Boeing examines GEnx-powered 767-X for cargo and passenger roles
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From wikipedia -787-3[[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_787_Dreamliner&action=edit§ion=20]edit]
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.[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]
It kept the -8 length but its 51.7 m wingspan would have fit in ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code D.[315] It was designed to operate on Boeing 757-300/Boeing 767-200 sized regional routes from airports with restricted gate spacing.[316] The wingspan was decreased by using blended winglets instead of raked wingtips.
By January 2010, all orders, from Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways, had been converted to the 787-8.[317] As it was designed specifically for the Japanese market, Boeing would likely scrap it after they switched orders.[318] The -8's longer wingspan makes it more efficient on stages longer than 370 km (200 nm).[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]
Last edited by misd-agin; 18th Oct 2019 at 13:22.
Only half a speed-brake
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.
BTW it is in best industry interest, and that for completely everyone attached to it, that Boeing manages to plough through this.
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.
BTW it is in best industry interest, and that for completely everyone attached to it, that Boeing manages to plough through this.
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.
Last edited by Doctor Cruces; 18th Oct 2019 at 19:14.
Only half a speed-brake
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Boston, MA
Age: 50
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does a 767 AEW aircraft fit into these discussions?
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.
Combined with substantial commonality with the KC-46, there could be a compelling story here.
AWACS replacement
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.
Combined with substantial commonality with the KC-46, there could be a compelling story here.
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
- Grumman E-2D / Hawkeye 2000; and
- Various platforms with the Saab (formerly Ericsson) Erieye / Globaleye radar
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
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
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
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/1...temis_missions
Last edited by infrequentflyer789; 22nd Oct 2019 at 13:47. Reason: forgot link
The only user of a B767-based AEW&C aircraft is Japan.
The main 'top-end' replacements for AWACS-type airframes appear to be:
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
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
- Grumman E-2D / Hawkeye 2000; and
- Various platforms with the Saab (formerly Ericsson) Erieye / Globaleye radar
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 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.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: leftcoast
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 )
KC-46 does not have thrust reversers- but for some special uses they might be relatively easy to 'add' reinstall
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...