Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could A 767NEO Make Sense?  
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5471 posts, RR: 30
Posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4990 times:

Is it possible to breath some more life into the 767 with winglets by bolting on some new engines such as the genx-2b's? It seems to me that there is a gap between the 739MAX and the 788.

Since the 767 line is still open and will be for some time, could a simple, (in relative terms), re engine job, (and a low enough purchase price), be enough to garner some 767 sales?


What the...?
30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9642 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4923 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
Since the 767 line is still open and will be for some time, could a simple, (in relative terms), re engine job, (and a low enough purchase price), be enough to garner some 767 sales?

A billion $$ upgrade would not be cheap and there is no way there would be a low purchase price. Re-engine would likely drive significant redesign and upgrading to the latest amendment level. Boeing went with the 787, and that's the future.

It makes no sense to redesign an airplane competing with another one of your products. A re-engine 767 would only steal 787 orders. The net benefit would not be there in total airplanes purchased.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 79
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4885 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
Is it possible to breath some more life into the 767 with winglets by bolting on some new engines such as the genx-2b's? It seems to me that there is a gap between the 739MAX and the 788.

It's certainly technically possible, but I doubt the business case closes. In addition to what Roseflyer said, the vast majority of future 767 production will be KC-767 tankers, which already have the older engine. To do a NEO would mean running parallel or intermix lines...not impossible, but probably not cost effective.

Tom.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4826 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
It seems to me that there is a gap between the 739MAX and the 788.

It is a gap that airlines have been comfortable with for decades since they have moved from buying the 767-200 and 767-300 to buying the A330-200.

[Edited 2012-12-07 12:31:08]

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19712 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4766 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):
It's certainly technically possible, but I doubt the business case closes.

The fan on the GEnX-2b is 11" larger than the biggest fan on the 767. Do you think there is room to fit that big of an engine? I am doubtful.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9642 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4738 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
The fan on the GEnX-2b is 11" larger than the biggest fan on the 767. Do you think there is room to fit that big of an engine? I am doubtful.

Doesn't the -400 have taller gear? Impractical but not impossible.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4680 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 5):
Doesn't the -400 have taller gear? Impractical but not impossible.

It had redesigned gear, but I believe the plane has the same general ground clearance as the rest of the 767 fleet as it uses the same engines.

The 767-400ERX might have had taller gear, as it would have used the Trent 600 and Engine Alliance GP7100 engines being developed for the 747-500X and 747-600X.


User currently offlineDL_Mech From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1952 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4675 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
It had redesigned gear, but I believe the plane has the same general ground clearance as the rest of the 767 fleet as it uses the same engines.

The height off the ground is the same at the nose, but is about a foot higher off the ground at the engines. The 764 has quite a "rake" when viewed from the side. The 777 wheels and tires are quite a squeeze on the -400. The main tires practically touch each other on the gear and the wheel well is tightly packed when the gear is up.



This plane is built to withstand anything... except a bad pilot.
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1364 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4449 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 2):
It's certainly technically possible, but I doubt the business case closes.

The fan on the GEnX-2b is 11" larger than the biggest fan on the 767. Do you think there is room to fit that big of an engine? I am doubtful.

11" fan diameter (assuming the same cross-sectional dimensions for the cowl & inlet) only means a decrease of about 5.5" worth of ground clearance. I think they can maintain the minimum 18" from there, especially if it had the larger wheels that the 764 uses.



On a side note. Could not the 764 already be seen as something of a 76NG? It does have a heavily modified wing, new interior, upgraded avionics, different landing gear, and few other things as well. Not the same scale of difference between say a 731 & 739ER, but it's really not the same plane the 762 was either.

Given how that worked out, with no 788 to contend with either, I think we see that while a 76NG would indeed be a very desirable aircraft, sales would likely be punishing indeed.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4239 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 8):
Given how that worked out, with no 788 to contend with either, I think we see that while a 76NG would indeed be a very desirable aircraft, sales would likely be punishing indeed.

The 767-400ER failed because it lacked the capacity and the range of the A330-200. The 767-400ERX would have helped address the range issue at the time, but we now know Airbus had significant TOW improvements available to it and those would have put the 767-400ERX right back into the corner.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19712 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 4160 times:

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 8):
11" fan diameter (assuming the same cross-sectional dimensions for the cowl & inlet) only means a decrease of about 5.5" worth of ground clearance. I think they can maintain the minimum 18" from there, especially if it had the larger wheels that the 764 uses.

I'm concerned that the nacelle would have to be placed in front of the leading edge and that it might disturb the aerodynamics. It would be a very tight squeeze.


User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1360 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4111 times:

A 767NG? isn't that an A330, give or take?


From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4061 times:

I think they would have to sell it as a KC-46A Tanker upgrade on the USG's dime. Then it becomes a possibility, but still very unlikely...


harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1364 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4058 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):

I'm concerned that the nacelle would have to be placed in front of the leading edge and that it might disturb the aerodynamics. It would be a very tight squeeze.

No more so than it already is. Keep in mind that there would be also nothing preventing a new pylon from entering the mix as well. If you take a good look, for example, at the way a GE-90 is positioned vs an RR powerplant on the 777s, you can see that most of the slack involving the fan diameter difference is indeed taken up on the top end. The nacelle is, more or less, in line with the leading edge.

As well, if you ever get a chance to do a walk-around on a 767, you'll see that there actually is quite a lot of clearance in all other dimensions (WRT fuselage & fuel panel spacing, etc...); certainly enough for a little bump like that anyway.

Why this isn't really a problem is because wing-engined planes (read: the wings themselves) are already designed with this disturbance in mind. It's really more a matter of just not really generating a lot of lift along that wing chord than a straight up disturbance, per se. There are a lot of things, ranging from nacelle strakes to thrust gates that help out a good deal along those lines. As well, these wings tend to have greater span, chord and cross section as well to make up for the "loss" there. Intuitively, yes, it seems like it would just makes wings heavier. But OEMs the world over, and airlines, seem to have adopted this as the best option.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
The 767-400ER failed because it lacked the capacity and the range of the A330-200. The 767-400ERX would have helped address the range issue at the time, but we now know Airbus had significant TOW improvements available to it and those would have put the 767-400ERX right back into the corner.

I thought the 764(ER) had a very similar overall capacity to the 332. In fact for DL, the 764s look they carry about three more seats than the 332s. Is it a matter of cargo then, or payload range that the 764 just can't keep up?



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25338 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4024 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 5):
Doesn't the -400 have taller gear? Impractical but not impossible.

It had redesigned gear, but I believe the plane has the same general ground clearance as the rest of the 767 fleet as it uses the same engines.

The main gear is 18 inches taller. The 764's nose-down angle on the ground is quite noticeable. The tire diameter is also 4 inches greater (50 in. vs. 46 in.) which I assume further increases ground clearance by 2 inches.

Following excerpt from this Boeing article describing 764 changes:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aer...zine/aero_03/textonly/ps01txt.html

The stretched fuselage significantly reduced the rotation attitude of the airplane during takeoff and landing. The reduced body angles resulted in undesirable effects on takeoff field length and approach speeds.

Boeing resolved this situation by incorporating an all-new landing gear that is 18 in (46 cm) taller than the existing gear. The wheels, tires, and brakes are identical to those on the 777. The new gear features 50-in (127-cm) radial tires, compared to 46-in (117-cm) diameter bias ply tires on the 767-300ER. Fitting this larger rolling stock into the existing wheel well caused relocation of most of the hydraulic lines and a shift in the wing-mounted trunnion of 10 in (25 cm) outboard and 4 in (10 cm) downward. The nose landing gear is basically unchanged except for strengthening to accommodate the increased gross weight of the 767-400ER.

The 3,000-lb (1,361-kg) weight increase of the larger landing gear slowed gear retraction times, reducing payload capacity out of obstacle-limited airports. A new, higher-capacity air drive unit allows gear retraction times that match those of the 767-300ER and adds up to 2,800 lb (1,270 kg) of increased payload capacity.

A shorter, crushable-cartridge tail skid, similar to that used on the 777, has also been added to provide more rotational capability. The higher rotational angle gives operators up to 1,000 lb (455 kg) of additional payload capacity when departing from obstacle-limited airports.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5471 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4003 times:

Great discussion, folks. The reason I brought it up in the first place was it seems on the surface, a low hanging fruit, gap filler. The 767 may be fading off into the sunset but it is still being made and sold to airlines so it can't be that much of a dog. As well, there are still lots of them flying...and presumably making money for airlines.

I think the winglets went a long way towards smartening up the wing. Other than the oddball containers, the engines seem to be the area where the most improvement could be made and still make the plane economical.

The line will be open for years to come with the tanker program so there are some economics of scale going into keeping the costs down. I can't imagine how a 767NEO wouldn't be tens of millions of dollars cheaper than a 788 to purchase.

But this is just a thought exercise to smack around a concept, so all of the points of view are greatly appreciated.

[Edited 2012-12-09 18:46:01]


What the...?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks ago) and read 3803 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DarkSnowyNight (Reply 13):
I thought the 764(ER) had a very similar overall capacity to the 332. In fact for DL, the 764s look they carry about three more seats than the 332s. Is it a matter of cargo then, or payload range that the 764 just can't keep up?

In terms of cabin floor area, the 767-400ER and A330-200 are close (the cabin of the 767-400ER is a meter longer than the A330-200, but the A330-200 is 0.25m wider).

Cargo capacity favors the A330-200 (in terms of total ULD volume, you are looking at ~144m2 for the A330-200 and ~129m2 for the 767-400) as it can take LD3s in pairs (32) while the 767-400ER can only do them single-file (18). The main can for the 767 is the LD2, of which 38 can fit inside the 767-400ER.

Range at MZFW for the 767-400ER is 3700nm compared to ~4800nm for the A340-300 with the 242t TOW.


User currently offlineparapente From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 1583 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3488 times:

Boeing state that the 788 uses 20% less fuel than a similarly sized 767. Their words. So re engine the 767 and perhaps you could halve this number. Then,and,so?

Where has that got you (other than a big bill!). The 767-200 is a little smaller , what 30 seats or so. But as pointed out the market went the other way a long time ago (330). So old, less efficient and the wrong size. Oh and with the investment required expensive too! Not going to - never was. Let this great aircraft sleep - she has done magnificently, but her time has gone now.

If you were looking at the size area on a broader basis.Perhaps the efforts Boeing were making prior to the decision to go for "The MAX" would be more interesting.

They were pushing hard for a new aircraft.This was to have a model range that went "one up" above the -900er. Now that would have been closer to where you are talking (obviously more a 757 aircraft) but none the less not that far off.

But the airlines were not interested in this size - hence the "MAX" decision.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5471 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3437 times:

A 763er has an OEW almost 50,000 less than a 788, (the 762er around 60,000lbs less). It seems odd that carrying the same load for the same range, (say 4-5000nm), could result in the 788 burning 20% less fuel...even with the current CF-6 or Pratt 4000 engines, much less GEnx-2b's...(provided they could be made to fit relatively easily).

It may very well be the case, (and I don't claim to know better than Boeing), but I find the comparison interesting.

The 767 line has long since been paid off and it must also be at least somewhat cheaper plane to buy for airlines.

The Air Force will be keeping the line open for decades yet so it's not like the 757 where everything was scrapped.

I did find a fairly in depth discussion but it's almost 2 years old so the data might be out of date.

http://airinsight.com/2011/04/13/is-it-time-for-the-767ng/



What the...?
User currently offlineLAXDESI From United States of America, joined May 2005, 5086 posts, RR: 47
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3423 times:

From a very old thread of mine, below is my summary of the analysis:
B767 Replacement Economic Analysis (by LAXDESI Aug 1 2008 in Tech Ops)

Quote:
So on paper, a 763NG(new engine) with 10% lower fuel burn than the current 767 may be cheaper to operate than 788 on sub 4,000 nm thin routes. Looks like unless operators step up with a firm order of 100-150 767NG, it is unlikely to entice Boeing to spend resources on it.

Here's what Mandala came up with in reply 11 of the above thread:

Quote:
So yes... the 767-300ER with winglets need only save another 1050kgs per 4000NM trip to make it cheaper than the 7878 on that 4000NM@250pax trip... or basically shave off another 1.3% to 4.3% of fuel burn assuming it keeps a 20 - 30 million cheaper price than the 787-8 and that the route will never need to carry more than 250 pax.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9105 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3405 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 12):
I think they would have to sell it as a KC-46A Tanker upgrade on the USG's dime. Then it becomes a possibility, but still very unlikely...

That would be a clear case for trade sanctions to be put in place. For a civil version of any tanker related upgrades to make the market, a civil customer would need to pay a realistic price for the development and building of the airframe, anything else is a subsidy/dumping. We already have an idea of the price per airframe for the SDD aircraft, around 1 billion each, the USAF allocations for the project are a matter of public record.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9642 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3405 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 15):
I can't imagine how a 767NEO wouldn't be tens of millions of dollars cheaper than a 788 to purchase.
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 15):
I can't imagine how a 767NEO wouldn't be tens of millions of dollars cheaper than a 788 to purchase.

Actually the 767 likely has higher production costs than the 787. I have no insight to actual production costs, but I speculate that the assembly process for the 767 would cost more. It uses the old fashion Boeing style of building the airplane. Also low production airplanes always have higher parts costs. This is a huge factor. At 10 per month, the 787 has high enough production to keep the supplier part costs down. They also actively kept the costs down during the bidding process. If a supplier wants to increase their part costs, Boeing can easily rebid the parts. That doesn’t happen on the 767. No supplier is willing to go through the design effort to come up with new 767 parts since the production run is not that enticing. That results in suppliers increasing their costs.

Purchase price and production cost are independent. Purchase price that the airlines pay is set by the market and competing models. Production cost are set by suppliers and Boeing/Airbus production costs.

A NEO 767 will not command a large price premium over the 787. It likely wouldn’t achieve any price premium over the 787. It would be stuck on the 767 price which the market has pushed down since there are better airplanes available for sale. The margin on the 767 is very thin to begin with. New engines is not going to push the price up that airlines are willing to pay by much. All it would do is steal 787 orders, yet Boeing would still be spending $1 Billion on development costs.

I have no doubt that a 767 NEO could find some customers, but I also have no doubt that it would be financial disaster for Boeing. Boeing is only interested in new derivatives if there will be a net increase in airplane production. They aren’t interested in building airplanes that take sales away from other products. This is a major reason why we see no true 757 replacement. Boeing knows that airlines have no option from either Boeing or Airbus. They buy small with the 737/A320 or they buy big with the 787. Building a true 757 replacement would not sell many additional airplanes since they would take away 737-900 or 787 orders.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3374 times:

Going from a CF-6-80C2 or PW4062 to a GEnx2 gives you some 7% in lower fuel burn (0.58 to 0.54), it buys you nominally some 500nm in range, ie a 767-300ER would be a 6500nm ship instead of 6000nm and a -400ER would go some 400nm longer. This is the improvement when you don't count in the heavier engines and nacelles and any increase in nacelle drag. The engine weight diff is some 2*3000lb (12400-9600lb dry without nacelle differences) ie at least 0.5 hours flight time, so one looses half of the range gain. I think a 300nm range gain is to small to justify the neo.

If you try and raise the MTOW to gain more range you are in a rat-race with TO and landing performance, one shall also remember that the 767 wing is non supercritical ie a higher wingloading means higher transonic cruise drag.



Non French in France
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9642 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3363 times:

Quoting zeke (Reply 20):
Quoting mffoda (Reply 12):
I think they would have to sell it as a KC-46A Tanker upgrade on the USG's dime. Then it becomes a possibility, but still very unlikely...

That would be a clear case for trade sanctions to be put in place. For a civil version of any tanker related upgrades to make the market, a civil customer would need to pay a realistic price for the development and building of the airframe, anything else is a subsidy/dumping. We already have an idea of the price per airframe for the SDD aircraft, around 1 billion each, the USAF allocations for the project are a matter of public record.

Developing technology on the commercial side and pushing it to the military side is very easy. Doing the opposite is very difficult and practically rarely done.

In addition to what you say, development items that are exclusively for the tanker fall under the military category. They are not dual use, so that means ITAR (international traffic and arms regulations) apply. Even if it isn't related to classified equipment, it is under military export control requirements which makes it extremely difficult to transfer to commercial applications.

Having a long backlog of FedEx 767s will help. Boeing can push the design of new and upgraded components onto a commercial 767 first before the tanker which makes them dual use and gets around the export control requirements.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19712 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

Quoting LAXDESI (Reply 19):
Quote:
So yes... the 767-300ER with winglets need only save another 1050kgs per 4000NM trip to make it cheaper than the 7878 on that 4000NM@250pax trip... or basically shave off another 1.3% to 4.3% of fuel burn assuming it keeps a 20 - 30 million cheaper price than the 787-8 and that the route will never need to carry more than 250 pax.

So MAYBE some of the North American and European carriers could use it on domestic/intra-Europe routes. Maybe even on some TATL routes. But the aircraft would seriously lack flexibility. Because a new airliner is likely to last for 20-25 years before being retired, that flexibility is important.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5471 posts, RR: 30
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3395 times:

It seems to me that there is some room between the 739 and the 788. That's a huge gap in seats, range and purchase price.

The Boeing site shows the 788 $25million more than the 763ER...and that's not chump change. I realise nobody pays list but the 788 price must still be over $10 million than the 767.

Right now, the 757 and 767 are flying in the gap. What happens when these planes start getting too expensive to operate? It intuitively seems such an easy fit to use an aircraft that's still in production.

Ultimately, it's up to the customers. I'm sure Boeing would be more than willing to spruce up the 767 if a customer or two was willing to pony up some dough.



What the...?
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9642 posts, RR: 52
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3370 times:

Development costs are only going higher as the regulations become stricter. This favors fewer airplanes in the line up and less choice for airlines. Airbus has already played their cards that they are projecting 3 models A320, A350 and A380 in the future. Airbus has already handed small widebody market to Boeing by not having anything smaller than the A350 on the horizon and having the A358 being a bit on the heavy side to compete with the 788. I see no business justification for a 767 NEO.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 25):

Right now, the 757 and 767 are flying in the gap. What happens when these planes start getting too expensive to operate? It intuitively seems such an easy fit to use an aircraft that's still in production.

There is a big gap, but as long as Boeing has the smallest widebody, and then the narrowbody with the most range, they are still going to build the airplanes for those airlines. Boeing has the goal of building the most airplanes in total not building airplanes that please everyone. There might be a market for airplanes with 250K – 300K MTOW, but if no one is covering that market airlines will go bigger or smaller and if Boeing still gets the sale, that is a win for them.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 25):

Ultimately, it's up to the customers. I'm sure Boeing would be more than willing to spruce up the 767 if a customer or two was willing to pony up some dough.

Yes if an airline is willing to pay enough. Unfortunately, no airline is likely willing to pay enough to make it worth it. We are talking $1 Billion in investment that needs to be covered. Who is going to order 100s of 767s with new engines? It’s cheaper to just buy 787s.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 25):

The Boeing site shows the 788 $25million more than the 763ER...and that's not chump change. I realise nobody pays list but the 788 price must still be over $10 million than the 767.

If the 787 has a higher margin, then Boeing wants to push customers there.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3385 times:

Sorry to nitpick but the NEO is an Airbus term. The correct term for this would be the 767Max. It just sounds funny, to me, tagging the "NEO" to a Boeing product.

If that doesn't bother anyone, then how about an A330Max?   



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31001 posts, RR: 86
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3387 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If Boeing had been able to sell a re-engined 767 to customers instead of the 7E7, they would have done it.  

The gap between the 737-900ER and 787-8 is one that airlines appear to be very comfortable with. Just as they appear to be very comfortable with the gap between the A321-200 and A330-200.

When Boeing first discussed the 7E7 with potential customers, they pitched a "767 class" airframe because the 777 was still relatively new and that program had it's own future replacement ("Yellowstone 3").

Those discussions made it clear that airlines were not interested in a "767 class" airframe, but instead wanted an airframe similar in size (and capability) to the A330-200 | A330-300 | A340-300 | 777-200ER. And that is what Boeing eventually delivered.




Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 18):
A 763er has an OEW almost 50,000 less than a 788, (the 762er around 60,000lbs less). It seems odd that carrying the same load for the same range, (say 4-5000nm), could result in the 788 burning 20% less fuel...even with the current CF-6 or Pratt 4000 engines, much less GEnx-2b's...(provided they could be made to fit relatively easily).

I imagine it's the vastly superior aerodynamics of the 787 that cover the higher empty weight compared to the 767. Let us not forget that the 787-3 was some 20,000 pounds lighter than the 787-8 in terms of empty weight, yet the 7m shorter wingspan so impacted the aerodynamics that the 787-8 was more efficient on stage lengths as short as 250nm.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 84
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3318 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 26):
There is a big gap, but as long as Boeing has the smallest widebody, and then the narrowbody with the most range, they are still going to build the airplanes for those airlines.

But they do not have the narrowbody with the most range, unless we're talking about the 757.

NS


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2804 posts, RR: 59
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3301 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 29):
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 26):
There is a big gap, but as long as Boeing has the smallest widebody, and then the narrowbody with the most range, they are still going to build the airplanes for those airlines.

But they do not have the narrowbody with the most range, unless we're talking about the 757.

The whole range discussion on the 320 and 737 is a mine field, both are fuel limited on the normal tankage so what you are looking at is which of them has traded the most cargo space for cargo room extra tanks. The standard capacity for the 320 is 23700l for neo and 24210l for ceo then you can add cargo tanks a 2992l a piece, the 321ceo and the neos have 2 added as standard. The 737 is a bit better, it has 26020l as standard but adds only 1970l for the first and then some 1692l for each additional tank (it's cargo hold is narrower), the second link gives the exact values per added tank, the MAX has 2 as standard.

A320 extra tankage (post 37):
A321 Popularity And Enhancements (by cjpmaestro Nov 24 2012 in Civil Aviation)#37

737 extra tankage (post 20):
Costs US To Europe 757 Vs 787 175 Pax (by hiflyer Oct 4 2012 in Tech Ops)#20

So the SA range discussion is really "who has the passangers with the least luggage requirements"  .

[Edited 2012-12-12 22:12:10]


Non French in France
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Could A 767NEO Make Sense?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Could The 757 Make A Comeback? posted Tue Aug 30 2011 11:53:34 by dlramp4life
How Much Thrust Could A Low By-pass Tf-39 Make? posted Tue Jul 25 2006 18:24:06 by 747400sp
Could An A380 Glide? posted Sat Jun 30 2012 13:44:19 by skychef747400
How Much Thrust Do T/R's Make? posted Thu May 3 2012 22:08:25 by DocLightning
How Far Could Such A DC-8 Fly... posted Sat Mar 3 2012 09:43:01 by happy-flier
What Plane Components Did This Thing Make? posted Mon Feb 13 2012 16:52:58 by LimaNiner
Could The A390 Be A Twin Engine A380 Replacement? posted Thu Jan 5 2012 07:33:48 by 747400sp
Would Aluminum Barrels Make Sense? posted Fri Nov 18 2011 21:15:01 by justloveplanes
Could A Six Wheel Widebody Work? posted Thu Oct 20 2011 17:15:55 by 747400sp
Could A 13' Wide Cabin Work? posted Sun Oct 2 2011 16:28:57 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format