Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

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

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

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

Old 12th Oct 2019, 13:37
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,412
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?
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 14:12
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 202
New larger engines and a MCAS system. What could possibly go wrong !
Fluke is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 14:46
  #3 (permalink)  
c52
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,870
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.
c52 is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 17:58
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 43
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by c52 View Post
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.
procede is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2019, 18:37
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the twilight zone
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by c52 View Post
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.
The Range is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 13:48
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
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 . . .
Torquelink is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 14:04
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,304
A warmed-over 767 makes about as much sense as starting up the 757 line again ...
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 15:13
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 815
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
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..
etudiant is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 15:21
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Posts: 177
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.
Lord Bracken is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 15:59
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 1,071
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?
Less Hair is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 20:19
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,989
Originally Posted by Torquelink View Post
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).

tdracer is online now  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 22:10
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Dirty South
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
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 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.
JPJP is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 01:58
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
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?
Smythe is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 16:22
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: New jersey
Posts: 38
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.
Chiefttp is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 20:24
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,152
Originally Posted by JPJP View Post
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.
Intruder is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 22:04
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGSS
Posts: 913
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.
Flightmech is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 22:37
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 62
Posts: 425
Originally Posted by Lord Bracken View Post
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 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 22:42
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 62
Posts: 425
Originally Posted by Torquelink View Post
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.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 22:44
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,989
Originally Posted by JPJP View Post
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.
tdracer is online now  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 23:16
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,304
Originally Posted by Flightmech View Post
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.

DaveReidUK is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.