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

[RodH]

These figures are correct as of 31st August 2019

Originally Posted by Sailvi767

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

Seems like they are selling albeit slowly.

[misd-agin]

Originally Posted by tdracer

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[[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_787_Dreamliner&action=edit&section=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]

[Sailvi767]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[kiwi grey]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[darobstacraw]

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.

[kiwi grey]

AWACS replacement

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by kiwi grey

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

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..



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

[infrequentflyer789]

Originally Posted by keesje

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

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

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/1...temis_missions

[sandiego89]

Originally Posted by kiwi grey

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...