757 versus 767
In the last few months Ive been training on both the Boeing 767 and the Boeing 757, and its an interesting exercise. Many years ago if you were an airline pilot you generally flew only one type of aircraft, say a 747 or a TriStar or a DC10. Then companies like Boeing and Airbus started to pitch common type training at the airlines. It goes like this... instead of having one bunch of pilots for the long range fleet and one bunch of pilots for the short range fleet, why not make the two planes similar enough that the same pilots could swap back and forth? Hence the 767/757 where one pilot can legally fly either aircraft type because they have so much in common.
Except they dont. Sure, the systems are pretty close as is the cockpit layout, but there are enough differences to make you think. First, what they have in common:
The cockpit is covered in walrus vomit brown plastic and brown paint. All I can think is Boeing got a great deal on this shade and it helps keep the pilots awake because waking up with this in your face could cause a heart attack. Stowage for documents in any aircraft is never enough but in Boeings its awkward. The fully electronic seats are ok (but I much preferred the old manual Fokker seats), the controls are nicely sized (european aircraft seem to have smaller dials, smaller knobs and levers) and the aircon is brilliant. We had aircon systems on our Fokkers that used to get contaminated to the point where nothing worthwhile came through. On the Boeings you could chill beef with the things.
The differences? Boeings can come with any of three different engines, and memorising the different operating limitations is like memorising a small address book. The 767 handles like an apartment block off autopilot, at least in the early days, but the 757 handle very nicely indeed, not unlike a Fokker. All thats missing is a gunsight and a couple of cannons. In turbulence the 757 is pure misery... it has a nice long wing and a long thin body and sitting at the extreme nose you get bounced around. The 767 feels far more solid in turbulence.
The big difference though is on takeoff and landing. I hate the 767 because Im a ham fisted pilot and this plane has pitch and bank tolerances that need a lot of respect. What that means is the body is so long and low that when you pull the nose up on takeoff the tail comes within 24 inches of the ground. Have only one engine working during rotation and it can come within 12 inches. Mess up your speeds and it gets even worse. The 757 on the other hand has much better clearance with nice long legs and a high body. After years of flying planes with engines mounted on the body I am now flying planes with engines slung under the wings. Thats a bit of a stressor because it means the engines are now close to the ground and a bad crosswind landing can mean a 'pod strike'. which means hitting the runway with the engine pod.
Planes really do have personalities. So next time you're at the airport and you see a 767 take off, watch how close the tail skid (theres a retractable one to protect the body) comes to the runway at liftoff. 24 inches for a plane weighing 185 tonnes doing maybe 160 knots is something worth watching.
K
