, and similar angle, but with higher resolution, sharper details, and fewer artifacts. It also shows the non-ER 767-300, which the article does not have a photo of at this time (the planform pic is a -300ER). This photo became available more recently. Regards, SynergyStar ( talk) 00:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed a sentence that compares the 767-400ER's sales to the A330-200, as it falsely misleads readers into believing that the 767-400ER was a failure, which we all know is not true as Boeing designed the aircraft primarily to suit the widebody trijet (L-1011 and DC-10) replacement needs of Delta and Continental, respectively. The 767-400ER in fact wasn't originally supposed to exist; Boeing strongly urged both airlines to order the 777-200ER to replace their widebody trijets, which both airlines snubbed due to the fact that it was too large for that need. Boeing then offered them a possible 777-100ER, which was again snubbed due to lack of efficiency vs. the 777-200ER. Thus, the 767-400ER was born. ANDROS1337 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Given the similarities between the Boeing 767 and 787, is there any plans to phase out the Boeing 767 after deliveries have begun of the 787. I don't know of any announcement, although it does seem likely that the 787 is the successor to the 767 given the similarities. If anyone knows of any confirmation or reliable sugestions that this is the case it should be reflected in the article. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 22:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Just flew home on an American Airlines B767-300 with retro-fitted winglets. The captain said it gave a 6% fuel improvement and that all AA's 767 fleet will be fitted with them. If anyone has good information about the winglets (and maybe a picture), it would be worth adding to the article. Mesdale ( talk) 10:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec3.pdf those listed are just plain wrong. 68.40.61.81 ( talk) 03:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the image in the description box should be changed to this:
Reason: Delta has changed its livery and is still a large 767 operator. Jhz94 18:21, 18 December 2010 (CET)
A livery change is no reason to change the lead image of an aircraft article. An image with new livery should be included in the Delta article though. -- Denniss ( talk) 19:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
If you look on the page for the A340, it says that the A342 directly competes with the B764ER. However, in the section of this article with information about the B764ER, it says the competition is directly with the A332. Perhaps this was a mistake and the direct competitor with the B764ER is the A342? I actually don't see any reason why they shouldn't be. The B764ER and the A342, despite have different fuel capacities, are similar in size and pax capacity. Thoughts? -- 98.250.92.159 ( talk) 19:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Airliners.net also says the B764ER directly competes with the A332. So, the A340 page is probably incorrect in saying that the A342 directly competes with the B764ER. But I guess it would be correct to say the A342 competes somewhat or "indirectly" with the B764ER. Like I said, they are similar in passenger capacity (though I think I was incorrect in saying that they are similar in size) despite the A342 having greater fuel than the B764ER. In addition, fuel efficiency for the two planes can be compared. -- 98.250.92.159 ( talk) 19:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Sp33dyphil started a peer review for this article. Check on the page and help make improvements suggested. Thanks for any help. - fnlayson ( talk) 17:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems with all the recent edits, perhaps it is now time to check if this article meets A-class status. I wouldn't go to FA-class just yet, however. ANDROS1337 TALK 22:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The A-class review is at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Boeing 767. - Fnlayson ( talk) 19:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Greetings all, thanks to everyone's collaborative work, the article has been greatly improved from GA to A-class. Extensive copy-edits occurred during the A-Class review, as well as separately courtesy of the GOCE. Members of the GOCE have recommended taking the article to FAC, which I expect to do shortly. Looking at WP:WIAFA, I believe that the article as it stands has a good chance of meeting those high standards. The prose is of high quality, it is quite comprehensive, researched, neutral, and stable. It has a summary-style lead and body, good structure, consistent citations, and quality images. It is also reasonable in length. That being said, I believe that over the FAC review process, the following will likely occur, among others:
At present, there are two outstanding issues that I sought to address:
Thanks in advance for any suggestions or comments! Regards, SynergyStar ( talk) 01:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Update: the reference style has been aligned, and I have updated my comments accordingly; in my view no further action is required on the above issues at the moment. My latest examination sees the article in good, not perfect condition (note - variants section verb tense); FAC review input is needed to progress further. Hopefully contributor apathy will be overcome in the process (like the past A-class review). My comments here are mainly to anticipate, catalog, and/or pre-empt potential issues, but evaluators' opinions are a necessary arbiter. The forthcoming FAC review should be interesting. Thanks again to the top contributors and other editors who have helped!!! Best regards, SynergyStar ( talk) 19:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Per Dank's comments on the review page ( here), I would like to propose shortening the "see also" section. Specifically: remove 757, E-767, KC-46, KC-767, E-10 MC2A, A300/A310/A332, and the 767 operator list. Leave only portal and List of civil aircraft.
Here are some reasons, in addition to the MOS concerns I mentioned above:
Moreover, Airbus A330#See also has had a similar short "see also" section for months now. Hopefully by shortening the section to the minimum links, we can avoid making a mountain out of a molehill and preempt further trouble over this (IMO minor) list...pretty much everything is already duplicated in the article. To my fellow editors, thank you for your consideration of this proposal. Regards, SynergyStar ( talk) 05:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Good news, thanks to everyone's hard work, the article has attained FA status. Thanks again to everyone who contributed, including long-time and occasional editors, peer reviewers, copy-editors, and FA reviewers. By working together, responding to points raised by reviewers, we were able to bring the article up to top standards and overall produce a higher-quality result. SynergyStar ( talk) 01:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As you can see above, I added the stable version template. I did this because this article was just found to meet the Featured Article requirements, and should the quality ever fall for some reason (as unfortunately happens from time to time), this will hopefully preserve the hard work that has gone into this article thus far with an easy-to-access link. If you care to, you may read more about this new template in the template documentation, linked above. If for some reason you object to this template, feel free to discuss and remove it from this talk page. I just wanted to briefly explain what this is about! Note that it is a stable version, not a permanent version, and can be updated as necessary. Congratulations by the way on the featured article! Thanks, Falconus p t c 19:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The opening piece says that the B767 is fitted with a supercritical wing but I'm not absolutely sure this is right.
I remember at the time it went into service, Boeing engineers were saying that their wing (what I recall was a Boeing-modified NACA profile) was superior in some flight regimes to its nearest competitor, the A310. I seem to remember a quote along the lines of "We took the wing and beat them over the head with it" but I can't source it.
Of course, I could be wrong as it's about 30 years ago.
Anyone else got any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flanker235 ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
While I understand Boeing has removed pricing for the 767-200ER and 767-400ER, it doesn't necessarily mean Boeing can no longer build them, since the tooling still exists; both use the same tooling as other 767 variants, unlike the 757 which used different tooling from the 737NG and has since been destroyed.
Also, in the source provided, it says the 767-400ER was primarily an A330-200 competitor, and states that it failed to do so. That raises a red flag for me, since its primary mission was actually to suit the widebody trijet replacement needs for Delta and Continental to keep its two important customers exclusive Boeing customers, while competing with the A330-200 in the mass market was a secondary mission that was far less important to Boeing. The 767-400ER wasn't originally supposed to exist; Boeing initially urged DL and CO to order the 777-200ER to replace their widebody trijets, and both airlines said no due to it being too large for that role. Boeing then offered them a 777-100 proposal, which was again rejected due to its economics being poor. Finally Boeing gave them the 767-400ER.
I personally think the source provided is questionable at best, since it makes certain false claims. ANDROS1337 TALK 19:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Boeing 767/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
The Boeing 767 article has much less information than most of the other Boeing aircraft articles. The variants for the 767 do not have as much information (Specifically the 767-300 model) and there is not much history written about the 767. The intro only talks about what the 767 is intended to do and latest trends for the 767 market. Right now, I'm rating this as a Start-Class article. If these two issues are fixed, it could be a B-Class article. Starcity ai 22:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC) From its initial start-class state in October 2006, seen here, the Boeing 767 article underwent a reorganization and initial expansion in May 2009, resulting in this improved version. Further expansion and improvement resulted in its successful nomination as a good article in February 2011, with another subsequent major expansion as follows in August 2011. In each iteration the format and photos have been adjusted. SynergyStar ( talk) 03:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC) |
Last edited at 03:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The present article is already pretty well illustrated, but the following air-to-air photo just landed at Commons that may be worth a look. Perhaps as a replacement for the LAN 767 in the Operators section? Ariadacapo ( talk) 12:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
How about File:Boeing 767 over Mount Rainier, circa 1980s.jpg, which shows the prototype 767, N767BA? - Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Just a note on some new developments that might get incorporated into the article:
Regards, SynergyStar ( talk) 01:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I tried to alter the main page and it was purged in a few hours. In 2004 at the United Airlines ramp at IAD(Dulles Airport) tail skin wrinkles were observed. Myself and a captain discussed them. I might be a commercial pilot, I forget. I mentioned that every 767 on the flight line had wrinkles. Two were severe. The issued has not been resolved by Boeing correctly. No engineering analysis inclusive of the inferable frame distort has been conducted. If elevator failures are occurring it is likely due to captains using little if any rudder to fly. Aileron directional control requires aa downward nose down elevator movement. Turbulent air can cause a rather forceful control need. Why does the FAA allow skin distortion? 96.255.207.79 ( talk) 15:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Wrinkles on the underside of fuselage, and just ahead of the empennage, indicate a very heavy landing for any large airliner. More likely to happen with rear-mounted engines such as a 717, 727, or VC10, This is a discussion page, and users should be free to discuss these sorts of things. Perhaps the zealot controlling the article should go have a look for good refs himself. All too often zealots demand everyone else should supply refs, but they don't feel obliged to do it themselves. No mention is made in the article of cracks in part 1809B, the gusset supporting the inboard hinge of the inboard spoilers. Ansett discovered these cracks first. No mention is made of the public scandal and blame the Australian media labelled Ansett with for letting the crack happen. No mention is made that the 767 was the first of the fault tolerant designs. The 767 and 757 are sister ships and share much in the way of maintenance assets. The a/c is now at the end of its civilian life and the article needs to make it clear. It is now considered a 3rd world airliner. 220.240.225.135 ( talk) 11:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)