Boeing examines GEnx-powered 767-X for cargo and passenger roles
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing examines GEnx-powered 767-X for cargo and passenger roles
From Flightglobal.com.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...and-pa-461386/
Maybe that is all they now can afford when it comes to «new» aircraft?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...and-pa-461386/
Maybe that is all they now can afford when it comes to «new» aircraft?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 46
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the twilight zone
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 . . .
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..
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
If not I don't see it happening. Is there any 747-8F operator who would like to pair 767Xs because of their engines?
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 . . .
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).
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).
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).
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.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A warmed-over 767 makes about as much sense as starting up the 757 line again ...
What advantage does an updated 767-4 have over a 787-9?
How many 764's did they sell again?
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.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The A330-900 is selling poorly, the A330-800 not selling at all.
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-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.