It kinda does, damn I guess it’s ugly on the inside and outside l. Thanks for giving me another reason to hate it ig
Bruh, stop trolling…
Well now that I have flown on both planes, I can safely say that I think that the 787 is better
2 Likes
Both are fine ig.
I’m being serious. I hate the color of the panels. Also screens make everything look less compact and the hud on the 787 looks sick. Plus on the outside I dispose the 767-300s length, and I hate it with or without the winglets on it. The -200 and - 400 are way better looking on the outside
2 Likes
I will never get over just how bad of a job Air Canada did on the 787. Air Canada has been the only airline I have flown the 787 with(4x) as my WestJet flights were canceled.
Also not a fan of the fact that the fa can lock the windows in dim
1 Like
I think the the 787 is a good looking aircraft but I have seen and flown many 767s and I think is a good looking aircraft I like the 200,300,and 400 but the 400 seems a bit out of place with it’s 777 style wingtips.
I like the colors of the panels share by the 757,777,and 747-400
the 767 a plane often overlooked but I really like it, would always look forward to flying it even when i was really young
imagine not being able to control your window
1 Like
Conti 767 looks freaking hot.
2 Likes
Facts
3 Likes
The 767 has a superb performance for a widebody. The 787’s terrible performance will never beat the 76’s.
2 Likes
First off welcome to the WFC! Please message me if you have questions.
Secondly, if you don’t mind me asking, what do you mean by “terrible performance” when referring to the 787?
(I am a 787 fan, so I’m biased but I would like to know your opinion.)
2 Likes
I can probably see where he’s coming from.
Let’s start off with thrust-to-weight ratio:
787-9: 142000/560000 = 0.254
767-300ER: 123000/412000 = 0.299
For comparison:
A330-900: 145668/553000 = 0.263
A350-900 (280t): 168400/617284 = 0.273
*All values are rounded to the nearest thousandth.
Runway performance (MTOW):
767-300ER: 8700ft/2650m
787-9: 9300ft/2800m
It should be pretty evident by now as to why the 767 has better overall performance, except for range, where the 787 is superior compared to the 767.
2 Likes
Fair enough.
2 Likes
Thanks for the warm welcome! 
As @TheGlobalAviator answered, I was referring to the MTOW and the thrust-to-weight ratio of these two jets
1 Like
And just to show you how much of a rocket the 757 is, the 757-200’s ratio is 0.341
1 Like
Of course!
Thanks for explaining what you said. I truly appreciate when people are willing to do so.
2 Likes
If they painted Carti on the tail, would you like Conti 767s?
Probably.
1 Like