Several US carriers that took delivery of the early-model 767-200A, eventually converted them to a bastardized version of the 767-200ER for use on oceanic flights. UA, AA, and TW all did post-delivery conversions. I believe Air Canada did, as well.... and I'm sure several other carriers.

My question is: what all was modified, and what weights were they certified up to?? The original 767-200's were certified up to a maximum weight of 315.0 - whereas late-delivery 767-200ER's could get as heavy as 395.0

The 767-200 series was never certified for winglets. The customer base was so small that it did not justify the development costs. 395K was the heaviest the -200ER was certified. 241,000 USG compared to 16,700 for the base models. Not all ERs had the big center tank, so you could see smaller fuel capacity numbers. The HGW models needed fuel dump which again was not seen on the lower MGW versions. Some enhancements to the electrical systems were a part of the ER package.

The final 767-200ERs had exceptional range and one time were only 2nd to he 747 for going the distance. Pre 777 era.

BravoOne wrote:

The 767-200 series was never certified for winglets. The customer base was so small that it did not justify the development costs. 395K was the heaviest the -200ER was certified. 241,000 USG compared to 16,700 for the base models. Not all ERs had the big center tank, so you could see smaller fuel capacity numbers. The HGW models needed fuel dump which again was not seen on the lower MGW versions. Some enhancements to the electrical systems were a part of the ER package.

The final 767-200ERs had exceptional range and one time were only 2nd to he 747 for going the distance. Pre 777 era.

Sorry but I fat fingered that fuel load for the ER. Should read 24,100, not 241000.

The later GE and PW engines were also a part of the higher gross weight models. Lots of early 767-200ERs were JT9D equipped along with an equivalent GE power plant.

Transpac787 wrote:

UA, AA, and TW all did post-delivery conversions. I believe Air Canada did, as well.... and I'm sure several other carriers.

Air Canada's first order for 767s was for 12 aircraft. At the time, ETOPS wasn't even a consideration. They were to replace domestic DC-8-61s flying domestic routes. However, between the time when the order was made and deliveries started, the world's thoughts about twin engine flying changed.

The first 6 aircraft, 601-606 were too far in construction to be changed and could never be ER aircraft. (and never were). 607 and later were built and delivered as domestic aircraft, but had the capability pre-built during construction and eventually were converted. The aircraft from PWA, 671 and 672 as well were never intended nor flown as ETOPS aircraft.

I am curious though. What would have been missing on the earlier aircraft that could never have been added to make them ERs?

Things like slide/rafts, HF radios, improved cargo fire detection/suppression can all be added later. While the aircraft were lighter, even to do shorter ER flights like the UK and Caribbean flying was not possible with these aircraft. (Although they occassionally did Caribbean flying taking the "long way" around WATRS). Any old Boeing guys around here recall what the issue was?

BravoOne wrote:

The 767-200 series was never certified for winglets. The customer base was so small that it did not justify the development costs. 395K was the heaviest the -200ER was certified. 241,000 USG compared to 16,700 for the base models. Not all ERs had the big center tank, so you could see smaller fuel capacity numbers. The HGW models needed fuel dump which again was not seen on the lower MGW versions. Some enhancements to the electrical systems were a part of the ER package.

The final 767-200ERs had exceptional range and one time were only 2nd to he 747 for going the distance. Pre 777 era.

I flew the 767-224 at Continental, these
were the last civilian-200 models that
Boeing built


In fact they had not made any for years
and re-opened the production line
for Cal’s order


These were the 395K version with the
most powerful GE engine available and
had really impressive performance


They made our 757’s look underpowered
amazing climb rate and handled beautifully


We never pushed the range capabilities
though


There was a plan to put them on
EWR-NRT but they would have required
a dedicated crew rest area which was never installed


Would have taken up too much room
in a cabin that was already short on seats


Should have bought the -300 I think but
it was useful on long, thin routes


All retired now, which seemed premature

longhauler wrote:

I am curious though. What would have been missing on the earlier aircraft that could never have been added to make them ERs?

My memory is a bit fuzzy, been almost 30 years since I worked on an early -200, but I don't think they had an Hydraulic Motor Generator (HMG) installed. While, I'm not sure that would be a show-stopper for modification, it would be a significant change to the electrical architecture of the aircraft. Of course, the hydraulics would need some modification also, but I'm thinking that would be easier.

Equipment cooling may have needed redesign...I seem to recall a much simpler system, with less headache on the early jets.

Passed that, I'm not sure...too far in the past.

fr8mech wrote:

longhauler wrote:

I am curious though. What would have been missing on the earlier aircraft that could never have been added to make them ERs?

My memory is a bit fuzzy, been almost 30 years since I worked on an early -200, but I don't think they had an Hydraulic Motor Generator (HMG) installed. While, I'm not sure that would be a show-stopper for modification, it would be a significant change to the electrical architecture of the aircraft. Of course, the hydraulics would need some modification also, but I'm thinking that would be easier.

Equipment cooling may have needed redesign...I seem to recall a much simpler system, with less headache on the early jets.

Passed that, I'm not sure...too far in the past.

I was also going to reply HMG, then saw your reply. My understanding is that if a 767 doesn’t at least have provisions for it, it simply isn’t feasible to retrofit.

At one time, the HF system was optional on the 767 also, but it’s been baseline for around 20 years now.

You can find a list of max. taxi weights for the 767 engine- airframe combinations at the Boeing 767 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning

See PDF file page 10 out of 272 : http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ps/767.pdf

Found this older thread about this subject : viewtopic.php?t=755673

BoeingGuy wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

longhauler wrote:

I am curious though. What would have been missing on the earlier aircraft that could never have been added to make them ERs?

My memory is a bit fuzzy, been almost 30 years since I worked on an early -200, but I don't think they had an Hydraulic Motor Generator (HMG) installed. While, I'm not sure that would be a show-stopper for modification, it would be a significant change to the electrical architecture of the aircraft. Of course, the hydraulics would need some modification also, but I'm thinking that would be easier.

Equipment cooling may have needed redesign...I seem to recall a much simpler system, with less headache on the early jets.

Passed that, I'm not sure...too far in the past.

I was also going to reply HMG, then saw your reply. My understanding is that if a 767 doesn’t at least have provisions for it, it simply isn’t feasible to retrofit.

At one time, the HF system was optional on the 767 also, but it’s been baseline for around 20 years now.

Thanks for your comments Gentlemen ... I had always wondered.

I have always thought the -200 to be the best looking of the bunch. The short fuselage seems to make the long wings and tall tail even better. But ... I had to acknowledge, with only 169 passengers in an F/J/Y configuration, they just weren't feasible in our fleet any more.

Two days ago though, I saw two ... count 'em ... two -200s in YVR!

I got involved in project where a potential owner wanted to purchase a -200ER and fly it from JFK to HKG, non stop, Easliy done if aux tanks were installed and we pushed hard to get Aero Partners to do winglets for us. Actually had a purchase agreement between ourselves and the Russian outfit who bought several from UAL/CAL but in the end the stars simple did not align and the guy went small, and bought a G650. It was very interesting running various combinations of flight plans using "what ifs" to test the capability of the airplane. Keep in mind that this was to be a corporate airplane, not a pax version.

There is at least one 767-200ER that is tanked and has 22 hours range. It was N registered but based in the ME.

longhauler wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

fr8mech wrote:

My memory is a bit fuzzy, been almost 30 years since I worked on an early -200, but I don't think they had an Hydraulic Motor Generator (HMG) installed. While, I'm not sure that would be a show-stopper for modification, it would be a significant change to the electrical architecture of the aircraft. Of course, the hydraulics would need some modification also, but I'm thinking that would be easier.

Equipment cooling may have needed redesign...I seem to recall a much simpler system, with less headache on the early jets.

Passed that, I'm not sure...too far in the past.

I was also going to reply HMG, then saw your reply. My understanding is that if a 767 doesn’t at least have provisions for it, it simply isn’t feasible to retrofit.

At one time, the HF system was optional on the 767 also, but it’s been baseline for around 20 years now.

Thanks for your comments Gentlemen ... I had always wondered.

I have always thought the -200 to be the best looking of the bunch. The short fuselage seems to make the long wings and tall tail even better. But ... I had to acknowledge, with only 169 passengers in an F/J/Y configuration, they just weren't feasible in our fleet any more.

Two days ago though, I saw two ... count 'em ... two -200s in YVR!

If you like the 767-200 fuselage then come down to PAE and see all the KC-46s here. Will be an outstanding airplane for the USAF once it’s delivered.

Isn’t the KC-46 fuselage slightly longer?

Financially you could not justify converting any -200 over to a -200ER. Blue City Holdings, aka Google, picked up a former Qantas -238ER from Victorvile and paid somewhere around 12 million for it, including a spare engine. Nice airplane that even though being an earless, still had pretty good legs. The JT9D were problematic in that there were few if any engine OH facilities available should serious off the wing work be required.

Elshad wrote:

Isn’t the KC-46 fuselage slightly longer?

No, there was a while where it was going to be, but then wasn't. The LOA is longer because of the boom.

Transpac787 wrote:

Several US carriers that took delivery of the early-model 767-200A, eventually converted them to a bastardized version of the 767-200ER for use on oceanic flights. UA, AA, and TW all did post-delivery conversions. I believe Air Canada did, as well.... and I'm sure several other carriers.

My question is: what all was modified, and what weights were they certified up to?? The original 767-200's were certified up to a maximum weight of 315.0 - whereas late-delivery 767-200ER's could get as heavy as 395.0

the B767-200 came with an inactive center tank fully equipped with pumps Valves and plumbing. What it didn't come with was a control panel in the cockpit. When TWA American Delta and United decided they wanted to ETOPS the airplanes? they installed all the overwater equipment, Activated the Center tank south and got FAA Approval AND? Had at it!! I was still in college when I interned at the FAA Oak City in the summer of 1982,1983. where ETOPS and EROPS was a HOT topic!!
TWA was the one who brought the topic to the FAA and they had done the majority of the research. An? Proved the concept flying Transcon flights. From the beginning there was only ETOPS 60 and 90 so the flights were only to Europe from as far west as Chicago. It was a few years before the B767-300 came out but by then? ETOPS 120,180, and 240 were already planned for, I think only Airbus got caught flat footed as they were trying to sell that "DOG" A340 with the CFM's pushing it.

strfyr51 wrote:

Transpac787 wrote:

Several US carriers that took delivery of the early-model 767-200A, eventually converted them to a bastardized version of the 767-200ER for use on oceanic flights. UA, AA, and TW all did post-delivery conversions. I believe Air Canada did, as well.... and I'm sure several other carriers.

My question is: what all was modified, and what weights were they certified up to?? The original 767-200's were certified up to a maximum weight of 315.0 - whereas late-delivery 767-200ER's could get as heavy as 395.0

the B767-200 came with an inactive center tank fully equipped with pumps Valves and plumbing. What it didn't come with was a control panel in the cockpit. When TWA American Delta and United decided they wanted to ETOPS the airplanes? they installed all the overwater equipment, Activated the Center tank south and got FAA Approval AND? Had at it!! I was still in college when I interned at the FAA Oak City in the summer of 1982,1983. where ETOPS and EROPS was a HOT topic!!
TWA was the one who brought the topic to the FAA and they had done the majority of the research. An? Proved the concept flying Transcon flights. From the beginning there was only ETOPS 60 and 90 so the flights were only to Europe from as far west as Chicago. It was a few years before the B767-300 came out but by then? ETOPS 120,180, and 240 were already planned for, I think only Airbus got caught flat footed as they were trying to sell that "DOG" A340 with the CFM's pushing it.

Thanks for the history lesson! The 763 was introduced in '86 BTW.

Did the non ER 763's ever come with these provisions?

Pictures of the conversion of a TWA 767-231 to -ER status on pages 4,5 and 6.

http://digital.shsmo.org/digital/collection/twa/id/8234

strfyr51 wrote:

Transpac787 wrote:

Several US carriers that took delivery of the early-model 767-200A, eventually converted them to a bastardized version of the 767-200ER for use on oceanic flights. UA, AA, and TW all did post-delivery conversions. I believe Air Canada did, as well.... and I'm sure several other carriers.

My question is: what all was modified, and what weights were they certified up to?? The original 767-200's were certified up to a maximum weight of 315.0 - whereas late-delivery 767-200ER's could get as heavy as 395.0

the B767-200 came with an inactive center tank fully equipped with pumps Valves and plumbing. What it didn't come with was a control panel in the cockpit. When TWA American Delta and United decided they wanted to ETOPS the airplanes? they installed all the overwater equipment, Activated the Center tank south and got FAA Approval AND? Had at it!! I was still in college when I interned at the FAA Oak City in the summer of 1982,1983. where ETOPS and EROPS was a HOT topic!!
TWA was the one who brought the topic to the FAA and they had done the majority of the research. An? Proved the concept flying Transcon flights. From the beginning there was only ETOPS 60 and 90 so the flights were only to Europe from as far west as Chicago. It was a few years before the B767-300 came out but by then? ETOPS 120,180, and 240 were already planned for, I think only Airbus got caught flat footed as they were trying to sell that "DOG" A340 with the CFM's pushing it.

Don't think DAL ever converted the -200 to a -200ER config ? Also the -200, -300ER's were never certified beyond 180'.

strfyr51 wrote:

Transpac787 wrote:

Several US carriers that took delivery of the early-model 767-200A, eventually converted them to a bastardized version of the 767-200ER for use on oceanic flights. UA, AA, and TW all did post-delivery conversions. I believe Air Canada did, as well.... and I'm sure several other carriers.

My question is: what all was modified, and what weights were they certified up to?? The original 767-200's were certified up to a maximum weight of 315.0 - whereas late-delivery 767-200ER's could get as heavy as 395.0

I think only Airbus got caught flat footed as they were trying to sell that "DOG" A340 with the CFM's pushing it.

I don’t know why everyone says that the A340-200/300 was a dog - it may not have climbed like a 757-200, but it certainly met all its objectives. If it was such a dog, Air France and Lufthansa wouldn’t have kept them around as long as they have.

1989worstyear wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Transpac787 wrote:

Several US carriers that took delivery of the early-model 767-200A, eventually converted them to a bastardized version of the 767-200ER for use on oceanic flights. UA, AA, and TW all did post-delivery conversions. I believe Air Canada did, as well.... and I'm sure several other carriers.

My question is: what all was modified, and what weights were they certified up to?? The original 767-200's were certified up to a maximum weight of 315.0 - whereas late-delivery 767-200ER's could get as heavy as 395.0

the B767-200 came with an inactive center tank fully equipped with pumps Valves and plumbing. What it didn't come with was a control panel in the cockpit. When TWA American Delta and United decided they wanted to ETOPS the airplanes? they installed all the overwater equipment, Activated the Center tank south and got FAA Approval AND? Had at it!! I was still in college when I interned at the FAA Oak City in the summer of 1982,1983. where ETOPS and EROPS was a HOT topic!!
TWA was the one who brought the topic to the FAA and they had done the majority of the research. An? Proved the concept flying Transcon flights. From the beginning there was only ETOPS 60 and 90 so the flights were only to Europe from as far west as Chicago. It was a few years before the B767-300 came out but by then? ETOPS 120,180, and 240 were already planned for, I think only Airbus got caught flat footed as they were trying to sell that "DOG" A340 with the CFM's pushing it.

Thanks for the history lesson! The 763 was introduced in '86 BTW.

Did the non ER 763's ever come with these provisions?

I can't speak for any other Airline but all of United's 767-322's came ready for ETOPS. Not long afterwards? We retired all the -222's (we only had 19 to start with)
And the engines were not interchangeable with the -322's (JT9D 7R4D's VS the PW-4060's)

A320FlyGuy wrote:

I don’t know why everyone says that the A340-200/300 was a dog - it may not have climbed like a 757-200, but it certainly met all its objectives. If it was such a dog, Air France and Lufthansa wouldn’t have kept them around as long as they have.

The A340-300 being called a dog is in reference to its lethargic takeoff and climb performance. Airlines, of course, don't really care about that when they consider the viability and longevity of a fleet type.

Elshad wrote:

Isn’t the KC-46 fuselage slightly longer?

Nope. See my posts in viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1026493&p=13615279&hilit=dlednicer#p13615279

the KC46 is no longer a 767 in any respect aside from Looking like it. The USAF made so many changes to the airplane starting at the windshields and working back tp the Tail that I would guess that maybe only the Reverser Cowlings and some Engine components from the PW 4060's might still be the same.

strfyr51 wrote:

the KC46 is no longer a 767 in any respect aside from Looking like it. The USAF made so many changes to the airplane starting at the windshields and working back tp the Tail that I would guess that maybe only the Reverser Cowlings and some Engine components from the PW 4060's might still be the same.

Couldn't you say the same thing about the -300ER and the earlier 767 variants? I heard there is not much commonality.

strfyr51 wrote:

the KC46 is no longer a 767 in any respect aside from Looking like it. The USAF made so many changes to the airplane starting at the windshields and working back tp the Tail that I would guess that maybe only the Reverser Cowlings and some Engine components from the PW 4060's might still be the same.

The KC46 has no reversers installed,for weight saving (not enhancing safety), so the engine cowlings are also different