The official aviation quiz topic!

realplaneshaveprops · Post by **realplaneshaveprops** » 10 Dec 2005, 12:48

In the first, Boeing planned two versions: the model 767-100 with a shorter trunk, in which about 180 passengers could take place, and the initially described model 767-200. Then the Boeing engineers decided to do the production completely without the manufacturing of the 767-100 and to permit instead of its the 767-200 for different operating masses

Koen

SN_Bigbirdy · Post by **SN_Bigbirdy** » 10 Dec 2005, 12:51

Original designs for a 180 seat 767-100 were abandoned after no airlines showed interest. American Airlines, however, was interested in the larger 200 seat 767-200 and launched the aircraft with an order of 30 in 1978.

realplaneshaveprops · Post by **realplaneshaveprops** » 10 Dec 2005, 12:56

Sn_Birdy, I think your answer is better then mine!

What was your source?

Mine: http://www.flybernhard.de/ueb_eng.htm?h ... b767_e.htm

Let's wait for Fokker_f27!

Koen

SN_Bigbirdy · Post by **SN_Bigbirdy** » 10 Dec 2005, 13:07

I googled "767-100" and I found it on http://www.super70s.com/Awesome80s/Tech ... ft/767.asp
(3th paragraph)

But, indeed, we have to wait the verdict of fokker_f27:)

fokker_f27 · Post by **fokker_f27** » 10 Dec 2005, 14:39

Well, almost all projects are cancelled after no airlines showed intrest.

HINT: Hmmm, so what was wrong with the disign?
The capacity was ...

Look on airliners.net

realplaneshaveprops · Post by **realplaneshaveprops** » 10 Dec 2005, 14:54

The carriers found it was to small in capacity (180 seats), they were only interested in an aircraft with more capacity

767-100 --> 180 seats
767-200 --> 200 seats

Koen

fokker_f27 · Post by **fokker_f27** » 10 Dec 2005, 14:58

airliners.net

Initially Boeing intended to offer two versions, the longer 767-200 and short fuselage 767100 (which was not launched as it was too close in capacity to the 757)

Your turn again, realplaneshaveprops.

realplaneshaveprops · Post by **realplaneshaveprops** » 10 Dec 2005, 15:06

Does somebody knows the name of the intersection for engine run-up in Brussels? This intersection is used for engine testing after maintenance.

Koen

SN_Bigbirdy · Post by **SN_Bigbirdy** » 10 Dec 2005, 15:49

Holding Bay P7 ?

realplaneshaveprops · Post by **realplaneshaveprops** » 10 Dec 2005, 17:04

It's named after the 2 taxiways of that intersection

Koen

MD-11 · Post by **MD-11** » 10 Dec 2005, 20:34

the crossing of taxiways F3, Y, W1 and W2

SN_Bigbirdy · Post by **SN_Bigbirdy** » 11 Dec 2005, 12:23

:dammit: If that is the correct answer I will be very very very frustrated

you found it at boeing.com isn't it?

I thought that wasn't a name but only an indication and therefor I took the name in the next paragraph "Holding Bay P7"
but hey, next time I will conquer 8)

:cool2:

realplaneshaveprops · Post by **realplaneshaveprops** » 11 Dec 2005, 13:51

SN_BigBirdy, can you give me the link to the page were you found the name Holding Bay P7?

Koen

realplaneshaveprops · Post by **realplaneshaveprops** » 11 Dec 2005, 14:02

1.1.2 Engine Test Runs

Engine test runs in open air and without silencers may only take place:

- on the area situated at the crossing of TWYs F3, Y, W1 and W2
- on holding bay P7 (only in case of unavailability of the crossings or TWYs F3, Y, W1 and W2.

The normal engine run-up area is the crossing of TWY F3/W/Y. It's called F/W (Fox Wiskey) on the radio.

Holding Bay P7 can only be used if F/W is unavailable. It's the holding point of runway 02!

Koen

SN_Bigbirdy · Post by **SN_Bigbirdy** » 11 Dec 2005, 14:49

I found the spare site @ http://www.boeing.com/commercial/noise/brussels.html

do you have a source where we can find the 'Fox Whiskey'-name?

Simon

realplaneshaveprops · Post by **realplaneshaveprops** » 11 Dec 2005, 14:59

No, I don't have a source on the internet, I just know that name.

But you were the first to find an answer, so you're next

Koen

SN_Bigbirdy · Post by **SN_Bigbirdy** » 11 Dec 2005, 15:39

There is a rule that allows twin-engined airliners to fly long distance routes (especially over water, desert or remote polar areas) that were previously off-limits to twin-engined aircraft.
I like to know of you guys
- the acronym and the fullname that the ICAO uses for that rule

Simon

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 11 Dec 2005, 16:05

ETOPS - Extended Twin OPerationS

SN_Bigbirdy · Post by **SN_Bigbirdy** » 11 Dec 2005, 16:52

ETOPS is correct but "Extended Twin OPerationS" is not correct

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 11 Dec 2005, 17:12

Extended range twin engine operations

i always tend to use the other one it's shorter :p

Chris