|
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? |
New larger engines and a MCAS system. What could possibly go wrong ! |
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.
|
Originally Posted by c52
(Post 10592717)
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.
|
Originally Posted by c52
(Post 10592717)
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.
|
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 . . .
|
A warmed-over 767 makes about as much sense as starting up the 757 line again ...
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10595690)
A warmed-over 767 makes about as much sense as starting up the 757 line again ...
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.. |
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? |
Originally Posted by Torquelink
(Post 10595674)
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). |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10596012)
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). 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. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by JPJP
(Post 10596116)
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 ?
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 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. |
Originally Posted by Lord Bracken
(Post 10595755)
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.
|
Originally Posted by Torquelink
(Post 10595674)
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 . . .
|
Originally Posted by JPJP
(Post 10596116)
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-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. |
Originally Posted by Flightmech
(Post 10597049)
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.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:19. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.