Feb 192011
 

A Boeing design from 1973, the 767-642C was meant to represent an advanced “Terminal Area Compatible” jetliner.  Capable of cruising at Mach 0.90 with a range of 3000 nautical miles, the 767-642C was to carry a payload of 40,000 pounds. Four 23,200 pound thrust turbofans were fitted, the outboar pair being *very* far outboard, almost to the wingtips.

This was a followon program to earlier studies of advanced technology transports that used substantial area ruling in order to cruise efficiently at a higher Mach number (well within the transonic, though not supersonic). See HERE and HERE for more on these. While higher cruise speeds would shorten the trip time, they would not help much if the concessions to high speed meant that the plane spent more time in the area of the terminal due to taking longer to load and unload, as well as flight restrictions due to noise and flightpath. So the new designs were designed not with maximum flight speed, but with maximum efficiency near the airport. Quieter engines meant they could fly lower and on better flightpaths; more conventional fuselages meant easier and faster loading and unloading.

Now, if only they could design a plane to make the security checks only take a few seconds, rather than a few hours…

 Posted by at 7:52 pm

  4 Responses to “Boeing 767-642C”

  1. I flew out of O’Hare in November, during the furor over the new scanners, and honestly, the security delay was less than an hour. We were told to arrive two hours early, so we did, and the biggest delays were 1) nobody at the counter to check our bag, we were so early, and 2) having to wait in line for the morning TSA shift to arrive. Once they got on duty, the screening was very rapid. I have never been delayed hours by security screening.

  2. No groping either?

  3. No groping, no scanning, hardly even paying attention. Most of TSA staff still half asleep.

  4. I’ve heard of a similar design dating from around the same period where the inner engines are tail mounted, did you find the plans for that?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.