Boeing examines GEnx-powered 767-X for cargo and passenger roles

[ManaAdaSystem]

From Flightglobal.com.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-examines-genx-powered-767-x-for-cargo-and-pa-461386/

Maybe that is all they now can afford when it comes to «new» aircraft?

[Fluke]

New larger engines and a MCAS system. What could possibly go wrong !

[c52]

What advantage does an updated 767-4 have over a 787-9? Both hold just over 400 people according to Wikipedia. Not going to hit the A321/757 market.

[procede]

What advantage does an updated 767-4 have over a 787-9? Both hold just over 400 people according to Wikipedia. Not going to hit the A321/757 market.
The 767 is probably much more cost efficient at shorter ranges.

[The Range]

What advantage does an updated 767-4 have over a 787-9? Both hold just over 400 people according to Wikipedia. Not going to hit the A321/757 market.
It could be a $100 million advantage or more.

[Torquelink]

For any passenger version, the 767-400 fuselage would result in a much bigger aircraft than the proposed NMA which is (as far as we understand) sized almost identically to the 767-200 and -300. Still, I suppose attaching shorter fuselages to the re-engined wing wouldn't be too big a deal . . .

[DaveReidUK]

A warmed-over 767 makes about as much sense as starting up the 757 line again ...

[etudiant]

A warmed-over 767 makes about as much sense as starting up the 757 line again ...

Remember the 767 line is still hot, while the 757 line and tooling are gone.
Given the relatively minimal operating cost improvements generated by advanced materials in short to medium haul aircraft, a 767X might be pretty attractive, fuel efficient engines and a mature design at low cost..

[Lord Bracken]

The argument for a 767X is the same one Airbus uses for the 330 Neo - it's a little bit more expensive to operate than its competitor, but it's far cheaper to develop and build and therefore to buy, so the overall cost is the same or less depending on the mission.

[Less Hair]

Is there any big customer lining up like Prime Air or similar that would possibly take like 200 or more?
If not I don't see it happening. Is there any 747-8F operator who would like to pair 767Xs because of their engines?

[tdracer]

For any passenger version, the 767-400 fuselage would result in a much bigger aircraft than the proposed NMA which is (as far as we understand) sized almost identically to the 767-200 and -300. Still, I suppose attaching shorter fuselages to the re-engined wing wouldn't be too big a deal . . .

The GEnx is basically too big and too powerful for a 767-200/300 re-engine (GEnx-2B is rated ~67k on the 747-8, most powerful engines available for the 767 are ~62k). Which may be why they're looking at a 767-400. Years ago FedEx was interested in a 767-400 package freighter but the -400 was already OOP and it would have cost a lot to start it up again.

I've long been of the opinion that Boeing's best solution for the MMA would be a '767X' - re-engine with a new wing. But it would require a state-of-the-art engine in the 45-50k thrust class and no such engine currently exists. There is a currently a big gap between the LEAP/Pratt geared fan engines (top out around 35k) and the GEnx and Trent (start at about 65k).

[JPJP]

The GEnx is basically too big and too powerful for a 767-200/300 (tel:767-200/300) re-engine (GEnx-2B is rated ~67k on the 747-8, most powerful engines available for the 767 are ~62k). Which may be why they're looking at a 767-400. Years ago FedEx was interested in a 767-400 package freighter but the -400 was already OOP and it would have cost a lot to start it up again.

I've long been of the opinion that Boeing's best solution for the MMA would be a '767X' - re-engine with a new wing. But it would require a state-of-the-art engine in the 45-50k thrust class and no such engine currently exists. There is a currently a big gap between the LEAP/Pratt geared fan engines (top out around 35k) and the GEnx and Trent (start at about 65k).

I assume that the GEnx-1B from the 787 is out due to the lack of a bleed air system etc.? Then it becomes a massive undertaking to convert a 76-4 pneumatic system, electrical system etc. into a suitable configuration ?

What a strange pickle Boeing has aggressively thrust itself into - Develop the 787-8 ostensibly as a replacement for the 76-4. It’s so expensive and has such incredible range that it’s not even in the same ballpark as a replacement. But it’s so close to the 76-4 in terms of passenger capacity and size. Then they identify a brilliant opportunity to replace the 767 and 757. WTF ?

One wonders if the cheapest and most profitable approach would be a ‘baffle with marketing BS’ move on Boeings part. Develop the ‘787 Continental’. Less range and more cargo capacity. Sell 4000 of them (the Boeing estimate for potential sales), and wipe your hands. Declare victory, high fives, a round of layoffs and massive bonuses for management. The Boeing way.

[Smythe]

A warmed-over 767 makes about as much sense as starting up the 757 line again ...

or the MAX 10?

What advantage does an updated 767-4 have over a 787-9?

There is no 787F

How many 764's did they sell again?

[Chiefttp]

This is an attractive option for Freight operators. FedEx, UPS, Amazon and many more operate large fleets of 767 Freighters, this is an update to older models that would fit seamlessly into current fleets.

[Intruder]

I assume that the GEnx-1B from the 787 is out due to the lack of a bleed air system etc.? Then it becomes a massive undertaking to convert a 76-4 pneumatic system, electrical system etc. into a suitable configuration ?They can simply start with the GEnx-2B67 that is on the 748. Those are at 67,400 lb thrust, so they could derate them appropriately if necessary. A 25% derate would put the thrust ~50,550 lb.

FWIW, the 764 cockpit is virtually identical to the 744 cockpit, so a 764 would provide an easy upgrade to the 744 or 748 for those operators.

[Flightmech]

The 767 in its current form has to stop production in 2026/27 due to not being CO2 compliant for a new build. I guess this solves the problem going forward.

[Sailvi767]

The argument for a 767X is the same one Airbus uses for the 330 Neo - it's a little bit more expensive to operate than its competitor, but it's far cheaper to develop and build and therefore to buy, so the overall cost is the same or less depending on the mission.

The A330-900 is selling poorly, the A330-800 not selling at all.

[Sailvi767]

For any passenger version, the 767-400 fuselage would result in a much bigger aircraft than the proposed NMA which is (as far as we understand) sized almost identically to the 767-200 and -300. Still, I suppose attaching shorter fuselages to the re-engined wing wouldn't be too big a deal . . .

The proposal is geared to the cargo market. With the enormous rise in overnight deliveries aircraft cube out before they run out of weight. The 400 fuselage would be very attractive to Amazon, FedEx and UPS. Not sure there is any real market on the passenger side.

[tdracer]

I assume that the GEnx-1B from the 787 is out due to the lack of a bleed air system etc.? Then it becomes a massive undertaking to convert a 76-4 pneumatic system, electrical system etc. into a suitable configuration ?

The GEnx-1B is actually larger (bigger fan), heavier, and higher thrust than the -2B on the 747-8, so the -1B would be less suitable for a 767 regardless of the bleed architecture. Even the GEnx-2B is quite a bit larger/heavier than the CF6-80C2 or PW4000/94" (-2B fan diameter is about a foot larger), although the fuel burn is much better.
The GEnx-2B is already a significant derate from the -1B, if they derate it even more for a 767 installation it's on-wing time should be amazing.

Boeing originally proposed a 787-3 - it would have been shorter and lighter than the -8 model (and hence closer to a 767 replacement), but no one was interested and it was quietly dropped.

[DaveReidUK]

The 767 in its current form has to stop production in 2026/27 due to not being CO2 compliant for a new build. I guess this solves the problem going forward.

The 767 in its current form is highly unlikely to be still in production by then.

[RodH]

The A330-900 is selling poorly, the A330-800 not selling at all.
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/290x88/airbus_997b68e0894b87e2c75882c8c777c1c406364a66.png
Seems like they are selling albeit slowly.

[misd-agin]

Boeing originally proposed a 787-3 - it would have been shorter and lighter than the -8 model (and hence closer to a 767 replacement), but no one was interested and it was quietly dropped.

Wrong aircraft for the market apparently. 290-330 passengers and only 3,000 nm range.

From wikipedia -787-3[edit]

[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dreamliner_rendering_787-3.jpg"]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Dreamliner_rendering_787-3.jpg/220px-Dreamliner_rendering_787-3.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_787_Dreamliner&action=edit&section=20)
The 787-3 would have featured a shorter wing with wingletsThe 787-3 would have carried 290–330 passengers in two-class over 2,500–3,050 nmi (4,630–5,650 km) range, limited by a 364,000 lb (165 t) MTOW (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_takeoff_weight).[314] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#cite_note-787-3_specs-314) In April 2008, to keep the -8 on track for delivery, the -9 stretch was postponed from 2010 to at least 2012 and prioritised before the 787-3 and its 43 orders to follow without a firm delivery date.[70] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#cite_note-787_variants_delayed_to_at_least_2012-70)

It kept the -8 length but its 51.7 m wingspan would have fit in ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICAO#Aerodrome_Reference_Code) D.[315] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#cite_note-315) It was designed to operate on Boeing 757 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757)-300/Boeing 767 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767)-200 sized regional routes from airports with restricted gate spacing.[316] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#cite_note-FOOTNOTENorrisWagner200938-316) The wingspan was decreased by using blended winglets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device#Winglet) instead of raked wingtips (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingtip_device#Raked_wingtip).

By January 2010, all orders, from Japan Airlines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Airlines) and All Nippon Airways (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Nippon_Airways), had been converted to the 787-8.[317] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#cite_note-317) As it was designed specifically for the Japanese market, Boeing would likely scrap it after they switched orders.[318] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#cite_note-Boeing_likely_scrap-318) The -8's longer wingspan makes it more efficient on stages longer than 370 km (200 nm).[319] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#cite_note-319) In December 2010, Boeing withdrew the short-haul model as it struggled to produce the 787-8 after program delays of three years.[320] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner#cite_note-320)

[Sailvi767]

The 767 in its current form is highly unlikely to be still in production by then.

They have firm orders and deliveries planned to those dates.

[Doctor Cruces]

Oooh, another Max just waiting to happen. Should now read, "If it's Boeing, I aint going".

[FlightDetent]

Pardon? They still deserve more kicking until made to understand completely whose fault the Max tragedy is, but what's the relevance to re-engined 76'? I'll shoot first: NONE.

BTW it is in best industry interest, and that for completely everyone attached to it, that Boeing manages to plough through this.

[Doctor Cruces]

Pardon? They still deserve more kicking until made to understand completely whose fault the Max tragedy is, but what's the relevance to re-engined 76'? I'll shoot first: NONE.

BTW it is in best industry interest, and that for completely everyone attached to it, that Boeing manages to plough through this.

The same relevance as a re engined 737 maybe?
There was no reason to suspect Boeing had totally cocked up the Max or suspect it would end up being a death trap until it did! No reason to suspect the NGX "pickle forks" would crack until they did. So, here they want to re engine another old design and do whatever software "fixes" are required to keep it in the air until it goes wrong and they will then hold up their hands in mock horror and say "Wow, who knew".
I know I'll probably get a kicking from all the Boeing lovers/Airbus haters out there but these are purely my feelings.

[FlightDetent]

Perhaps to soothe your suffering:
- the MAX is the Mark IV (!) re-engined version.
- everyone is painfully aware of what happened
- everyone knows rather well what did not happen when it should have
- all certifying authorities would dissect anything they'd bring forward into sub-atomic if only to cover their exhausts.

Purely my feelings are, God bless you D.C., the above is a reasonless rant. Boeing lover is not a perfectly fitting description for me, but I'd take a seat on the hypothetical inaugural flight even if made pay for it ;)

Sunny side up, cheers.

[Doctor Cruces]

Flight Detent, I wasn't inferring you're a Boeing lover, just that I may get flamed from those who are. I've seen it happen to others.
I understand all you say in your last post. Thanks for your soothing words, lets just agree to differ and part without animosity.

Cheers to you too.

[keesje]

I think the size and existing supply chain and infrastructure would be big plusses for a reengined 767.

The 767-400ER and recent KC46 invested a lot in updates on the 767 cockpit and legacy systems.

Empty weight of a reengined would be 30t lower than the 787 and A330s, and its fuel consumption 15-20% lower then RR, PW , GE powered 767-300ER.

Still way more capable than a A321 XLR. GE, US DoD, United, FEDEX, UPS would certainly support the business case.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1571x560/boeing_2b767_8_2bgenx_jpg_jpeg_c565a42119b66dad0f540fc4be2e0 bb5cbec9fd7.jpg

[kiwi grey]

I think the size and existing supply chain and infrastructure would be big plusses for a reengined 767.

The 767-400ER and recent KC46 invested a lot in updates on the 767 cockpit and legacy systems.

Empty weight of a reengined would be 30t lower than the 787 and A330s, and its fuel consumption 15-20% lower then RR, PW , GE powered 767-300ER.

Still way more capable than a A321 XLR. GE, US DoD, United, FEDEX, UPS would certainly support the business case.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1571x560/boeing_2b767_8_2bgenx_jpg_jpeg_c565a42119b66dad0f540fc4be2e0 bb5cbec9fd7.jpg
I suspect that if they build it, one thing it won't be called is "<anything> MAX"
:E

[darobstacraw]

There are a lot of AWACS planes out there that are looking to be replaced. A 767 with increased electrical generating capacity would certainly be interesting to NATO and US DoD. Could be a market for 60 or so of these 767-x AWACS \ AEW planes.
Combined with substantial commonality with the KC-46, there could be a compelling story here.

[kiwi grey]

There are a lot of AWACS planes out there that are looking to be replaced. A 767 with increased electrical generating capacity would certainly be interesting to NATO and US DoD. Could be a market for 60 or so of these 767-x AWACS \ AEW planes.
Combined with substantial commonality with the KC-46, there could be a compelling story here.
The only user of a B767-based AEW&C aircraft is Japan.

The main 'top-end' replacements for AWACS-type airframes appear to be:

Boeing E-7A (B737) Ordered and/or in use by Australia, Turkey, Korea & UK; and
Gulfstream G550 CAEW Ordered and/or in use by Israel, Singapore & Italy

At the next level down there's:

Grumman E-2D / Hawkeye 2000; and
Various platforms with the Saab (formerly Ericsson) Erieye / Globaleye radar

I think it most unlikely anyone would order a B767-based AEW&C platform in the future.
The USAF & NATO E-3 airframes have been / are being upgraded at the moment, with the expectation that this will last them through to the mid-2030s, by which time the B767 will most likely be years out of production. I'd expect that this E-3 replacement airframe would be based on the Boeing NSA, or even something smaller

[keesje]

I suspect that if they build it, one thing it won't be called is "<anything> MAX"
:E

I think you might be correct there.. I made this 767-8 sketch years ago. ;)

On a KC135 AWACS replacement, I think the 767 GENX based platform would offer a lot in commonality, capability and 50 yr flexibility/ growth perspective. How an antenna would look, probably not a random..

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/425x283/81wquivsifl_sx425__9ea05174755069e0367b4ba74c6ac5b776af8a54. jpg

The NMA seems off the table unfortunately, the MAX looks weaker every day, the carbon 787 seems way to big/ complicated.

I can see US government doing a "strategic", investment in Boeing soon, to "level the playing field" or so :ouch: :ouch:

[infrequentflyer789]

I can see US government doing a "strategic", investment in Boeing soon, to "level the playing field" or so :ouch: :ouch:

You mean on top of the 10 SLS moondoggles they ordered last week?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/19/10_artemis_missions

[sandiego89]

The only user of a B767-based AEW&C aircraft is Japan.

The main 'top-end' replacements for AWACS-type airframes appear to be:

Boeing E-7A (B737) Ordered and/or in use by Australia, Turkey, Korea & UK; and
Gulfstream G550 CAEW Ordered and/or in use by Israel, Singapore & Italy

At the next level down there's:

Grumman E-2D / Hawkeye 2000; and
Various platforms with the Saab (formerly Ericsson) Erieye / Globaleye radar

I think it most unlikely anyone would order a B767-based AEW&C platform in the future.
The USAF & NATO E-3 airframes have been / are being upgraded at the moment, with the expectation that this will last them through to the mid-2030s, by which time the B767 will most likely be years out of production. I'd expect that this E-3 replacement airframe would be based on the Boeing NSA, or even something smaller

I think a KC-46 based airframe could be a contender as well for the "top end". All that extra wiring and generating power could be put to good use. The RC/KC/EC/C/WC-135, E-3, E-6 and E-8 are getting tired and the E-7/P-8/737 might not have the fuselage for everything, but smaller electronics will indeed allow for some downsizing.

[tdracer]

I don't think I should elaborate, but there are already features on the KC-46 that would help enable it's use for other than a tanker/cargo aircraft.

[Grebe]

I don't think I should elaborate, but there are already features on the KC-46 that would help enable it's use for other than a tanker/cargo aircraft.


Hmmm- as I recall- having worked at Everett during the first 767 flight, etc

767 had partial- minimum cable controls as the ultimate backup - and also used a RAT ( gimili glider )
KC-46 probably still has similar
KC-46 no doubt has EMP hardening along with a lot of 'normal commerical' wiring
KC-46 probably has upgraded-improved electrical alternate generators
KC-46 does not have thrust reversers- but for some special uses they might be relatively easy to 'add' reinstall
767 Structural fatigue improvements were designed in from ship one- extensive use of coldworking, and specialized one shot Electromagnetic riveting (Automatic Spa assembly tool ) since improved by nearby ElectroImpact Company ( long story about that going back to late 1960's )
767 generally has great ETOPS history.
IMHO slightly larger engines shouold not be a significant problem
( BTW there are minimal differences between 767 landing gear and B2 bomber gear, specifically including nose gear :) )

[tdracer]

KC-46 does not have thrust reversers- but for some special uses they might be relatively easy to 'add' reinstall

I have to disagree on that one. A potential KC-46 customer wanted the reversers put back on, but it turns out that the room in the nacelle and strut that was freed up when the ditched the reversers was rapidly filled in with other stuff. So putting the reversers back would have been a huge engineering challenge.
There is a lot of stuff changed or added to the KC-46 that has no direct applicability to the tanker/cargo missions - you can draw your own conclusions as to why it's there.
I noticed something similar when, shortly before I retired, I was briefed on the planned changes to the 747-8 for the Air Force One. Lots of stuff that didn't seem to fit the mission of carrying the president.
Made me wonder if someone had other missions in mind for a 747-8 and wanted to get a head start on the needed engineering...