Just to follow up from my original post: I completed my trip across the pond to Ireland on a 763 and back on a 747, safely and with no anxiety! Thanks again for everyone's reassurance! :)

Glad to hear it! Flying is fun!!!!

It seems I'm a little late, but this picture shows the sizes of some cargo aircrafts. The commercial versions have the same length. You can the 767 has a decent size:

http://www.boeingcapital.com/p2p/arc..._Full_Line.jpg

Glad you had a good trip! :)

back in 1982 or thereabouts, several of my co-workers started a caption contest for a similar photo that appeared on the cover of the internal Boeing phone book; it was a nose-on shot of a 747 and 737, facing in the same direction

the two winners were "Not tonight, dear, I have a headache" and "Daddy, when I grow up can I have four engines too?"

:D:D:D

Nice :D

I also like the shot of the 737 nose-to-intake of a 777's GE-90 engine. That was also courtesy of BA, I believe.

EDIT - Found it:
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f1...s/777vs737.jpg

I'd say a majority of my TATL crossing lifetime have been on 767's. That includes a couple before the type was widespread and many trips in the current era where the 777 is more common. That's how much AA ex-ORD travel I did in the 90's, mainly. It was a steady diet of 767's.

For an 8-hour TATL, it's my favorite type. In the Y cabin, 6 out of 7 seats are tolerable. Even if you're disembarking in the middle of the Y cabin, the plane isn't so big that it alone creates an unmanageable immigration queue. (Of course, you could land right behind a 747, but at places like BXM or MAN that was unlikely.) In J, I almost always had a window seat so it didn't feel any more or less cramped than a larger plane. (Granted, most of my flights were in an era when a barcalounger seat was more common than a pod.)

Only downside is probably if you're looking for a true three-cabin F experience: I imagine most 767's in this world are two-class.