763 Cruising Speed.

[[email protected]]

Can anyone please tell me what the average cruising speed of a 763 is ?
Thanks.

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message
...
> Can anyone please tell me what the average cruising speed of a 763 is ?
> Thanks.

0.82 mach

[Dale]

In article >,
wrote:

> Can anyone please tell me what the average cruising speed of a 763 is ?
> Thanks.
>
>

What's a 763?

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >What's a 763?
> >
>
> Boeing 767-300.
>

A Boeing 767-300 is a B763.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:40:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Saryon" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >
> >> >What's a 763?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Boeing 767-300.
> >>
> >
> >A Boeing 767-300 is a B763.
>
> Assuming the original poster meant B763 is not unreasonable. People
> say/post 744 or 733 and have it interpreted to Boeing 747-400 or
> Boeing 737-300 all the time. Not saying it's technically correct, or
> even right to do, but even I'm not that pedantic in the absense of
> similar designators to confuse it with...

Even though I knew what he ment, if you look at it he is dislexic.

Correctly and common is: 673

[Jeb]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Saryon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:40:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Saryon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> >
> > >> >What's a 763?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Boeing 767-300.
> > >>
> > >
> > >A Boeing 767-300 is a B763.
> >
> > Assuming the original poster meant B763 is not unreasonable. People
> > say/post 744 or 733 and have it interpreted to Boeing 747-400 or
> > Boeing 737-300 all the time. Not saying it's technically correct, or
> > even right to do, but even I'm not that pedantic in the absense of
> > similar designators to confuse it with...
>
> Even though I knew what he ment, if you look at it he is dislexic.
>
> Correctly and common is: 673

Whatever, 763 is how the aircraft is described in airline schedules.
Boeings are 7*7, the last 7 is redundant and replaced by the first
number of the variant.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jeb" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Saryon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:40:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Saryon" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >What's a 763?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Boeing 767-300.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >A Boeing 767-300 is a B763.
> > >
> > > Assuming the original poster meant B763 is not unreasonable. People
> > > say/post 744 or 733 and have it interpreted to Boeing 747-400 or
> > > Boeing 737-300 all the time. Not saying it's technically correct, or
> > > even right to do, but even I'm not that pedantic in the absense of
> > > similar designators to confuse it with...
> >
> > Even though I knew what he ment, if you look at it he is dislexic.
> >
> > Correctly and common is: 673
>
> Whatever, 763 is how the aircraft is described in airline schedules.
> Boeings are 7*7, the last 7 is redundant and replaced by the first
> number of the variant.

Everywhere outside this post I have seen the first 7 dropped. Perhaps you
are banging the bong a little hard?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 11:37:20 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Jeb" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> > "Saryon" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:40:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >"Saryon" > wrote in message
> >> > > ...
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> >What's a 763?
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Boeing 767-300.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > > >A Boeing 767-300 is a B763.
> >> > >
> >> > > Assuming the original poster meant B763 is not unreasonable.
People
> >> > > say/post 744 or 733 and have it interpreted to Boeing 747-400 or
> >> > > Boeing 737-300 all the time. Not saying it's technically correct,
or
> >> > > even right to do, but even I'm not that pedantic in the absense of
> >> > > similar designators to confuse it with...
> >> >
> >> > Even though I knew what he ment, if you look at it he is dislexic.
> >> >
> >> > Correctly and common is: 673
> >>
> >> Whatever, 763 is how the aircraft is described in airline schedules.
> >> Boeings are 7*7, the last 7 is redundant and replaced by the first
> >> number of the variant.
> >
> >Everywhere outside this post I have seen the first 7 dropped. Perhaps
you
> >are banging the bong a little hard?
>
> Why yes, perhaps you are?
>
> FAAO 7340.1? http://www1.faa.gov/atpubs/cnt/5-2.htm - FAA list of
> equipment designators? I know that's what's used when filing flight
> plans.

Try again, that page is a loser for you.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...

> B762 L2J/H 767-200 BOEING
> B763 L2J/H 767-300 BOEING
> B764 L2J/H 767-400 BOEING
>
> Your assertion was that it's a "673" because you always drop the
> leading 7. I can't find 673 anywhere in the list.

I expect those would be apropriate contractions for your correspondence with
FAA, but here in the real world, the first 7 is dropped. Note carefully
that you have been corrected by an engineer, an air traffic controller and
pilots. If you want to use an insider secret code, don't expect anyone to
know what you are gibbering about.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...

> "insider secret code"? Wow, I didn't think the type designators that
> are used on flight plans and published openly on the FAA's own website
> was some sort of "secret insider code" that any traffic controlers or
> pilots have yet corrected me on.

You should pay more attention, sock.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
> >You should pay more attention, sock.
>
> Um, nice try but I'm also not a sock. Don't even know and haven't met
> anyone from any of these groups in the real world.

What does your sock name and fake email address represent?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:01:42 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Saryon" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >You should pay more attention, sock.
> >>
> >> Um, nice try but I'm also not a sock. Don't even know and haven't met
> >> anyone from any of these groups in the real world.
> >
> >What does your sock name and fake email address represent?
>
> A wish to not have any additional spam sent to me. I get enough junk
> email already. I'm assuming your email is correct? I'll drop it a
> note from my real email. There are a number of things that I
> probabally am, but a sock I'm not.

Of course my email is real, only a sock troll hides beind a fake name and
email address.

[ShawnD2112]

Sorry. Gotta jump in here. I work in the airline industry and we use 744,
733, etc regularly. Have never heard anyone, not even people at Boeing,
drop the first 7. Not saying it isn't done, just not in this sector of the
industry.

Shawn
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Saryon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > B762 L2J/H 767-200 BOEING
> > B763 L2J/H 767-300 BOEING
> > B764 L2J/H 767-400 BOEING
> >
> > Your assertion was that it's a "673" because you always drop the
> > leading 7. I can't find 673 anywhere in the list.
>
> I expect those would be apropriate contractions for your correspondence
with
> FAA, but here in the real world, the first 7 is dropped. Note carefully
> that you have been corrected by an engineer, an air traffic controller and
> pilots. If you want to use an insider secret code, don't expect anyone to
> know what you are gibbering about.
>
>

[Jim Knoyle]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry. Gotta jump in here. I work in the airline industry and we use
744,
> 733, etc regularly. Have never heard anyone, not even people at Boeing,
> drop the first 7. Not saying it isn't done, just not in this sector of
the
> industry.
>
Shawn, welcome to Tarverland. :-)
JK

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Saryon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > B762 L2J/H 767-200 BOEING
> > > B763 L2J/H 767-300 BOEING
> > > B764 L2J/H 767-400 BOEING
> > >
> > > Your assertion was that it's a "673" because you always drop the
> > > leading 7. I can't find 673 anywhere in the list.
> >
> > I expect those would be apropriate contractions for your correspondence
> with
> > FAA, but here in the real world, the first 7 is dropped. Note carefully
> > that you have been corrected by an engineer, an air traffic controller
and
> > pilots. If you want to use an insider secret code, don't expect anyone
to
> > know what you are gibbering about.
> >
> >
>
>

[Dean Wilkinson]

Amen Jim, another one for the Tarver chronicles.

I am an engineer, and I worked for Boeing for 8 years, primarily on
the AIMS Display System for the 777.

Airline equipment codes on every ticket I have ever purchased always
read 73x, 74x, 75x, 76x, 77x where x is the first digit of the dash
number.

Tarver, once again you are talking out of your ass. Below is the
official listing of equipment codes used by the FAA for flight plan
filing:

B17 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
B29 Boeing B-29 Superfortress
B52 Boeing BJ-52 Stratofortress
B701 Boeing 707-100 (C-137b)
B703 Boeing 707-300 (C-18, C-137c,E-8 J-Stars,Ec/Kc-
B712 Boeing 717-200
B720 Boeing 720
B721 Boeing 727-100 (C-22)
B722 Boeing 727-200
B72Q Boeing 727 Stage 3 (Us Only)
B731 Boeing 737-100
B732 Boeing 737-200 Surveiller(CT-43, VC-96)
B733 Boeing 737-300
B734 Boeing 737-400
B735 Boeing 737-500
B736 Boeing 737-600
B737 Boeing 737-700, Bbj, C-40
B738 Boeing 737-800
B739 Boeing 737-900
B73Q Boeing 737 Stage 3 (Us Only)
B741 Boeing 747-100
B742 Boeing 747-200 (E-4, VC-25)
B743 Boeing 747-300
B744 Boeing 747-400(International, Winglets) (AL-1)
B74D Boeing 747-400 (Domestic, No Winglets)
B74R Boeing 747sr
B74S Boeing 747sp
B752 Boeing Model 757-200 (C-32)
B753 Boeing 757-300
B762 Boeing 767-200
B763 Boeing 767-300
B764 Boeing 767-400
B772 Boeing Model 777-200
B773 Boeing 777-300

There, squashed a flea with a hammer...

Dean Wilkinson
B.S.E.E.


"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message >...
> "ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Sorry. Gotta jump in here. I work in the airline industry and we use
> 744,
> > 733, etc regularly. Have never heard anyone, not even people at Boeing,
> > drop the first 7. Not saying it isn't done, just not in this sector of
> the
> > industry.
> >
> Shawn, welcome to Tarverland. :-)
> JK
>
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Saryon" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > B762 L2J/H 767-200 BOEING
> > > > B763 L2J/H 767-300 BOEING
> > > > B764 L2J/H 767-400 BOEING
> > > >
> > > > Your assertion was that it's a "673" because you always drop the
> > > > leading 7. I can't find 673 anywhere in the list.
> > >
> > > I expect those would be apropriate contractions for your correspondence
> with
> > > FAA, but here in the real world, the first 7 is dropped. Note carefully
> > > that you have been corrected by an engineer, an air traffic controller
> and
> > > pilots. If you want to use an insider secret code, don't expect anyone
> to
> > > know what you are gibbering about.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dean Wilkinson" > wrote in message
m...
> Amen Jim, another one for the Tarver chronicles.

You mean the Knoyle idiot detector, or the Miller sub-idiot detector.

I'd like to know just how incompetent you are, Wilkinson.

Common usage is to suppress the first "7".

[Dean Wilkinson]

Way more competent than you Tarver, but that is self evident.

Common usage to drop the first 7? Common with whom? Not the FAA, or
the airlines...


"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Dean Wilkinson" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Amen Jim, another one for the Tarver chronicles.
>
> You mean the Knoyle idiot detector, or the Miller sub-idiot detector.
>
> I'd like to know just how incompetent you are, Wilkinson.
>
> Common usage is to suppress the first "7".

[Tarver Engineering]

"Dean Wilkinson" > wrote in message
m...
> Way more competent than you Tarver, but that is self evident.

If you buy into either of the archive trolls you are an idiot.

What did you do on the little display you worked?

[Thorsten Nedderhut]

The codes listed in below message in first column are typically ICAO codes
(usually 4 characters). E.g. for Airbus the may look like
A332 for A330-200
A346 for A340-600
etc.

Or others:
AT72 for ATR 72
A124 for AN-124
CRJ7 for CRJ-700

The codes the thread was started are IATA codes which have typically 3
characters, e.g.
763 for B-767-300
343 for A340-300

Airlines typically use the IATA codes in their schedules, while ATC (at
least in Europr) is using the ICAO codes. The same is applicable for
airport codes, e.g.

IATA ICAO Name
YYZ CYYZ Toronto
ORD KORD Chicago O'hare
FRA EDDF Frankfurt
FCO LIRF Rome/Fiumicino

Regards

-Thorsten

"Dean Wilkinson" > wrote in message
m...
> Amen Jim, another one for the Tarver chronicles.
>
> I am an engineer, and I worked for Boeing for 8 years, primarily on
> the AIMS Display System for the 777.
>
> Airline equipment codes on every ticket I have ever purchased always
> read 73x, 74x, 75x, 76x, 77x where x is the first digit of the dash
> number.
>
> Tarver, once again you are talking out of your ass. Below is the
> official listing of equipment codes used by the FAA for flight plan
> filing:
>
> B17 Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
> B29 Boeing B-29 Superfortress
> B52 Boeing BJ-52 Stratofortress
> B701 Boeing 707-100 (C-137b)
> B703 Boeing 707-300 (C-18, C-137c,E-8 J-Stars,Ec/Kc-
> B712 Boeing 717-200
> B720 Boeing 720
> B721 Boeing 727-100 (C-22)
> B722 Boeing 727-200
> B72Q Boeing 727 Stage 3 (Us Only)
> B731 Boeing 737-100
> B732 Boeing 737-200 Surveiller(CT-43, VC-96)
> B733 Boeing 737-300
> B734 Boeing 737-400
> B735 Boeing 737-500
> B736 Boeing 737-600
> B737 Boeing 737-700, Bbj, C-40
> B738 Boeing 737-800
> B739 Boeing 737-900
> B73Q Boeing 737 Stage 3 (Us Only)
> B741 Boeing 747-100
> B742 Boeing 747-200 (E-4, VC-25)
> B743 Boeing 747-300
> B744 Boeing 747-400(International, Winglets) (AL-1)
> B74D Boeing 747-400 (Domestic, No Winglets)
> B74R Boeing 747sr
> B74S Boeing 747sp
> B752 Boeing Model 757-200 (C-32)
> B753 Boeing 757-300
> B762 Boeing 767-200
> B763 Boeing 767-300
> B764 Boeing 767-400
> B772 Boeing Model 777-200
> B773 Boeing 777-300
>
> There, squashed a flea with a hammer...
>
> Dean Wilkinson
> B.S.E.E.
>
>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
>...
> > "ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Sorry. Gotta jump in here. I work in the airline industry and we use
> > 744,
> > > 733, etc regularly. Have never heard anyone, not even people at
Boeing,
> > > drop the first 7. Not saying it isn't done, just not in this sector
of
> > the
> > > industry.
> > >
> > Shawn, welcome to Tarverland. :-)
> > JK
> >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Saryon" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > B762 L2J/H 767-200 BOEING
> > > > > B763 L2J/H 767-300 BOEING
> > > > > B764 L2J/H 767-400 BOEING
> > > > >
> > > > > Your assertion was that it's a "673" because you always drop the
> > > > > leading 7. I can't find 673 anywhere in the list.
> > > >
> > > > I expect those would be apropriate contractions for your
correspondence
> > with
> > > > FAA, but here in the real world, the first 7 is dropped. Note
carefully
> > > > that you have been corrected by an engineer, an air traffic
controller
> > and
> > > > pilots. If you want to use an insider secret code, don't expect
anyone
> > to
> > > > know what you are gibbering about.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Saryon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:40:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Saryon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> >
> > >> >What's a 763?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Boeing 767-300.
> > >>
> > >
> > >A Boeing 767-300 is a B763.
> >
> > Assuming the original poster meant B763 is not unreasonable. People
> > say/post 744 or 733 and have it interpreted to Boeing 747-400 or
> > Boeing 737-300 all the time. Not saying it's technically correct, or
> > even right to do, but even I'm not that pedantic in the absense of
> > similar designators to confuse it with...
>
> Even though I knew what he ment, if you look at it he is dislexic.
>
> Correctly and common is: 673


utter ****ing ******** as usual little man.

tell us again how the words "average" and "total" are interchangeable
in aircraft manuals.

tell us again how part 25 only applies to a minority of aircraft.

those LSD flashbacks of yours must be bitch. never mind, you can
always down another bottle of thunderbird with your meds little man.

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Saryon" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > B762 L2J/H 767-200 BOEING
> > B763 L2J/H 767-300 BOEING
> > B764 L2J/H 767-400 BOEING
> >
> > Your assertion was that it's a "673" because you always drop the
> > leading 7. I can't find 673 anywhere in the list.
>
> I expect those would be apropriate contractions for your correspondence with
> FAA, but here in the real world, the first 7 is dropped. Note carefully
> that you have been corrected by an engineer,

note carefully you have been corrected by an idiot; who claims that
Part 25 only applies to a minority of aircraft, that a spoiler is a
flap, and that the words "total" and "average" are interchangeable in
aircraft manuals.

an air traffic controller and
> pilots. If you want to use an insider secret code, don't expect anyone to
> know what you are gibbering about.

mmm yes as usual, little man, the world is wrong and tarver the drunk
is right.

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Saryon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:40:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Saryon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> >
> > >> >What's a 763?
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Boeing 767-300.
> > >>
> > >
> > >A Boeing 767-300 is a B763.
> >
> > Assuming the original poster meant B763 is not unreasonable. People
> > say/post 744 or 733 and have it interpreted to Boeing 747-400 or
> > Boeing 737-300 all the time. Not saying it's technically correct, or
> > even right to do, but even I'm not that pedantic in the absense of
> > similar designators to confuse it with...
>
> Even though I knew what he ment, if you look at it he is dislexic.
>
> Correctly and common is: 673

another item in Tarverworld.

[Tom Mosher]

(running with scissors) wrote in message >...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> > "Saryon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:40:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Saryon" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >What's a 763?
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> Boeing 767-300.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >A Boeing 767-300 is a B763.
> > >
> > > Assuming the original poster meant B763 is not unreasonable. People
> > > say/post 744 or 733 and have it interpreted to Boeing 747-400 or
> > > Boeing 737-300 all the time. Not saying it's technically correct, or
> > > even right to do, but even I'm not that pedantic in the absense of
> > > similar designators to confuse it with...
> >
> > Even though I knew what he ment, if you look at it he is dislexic.
> >
> > Correctly and common is: 673
>
>
> utter ****ing ******** as usual little man.
>
> tell us again how the words "average" and "total" are interchangeable
> in aircraft manuals.
>
> tell us again how part 25 only applies to a minority of aircraft.
>
> those LSD flashbacks of yours must be bitch. never mind, you can
> always down another bottle of thunderbird with your meds little man.

Tarver as usual is full of crap.

Join the real world of aviation.

No one drops the first 7 for Boeing designators. I dare you to provide
a cite where that is done.

Tom Mosher

[Jon Parmet]

(Tom Mosher) wrote in message >...
> (running with scissors) wrote in message >...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> > > "Saryon" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:40:06 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Saryon" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >What's a 763?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Boeing 767-300.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >A Boeing 767-300 is a B763.
> > > >
> > > > Assuming the original poster meant B763 is not unreasonable. People
> > > > say/post 744 or 733 and have it interpreted to Boeing 747-400 or
> > > > Boeing 737-300 all the time. Not saying it's technically correct, or
> > > > even right to do, but even I'm not that pedantic in the absense of
> > > > similar designators to confuse it with...
> > >
> > > Even though I knew what he ment, if you look at it he is dislexic.
> > >
> > > Correctly and common is: 673
> >
> >
> > utter ****ing ******** as usual little man.
> >
> > tell us again how the words "average" and "total" are interchangeable
> > in aircraft manuals.
> >
> > tell us again how part 25 only applies to a minority of aircraft.
> >
> > those LSD flashbacks of yours must be bitch. never mind, you can
> > always down another bottle of thunderbird with your meds little man.
>
> Tarver as usual is full of crap.
>
> Join the real world of aviation.

Oh my, please no!!!

:D

> No one drops the first 7 for Boeing designators. I dare you to provide
> a cite where that is done.

Why provide a cite when he's better at selling the pathology? Which do
you think he gets off doing more of? Given the sheer number of plate
appearances and the number of cites actually produced, we already know
the answer ;)

> Tom Mosher

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jon Parmet" > wrote in message
om...

> > No one drops the first 7 for Boeing designators. I dare you to provide
> > a cite where that is done.
>
> Why provide a cite when he's better at selling the pathology? Which do
> you think he gets off doing more of? Given the sheer number of plate
> appearances and the number of cites actually produced, we already know
> the answer ;)

I answered the guys question and then agreed with our resident ATC.

You may feel free to peruse previous posts to ramisc and you will find the
first 7 is often dropped in conversation.

If you mean to say you want to run with clueless trolls, you have found your
partner, Parmet.