Wikiposts
Search
The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Qantas 767s

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 28th Nov 2008, 02:18
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Qantas 767s

Is it true the 767s in the QF fleet are the most over-powered of all the QF fleet? How high do you usually get in a 767 on a flight from say CNS-SYD or SYD-PER? Which engine variants are the best to fly in terms of performance? The GEs or RRs? How light would a 767 have to be to fly at FL430? Are they flown at that height often? Anyone have any pics to post of the 767 up at FL430?
QF411 is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 03:47
  #2 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,583
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
fish

Is it true the 767s in the QF fleet are the most over-powered of all the QF fleet?
Probably. The A330 is supposed to be a bit of a dog in the climb and the 767 would have more thrust to weight than any of the four holers. Not sure about how it'd go against the 737s.

How high do you usually get in a 767 on a flight from say CNS-SYD or SYD-PER?
It depends on many things including aircraft weight and the winds you're dealing with and whether you're trying to make up time, etc. CNS- SYD would probably be normally high 30s, perhaps 40 if you were light. Today I flew SYD-MEL at FL 230 due turbulence at all other levels.

Which engine variants are the best to fly in terms of performance?
GE, without a doubt. Lighter, less fuel burn, less oil burn on domestic ops (but the Rollers a're much better on the oil burn on long flights)

How light would a 767 have to be to fly at FL430?
Pretty light. I haven't looked at the specific numbers for a while to give you a weight.

Are they flown at that height often?
No. I reckon I've only seen it a half dozen times in my nine years on the aeroplane.

Anyone have any pics to post of the 767 up at FL430?
I'll see what I can do tomorrow on the way back home from PER!
Keg is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 03:53
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 33
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
alphawhiskeytango is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 03:58
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Keg

Interested to know why the RR's are better on oil consumption over a long leg.

Is it a difference in oil usage during the climb or descent that makes this the case?

And is it true the old ex BA Roller powered units are the "most tired" in the fleet? Seems to be the case!

J

PS Nice pic there AWT.....FL430 it is, that will make the young fella happy no doubt. Must be a delivery or test flight.... the cockpit looks way to new to be anything in QF hands!
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 04:07
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Atleast the cockpit looks like it gets a clean every now and then. Lucky boys.

Same cant said for all QF group aircraft
waren9 is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 04:37
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you look closer it is VH-OGM
Critical Reynolds No is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 04:39
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: MEL
Posts: 192
Received 12 Likes on 6 Posts
Yes Keg some photos would be great!
Track5milefinal is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 04:53
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Up left - Down right
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Could be a bit of baro correction fed in there?
Short_Circuit is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 06:11
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East side of OZ
Posts: 624
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The GE engined B767s are the hotter of the two types, as Keg says more grunt, burn less fuel and are a lighter engine than the RR donk.

Out of CHC a couple of nights ago doing night freight to SYD, can't seem to get away from it, AUW around 119t and using full bore, because of concerns re possible windshear, and the thing leapt off the runway. Rotated to around 25deg ANU and pinned the VSI on the stops (6000fpm) until about F250. Reached TOPC, F380 12 minutes after liftoff. The F/O, an ex RAF Tornado driver, said the performance was similar. Not bad for an airliner!

Regards,
BH.
Bullethead is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 06:59
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Can anyone tell me the engines in the:

ZW_'s

OZ_'s

EA_'s

Ta.
Well the ZX's = Rollers
The OG's = GE's
EA's seem to be mostly pistons....
Ta.= mostly pistons.....RV's Pipers etc...

Now ya cant go sticking one of them GE things in your Dash10 either!

J
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 07:30
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The EAs were Pratt powered 200ERs.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 09:19
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 247
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Out of Manila the other night went straight to FL350 at just below MTOW, around 170T. Though wouldnt be able to do that in a 180T certified 767.
engine out is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 12:12
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,559
Received 76 Likes on 44 Posts
Wot are all those round dials with needles in the middle of them?

Are they the timers for the ovens?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 12:30
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 日本
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
the cockpit looks way to new to be anything in QF hands!
Until you look at the centre hydraulic demand pump

Now, if they could make them look that clean and fresh down the back I'd be a happy bear. 1970s seats and a projector (even in Business) in this day and age makes the QF fleet a joke as far as pax are concerned. Love the aircraft, quite happy with the cabin crew etc, just QF need to spend some money on the bit that pays the bills......or put an A330 on my regular run with the decent IFE
Fratemate is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 15:04
  #15 (permalink)  

Victor B1a
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fremantle, Western Australia
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs up Rate of Climb.

Bullit Driver,
Your Co-Jo clearly didn't get to play with the Lightning. This machhine could climb.
Make a Tornado look like a blunt instrument old chap.
Victor B1a
dmussen is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2008, 20:51
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,254
Received 195 Likes on 90 Posts
Why is there a replica Toyota badge in front of the pilot? Surely that blocks the view of the lower screen?
Lookleft is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 00:40
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East side of OZ
Posts: 624
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Victor B1a

"Your Co-Jo clearly didn't get to play with the Lightning. This machhine could climb."

Right you are on both counts, he did however tell me he knew a couple of Lightning drivers and their log books were full of entries of around ten minutes and that included a high, mid fifties, intercept and return.

Regards,
BH.
Bullethead is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2008, 10:41
  #18 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,583
Received 11 Likes on 2 Posts
fish

Higher residual thrust on the Pratt engines. In essence you were descending with 'more' thrust on than in the RR or GEs. It wasn't a slow descent either- at least not in the early part of the descent. We had 320 knot descents as standard on the 200s to try and come close to the 'normal' profile of the GEs. The Pratts were slippery though and perhaps this is what you meant by 'slow'. We used to slow up slightly earlier in the 200s than the 300s due to that higher thrust and whereas 250/5000'/20 miiles would work for a 300 you needed an extra couple of miles for the same weight in the 200.

That said. We could push the 200s a truck load harder back in those days than we can push the 300s now with our company requirements.

I couldn't manage photos today....much too heavy which means we had a good load on which means we were making money which means we're still good for a job for a bit longer.
Keg is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2008, 00:57
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: E116
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Love to see the 757 put the 767 then the rest of the fleet to shame!
BrazDriver is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.