Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2148
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:53 pm

Ronaldo747 wrote:
According from Flightglobal, Boeing might launch a GEnX-powered 767, mainly for Cargo ops.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... pa-461386/


I swear to God. Boeing has no talent left. The only way this makes sense if if it’s better for them to build a new narrow that has a bottom end between the 737-7 and an upper end near a 753 leaving a gap that may not need to be filled to the 787. If not, they truly are failing company.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:03 pm

I highly doubt this will work as a Passenger Model without a completely new wing.

The economics just won't be nearly good enough even if you go to 8W inside (if at all possible).

I'm sure Boeing will build somebody some if they want them - but it will live or die on it's abilities as a freighter.

Assuming they do use the 748 Engines with about a 9% thrust bump and if they are redesigning the gear anyways - how much of a MTOW bump could we be looking at?

How much cargo could it then lift? 767-300F seems like a 52T lifter, 777-200F just over 100T.

It's only 2M shorter than an 777-200F and I'm sure some of that extra length of the 777 is lost in the Nose and the tail. The 767 is Narrower - but is that that big of a hindrance due to the realities that pallets are of a certain size?

With the new engines could this be a lot better package freighter than 777-200F or 777-8F as you won't be carrying around all that extra Structure (of an 777 based solution) to Carry packages which are mostly comprised of Air?

Instead of fuel efficiency per KG carried is the more important metric Fuel Efficiency per M^3 of volume carried?
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3921
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:12 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
The 757 lacks a supercritical wing


Where did you get this idea? As a demonstration of 757 wing technology, can you name another airliner with a 0.80M long range cruise speed that has 25 degree sweep wing?

You're confused on definitions. Is the Truss-Braced Wing supercritical? No... The 737 MAX's wing is a hybrid that gets close, but if you compare the 767 to the 787 and A350 wing-wise, you'll realize the differences.


No, I'm not confused. In 1978 - 1981, I was part of the Aerodynamics team developing the 757 wing. The airfoil used for the 757 has the upper surface pressure distribution and associated aft camber of a "supercritical" airfoil. This enables the 757 to have a 0.80M cruise speed with a 25 deg wing sweep. In contrast, the 767 wing sweep is 31.5 deg to achieve the same 0.80M cruise speed. The later EIS of the 757 relative to the 767 allowed a more advanced airfoil technology to be incorporated.

The 787 and A350 do add variable camber by flap movement during cruise for increased efficiency but this doesn't negate the fact that the 757 has a "supercritical" airfoil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_airfoil
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
catiii
Posts: 3517
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:20 pm

UPS757Pilot wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
catiii wrote:

Why is the 787 Freighter an obvious successor? What would a hypothetical 787 freighter do that the existing 767 and 777 freighters can’t do?
For the 788, slightly more payload weight on a 20% greater range and much better fuel economics. Freighters usually bulk out long before hitting MTOW, apart from the 747s. The 788F can provide much more space which means much more effective payload. Not to mention the all-composite wing and fuselage design reduces C and D checks, so better operational economics too.

Yes but not all freighter ops mirror passenger ops. For instance, UPS will run an MD-11 domestically from SDF-CLE or SDF-MCO, so on a short run the fuel savings aren't that great. The aircraft acquisition costs musts be factored in. I imagine a 767 GEnx would cost much less than a 788, plus factor in the common type rating and parts. For other more traditional long haul freight operations the 788 probably makes more sense.


And that’s the point I was trying to set up. Putting aside the hypothetical over how much more “space” a 788F can provide over a 763, 764, or 777 (which I don’t believe to be the case) UPS and FedEx have a much greater ability to pass on increased costs from fuel to their customers than a passenger carrier so the efficient benefits of a hypothetically more efficient 788F aren’t necessarily as important.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:24 pm

Noshow wrote:
Use new built 767 as a freighter? Maybe.
Use USAF mods for some commercial spinoff? Maybe.
Stretch it to 767-400 length as package freighter? Maybe (ask Amazon first).
Use 787-engines to power the old 767? Never ever.

This story doesn't make sense today. There will be plenty of old A330 and 777-300ER on the market ready for freighter conversion.
Otherwise it might be time to design a 787 freighter version.


It would use the 747-8's engine since it's already on a bleed air system. If slot and parking spot restrictions are really as constrained and limiting as people say, then it's a good idea. For the life of me I can't believe we haven't just built freight-specific airports left, right, and center to deal with this. If freighters are already bulking out, then we need bigger ones, but we can't fit bigger ones at the moment. No wonder shipping is so ridiculously expensive...
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:30 pm

catiii wrote:
And that’s the point I was trying to set up. Putting aside the hypothetical over how much more “space” a 788F can provide over a 763, 764, or 777 (which I don’t believe to be the case) UPS and FedEx have a much greater ability to pass on increased costs from fuel to their customers than a passenger carrier so the efficient benefits of a hypothetically more efficient 788F aren’t necessarily as important.

Why do you not believe it to be the case? Just look at the shipping container options for the 787s already vs. the 767s. There's 15% more width and 25% more total volume in the 788 cargo hold vs. the 764.

UPS and FedEx won't have that ability much longer. Amazon and Uber are already working on a partnership to pick up packages en route to airports and shipping centers, and Amazon's building its own dedicated shipping airports. Amazon will just knock UPS and FedEx off their pedestals as the monopoly incumbents if they push their luck.
 
beechnut
Posts: 924
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:38 pm

Palop wrote:
It is comfortable and convenient for customers with its 2-3-2.


Don't count on it remaining 2-3-2. I'm sure it will be 8-abreast, if Boeing chooses the lipstick on a pig route again.

Not that I think the 767 is a pig by any stretch; I've flown many, many hours on them, but they are yesterday's plane.

a -400 does seem to me to be a bit big to compete with the A321XLR; a -200 would seem perfect for that and a viable cheap, quick and dirty NMA, but I suspect it would be too heavy to be competitive. So a -400 would be more aimed, I think, at the A330 market. A -300 somewhere in the middle. A sweet spot?

Beech
 
User avatar
BlueSky1976
Posts: 1890
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2004 9:18 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:43 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
DCA350 wrote:
This is interesting.. but considering the A330 kicked the 767's @ss ,leading to Boeing building the 787 I can't see how the passenger 767MAX would be that successful except for the most ardent 767 customers like UA. Delta and AA have already moved on with the NEO and 787. Cargo could be interesting.. Airbus has apparently given up on the A330F, they won't even upgrade it to the highest MTOW of the newest passenger models so a 767FMAX would have the market to itself.


the A330 did NO Such Thing!! How many were replacements FOR 767's?? /give it a Break will you?


Until 787 came along, ALL OF THEM, with exception of 764s ordered by DL and CO, and some 763ER top-up orders from Asia and the Americas (NH, AA, LAN and JAL spring to mind). Passenger 767 sales were being OBLITERATED by A330s just about elsewhere in the world. Heck, even Boeing - only KLM replaced its 767s with A330s.
The queen of the skies is dead.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:52 pm

Yakflyer wrote:
Revelation wrote:
jagraham wrote:
The 767-400 already has the 777 glass cockpit.

A.net pedantry rules require me to comment that the 767-400 has the 777 glass displays yet a very different cockpit.


I would like to inquire just what constitutes "a very different cockpit"? In my opinion the cockpits are very similar. Granted the 767-400 computers are dumbed down a little bit and there is no track pad or electronic checklists, but to the untrained eye the cockpits look pretty much the same. Couple that with the fact that the 777 cab is just a 767 nose blended onto a larger diameter fuselage where do we cross the line from similar to very different?


I think he means that the controls are 767 controls as opposed to 777 controls. Think 767 flightdeck with 777 screens.
I get his point. But I am not sure he gets mine. Which is that the computers behind the 777 displays can be easily reprogrammed (if necessary at all; there is considerable overlap between GEnX speak and GE90 speak) to interface with GEnX engines. No reason to replace the flightdeck if the engines are switched.
 
StTim
Posts: 3693
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:53 pm

9Patch wrote:
StTim wrote:
I am not sure that Boeing has got away with grandfathering the 777X fuselage structure - given that they have produced stress and fatigue frames. The sidewall sculpting will have changed stress profiles quite significantly.


Are you speculating again?


When I did do stress design on structures many years ago and not well I would see this as a change. If you were doing FEA the frames would need to change and the analysis redone.

Have I seen Boeing say it? No

So informed speculation I would say.
 
Mi26
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 9:43 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:02 pm

Just wondered if the -400ER is being considered due it's extended landing gear. This would accommodate any increased engine fan diameter of a "next-generation engines"
 
jagraham
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:14 pm

catiii wrote:
UPS757Pilot wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
For the 788, slightly more payload weight on a 20% greater range and much better fuel economics. Freighters usually bulk out long before hitting MTOW, apart from the 747s. The 788F can provide much more space which means much more effective payload. Not to mention the all-composite wing and fuselage design reduces C and D checks, so better operational economics too.

Yes but not all freighter ops mirror passenger ops. For instance, UPS will run an MD-11 domestically from SDF-CLE or SDF-MCO, so on a short run the fuel savings aren't that great. The aircraft acquisition costs musts be factored in. I imagine a 767 GEnx would cost much less than a 788, plus factor in the common type rating and parts. For other more traditional long haul freight operations the 788 probably makes more sense.


And that’s the point I was trying to set up. Putting aside the hypothetical over how much more “space” a 788F can provide over a 763, 764, or 777 (which I don’t believe to be the case) UPS and FedEx have a much greater ability to pass on increased costs from fuel to their customers than a passenger carrier so the efficient benefits of a hypothetically more efficient 788F aren’t necessarily as important.


The ability to pass on increased costs is overstated. Just look at FedEx's last quarter (now without Amazon). They're hurting.
Except for long haul freight, most freighters sit on the ground more than they fly. So the need for operating efficiency is less compared to passenger planes. And the need for low acquisition cost is more.
Finally, the newest generation of passenger planes gets their efficiency by being light. But a freight plane carries more load than its passenger equivalent, for good reason. So the lower MTOW is not of much use. Which is why the 777F is still selling well. And freight operators are snatching up all the used 767s they can find. And buying new ones.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:19 pm

OldAeroGuy wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
OldAeroGuy wrote:

Where did you get this idea? As a demonstration of 757 wing technology, can you name another airliner with a 0.80M long range cruise speed that has 25 degree sweep wing?

You're confused on definitions. Is the Truss-Braced Wing supercritical? No... The 737 MAX's wing is a hybrid that gets close, but if you compare the 767 to the 787 and A350 wing-wise, you'll realize the differences.


No, I'm not confused. In 1978 - 1981, I was part of the Aerodynamics team developing the 757 wing. The airfoil used for the 757 has the upper surface pressure distribution and associated aft camber of a "supercritical" airfoil. This enables the 757 to have a 0.80M cruise speed with a 25 deg wing sweep. In contrast, the 767 wing sweep is 31.5 deg to achieve the same 0.80M cruise speed. The later EIS of the 757 relative to the 767 allowed a more advanced airfoil technology to be incorporated.

The 787 and A350 do add variable camber by flap movement during cruise for increased efficiency but this doesn't negate the fact that the 757 has a "supercritical" airfoil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercritical_airfoil


Oh please, that's 1st generation work where super criticality (which is more than just sweep even by your own source) doesn't hold more than 20% the length of the wing. It meets the standard less than half the time. Taking inspiration from the geometry of the 787 wing, redoing the 767 wing in composites or in the 737 MAX's specialized alloy will give us much better criticality at all distances from the fuselage. This is also why the 737 MAX wing was given its pronounced curvature despite still having the wing made from Aluminum (though thinner and in more flexible configuration).

We wouldn't even need the wingspan of the 764 to get the same lift thankfully. I still say this is a bad NMA idea, but if it's for freighters, the wing needs some work.
 
afgeneral
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:43 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:19 pm

this would be amazing for passengers. 2-3-2 config
 
ewt340
Posts: 1252
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:25 pm

You would think they would use the -300ER for their base model for this re-engine project. Since you know, it's the best selling one out of this variants and it got no competition from Airbus.
Weirdly enough they choose -400ER for the base. I guess the weakest GEnx engine is still to powerful for such small frame.
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2566
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:26 pm

ikramerica wrote:
JetBuddy wrote:
keesje wrote:
I guess the "767-400ER based derivative" would be the glass cockpit, system upgrades, 777 style Signature interior, etc.

The fuselage lenght(s) capacity would probably more in the 767-200-300 area. The 400ER is serious overlapping the 787-8.

As said the USAF replaced a lot of legacy system already, they want to fly 767s for 40+ years.

Fedex, UPS, Delta, United and AA, the biggest 767 would no doubt applaud this initiative. As well as local authorities, DoD, congress..


This is how I understand it as well. When talking about the -400ER, they mean the updated 777/787 flight deck and other system improvements.

In size they would probably do a -300, even a -200 sized one would be interesting to fit neatly between the 737-10 and the 787-9. The 787-8 is not selling, so overlap isn't as important.


Right. People sometimes forget that the 764 was a 1990s gen2 767 crippled by lack of viable engines.

My guess is that the plane would be based on the 767-300 sized fuselage with the 764 improvements, and if they were to add frames, they would do it differently for CG reasons and takeoff, possibly adding a few more frames but mostly before the wing.

767-8 and 8F, with a -9 in the future.


Yep.

That's exactly what I was going to say as well. I think the MAX name will be dropped forever, even though it's tempting to call this the 767 MAX colloquially.

767-200 size = 767-8
767-300 size = 767-9

All of them with the 767-400ER flight deck which is updated with 777 glass displays. It looks a lot like the 777 flight deck, but the type rating isn't the same. Maybe that could be changed though. If Boeing manages to merge the 767-8/9 type rating with the 777 and 787, that could help a lot with some customers. Or maybe differences training would be enough, as with A330/A340 - A350. That would probably satisfy the current 767 operators.

Boeing is talking about lengthening the main landing gear for the larger engines, which is a much better solution than lifting the engines up and forward as in the 737 MAX. Another aspect of this is that MCAS for 767 already exists - if needed. And it works very differently than the one for 737 MAX.

I wonder what type of fuel savings we would see with GEnx engines? The 767 was never that thirsty to begin with.
Last edited by JetBuddy on Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:27 pm

jagraham wrote:
catiii wrote:
UPS757Pilot wrote:
Yes but not all freighter ops mirror passenger ops. For instance, UPS will run an MD-11 domestically from SDF-CLE or SDF-MCO, so on a short run the fuel savings aren't that great. The aircraft acquisition costs musts be factored in. I imagine a 767 GEnx would cost much less than a 788, plus factor in the common type rating and parts. For other more traditional long haul freight operations the 788 probably makes more sense.


And that’s the point I was trying to set up. Putting aside the hypothetical over how much more “space” a 788F can provide over a 763, 764, or 777 (which I don’t believe to be the case) UPS and FedEx have a much greater ability to pass on increased costs from fuel to their customers than a passenger carrier so the efficient benefits of a hypothetically more efficient 788F aren’t necessarily as important.


The ability to pass on increased costs is overstated. Just look at FedEx's last quarter (now without Amazon). They're hurting.
Except for long haul freight, most freighters sit on the ground more than they fly. So the need for operating efficiency is less compared to passenger planes. And the need for low acquisition cost is more.
Finally, the newest generation of passenger planes gets their efficiency by being light. But a freight plane carries more load than its passenger equivalent, for good reason. So the lower MTOW is not of much use. Which is why the 777F is still selling well. And freight operators are snatching up all the used 767s they can find. And buying new ones.

Um, carry more in volume, or in weight? Weight I'm afraid is just not true. Passenger craft hit MTOW far more often than freighters, as explained previously on how freighters bulk out more often than they weigh out.

The 777F sells so well because it was essentially the first good option for long haul freight. If parking spots are the limiting factor, then why hasn't Airbus fast-tracked the A330-800 as a freighter? It's cheap to acquire, far more efficient than the 777F, and fits into all the same spots. The 800 also isn't selling well as a passenger plane.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10263
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:30 pm

Boeingphan wrote:
This seems like another lost opportunity from Boeing. The max was warmed over soup when it launched, and this feels much the same. They seem to be very reactionary in their decision making of late and I'm not sure what it's tied to.

787....nuff said.
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1208
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:32 pm

I used to think that this was a good idea and perhaps there may have been a time where this was a good idea.

But I think that development costs are not worth the effort.

The GEnx is too much engine for this mission, so you would need a smaller variant. That won't be cheap to develop and certify for GE and is going to reflect in higher pricing, which much like the A330neo, sheds off much of the appeal of the aircraft.

It may make more sense to update the cabin to a dreamliner cabin, try a semi-comfy 8 abreast with thinner sidepanels, even though you won't see me on it, make some aerodynamic, weight saving and major PIP tweaks, and sell them dirt cheap.

I think that the B763ER is the right platform for this in terms of weight, a B764ER cockpit and avionics suite won't be hard to fit in.

If you look at how much Airbus is asking for the A321, a competitively priced B763ER can be very compelling.

Airlines want something that burns little and costs little, a reworked B763ER can be very competitive in this arena.

The B764ER is too heavy and with GENX engines, it will just be too close to the B788 in cost, weight and efficiency to be of interest to anyone including freighters.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:38 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
Boeing is talking about lengthening the main landing gear for the larger engines, which is a much better solution than lifting the engines up and forward as in the 737 MAX. Another aspect of this is that MCAS for 767 already exists - if needed. And it works very differently than the one for 737 MAX.

I wonder what type of fuel savings we would see with GEnx engines? The 767 was never that thirsty to begin with.

The 737 is height-restricted to keep its overwing exits as part of grandfathering.

The GEnx is easily 15% more efficient than the engines on the 767, and that's before we greatly improve the wing geometry similar to the 787, 737 MAX, and 777X.

That all being said, it's a bad idea as a MOM solution unless they can get permission to put on a slightly wider fuselage. They'll sculpt out the insides to fit 2-4-2. The 777X found 4" of room that could be squeezed out of the fuselage wall, so we'll use that as our baseline.

17.9 + (4/7) = 18.47" per seat in 2-3-2 config.

18.4714285714 * 7/8 = 16.1625. So, Boeing would need to cut another 6 inches out of the aisles just to get to a tolerable 17" per seat. That would royally, royally suck to fly on.
Last edited by patrickjp93 on Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13837
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:43 pm

DL717 wrote:
Ronaldo747 wrote:
According from Flightglobal, Boeing might launch a GEnX-powered 767, mainly for Cargo ops.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... pa-461386/


I swear to God. Boeing has no talent left. The only way this makes sense if if it’s better for them to build a new narrow that has a bottom end between the 737-7 and an upper end near a 753 leaving a gap that may not need to be filled to the 787. If not, they truly are failing company.


I actually think it might make sense for Boeing.

:arrow: if 797 NMA market "interest" doesn't translate into commitment
:arrow: MAX troubles suck company energy,
:arrow: 50k engine availablility realistically take 7 years,
:arrow: quick supply chain ramp up might prove challenging
:arrow: 5 year cash position is not strong
:arrow: A321 variants already ripped the bottom out of the NMA market

that could make a 2027, $25B 797 NMA a bad idea. Then better don't hesitate on a viable plan B. I can see United, Fedex, American, Delta, UPS and some leisure carriers committing to ~200 and already closing the ($4B?) business case with that.

The A330, 787 have become bigger, more capable and expensive, leaving open space for many carriers that don't need the capability and don't want to pay for network flexibility. Maybe Boeing has to believe their own market expectations.

Image
https://seekingalpha.com/article/405727 ... n-revenues
Last edited by keesje on Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:45 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
I used to think that this was a good idea and perhaps there may have been a time where this was a good idea.

But I think that development costs are not worth the effort.

The GEnx is too much engine for this mission, so you would need a smaller variant. That won't be cheap to develop and certify for GE and is going to reflect in higher pricing, which much like the A330neo, sheds off much of the appeal of the aircraft.

It may make more sense to update the cabin to a dreamliner cabin, try a semi-comfy 8 abreast with thinner sidepanels, even though you won't see me on it, make some aerodynamic, weight saving and major PIP tweaks, and sell them dirt cheap.

I think that the B763ER is the right platform for this in terms of weight, a B764ER cockpit and avionics suite won't be hard to fit in.

If you look at how much Airbus is asking for the A321, a competitively priced B763ER can be very compelling.

Airlines want something that burns little and costs little, a reworked B763ER can be very competitive in this arena.

The B764ER is too heavy and with GENX engines, it will just be too close to the B788 in cost, weight and efficiency to be of interest to anyone including freighters.


GEnx-1B58/P2 is right at 61,000 lbs of thrust, not far off the 60,600-61,500 lbs of thrust used by the 763/4. Slightly shorter wings of the 763 to make it fit for freighters, with improved geometry from the 787, 737 MAX, and 777X projects, combined with reduced weight from innovations in cabling, fiber optics, wire/pipe routing, etc., while increasing engine weight, and it probably fits right in.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23956
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:48 pm

ewt340 wrote:
You would think they would use the -300ER for their base model for this re-engine project. Since you know, it's the best selling one out of this variants and it got no competition from Airbus.
Weirdly enough they choose -400ER for the base. I guess the weakest GEnx engine is still to powerful for such small frame.

And, another indication this is not addressing the same space MOM/NMA would address.

MOM/NMA was more like a 762E size aircraft with half the range of 762E.

This 767-8 idea is a 764E replacement with the same or more range as 764E.

Easily 30 more pax and twice the range than the NMA proposal, +10,000 lbs more thrust, so not the same thing.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
JetBuddy
Posts: 2566
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 1:04 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:57 pm

Revelation wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
You would think they would use the -300ER for their base model for this re-engine project. Since you know, it's the best selling one out of this variants and it got no competition from Airbus.
Weirdly enough they choose -400ER for the base. I guess the weakest GEnx engine is still to powerful for such small frame.

And, another indication this is not addressing the same space MOM/NMA would address.

MOM/NMA was more like a 762E size aircraft with half the range of 762E.

This 767-8 idea is a 764E replacement with the same or more range as 764E.

Easily 30 more pax and twice the range than the NMA proposal, +10,000 lbs more thrust, so not the same thing.


I don't think they mean the -400 length.

I think they mean the -400ER flight deck, landing gear, and updated systems on a -300 length fuselage. Or maybe even -200.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:58 pm

Revelation wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
You would think they would use the -300ER for their base model for this re-engine project. Since you know, it's the best selling one out of this variants and it got no competition from Airbus.
Weirdly enough they choose -400ER for the base. I guess the weakest GEnx engine is still to powerful for such small frame.

And, another indication this is not addressing the same space MOM/NMA would address.

MOM/NMA was more like a 762E size aircraft with half the range of 762E.

This 767-8 idea is a 764E replacement with the same or more range as 764E.

Easily 30 more pax and twice the range than the NMA proposal, +10,000 lbs more thrust, so not the same thing.


We do not know the customer reactions. maybe 60% wanted the smaller version and 40% the bigger - maybe with similar range. So if the problems with the MAX have forced Boeing to do the NSA earlier than planed they could cover the lower part of the MoM market with the NSA and cover the upper part with the 767MAX - which would be backed by the freighters alone. Strategically it would make sense.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13837
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 2:59 pm

Revelation wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
You would think they would use the -300ER for their base model for this re-engine project. Since you know, it's the best selling one out of this variants and it got no competition from Airbus.
Weirdly enough they choose -400ER for the base. I guess the weakest GEnx engine is still to powerful for such small frame.

And, another indication this is not addressing the same space MOM/NMA would address.

MOM/NMA was more like a 762E size aircraft with half the range of 762E.

This 767-8 idea is a 764E replacement with the same or more range as 764E.

Easily 30 more pax and twice the range than the NMA proposal, +10,000 lbs more thrust, so not the same thing.


I think a 767-8 would be optimized for 5000NM flights with good payload. Asian prospects voiced their concern on NMA cargo capability. While the 767 doesn't have the standard LD3's, payload-range is sufficient. If e.g. 5000NM with a 30t payload is set, you can optimize / lighten the airframe, engines, landing gears around it, limitting OEW.

On the wings, some further CFD based clean up, optimization could be done like on the A330NEO.
No doubt a new fancy wingtip can be bolded on, to show off its newness.

Image
Darryl Morrell, https://www.airteamimages.com/boeing-73 ... 54512.html
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
jagraham
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:00 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
catiii wrote:

And that’s the point I was trying to set up. Putting aside the hypothetical over how much more “space” a 788F can provide over a 763, 764, or 777 (which I don’t believe to be the case) UPS and FedEx have a much greater ability to pass on increased costs from fuel to their customers than a passenger carrier so the efficient benefits of a hypothetically more efficient 788F aren’t necessarily as important.


The ability to pass on increased costs is overstated. Just look at FedEx's last quarter (now without Amazon). They're hurting.
Except for long haul freight, most freighters sit on the ground more than they fly. So the need for operating efficiency is less compared to passenger planes. And the need for low acquisition cost is more.
Finally, the newest generation of passenger planes gets their efficiency by being light. But a freight plane carries more load than its passenger equivalent, for good reason. So the lower MTOW is not of much use. Which is why the 777F is still selling well. And freight operators are snatching up all the used 767s they can find. And buying new ones.

Um, carry more in volume, or in weight? Weight I'm afraid is just not true. Passenger craft hit MTOW far more often than freighters, as explained previously on how freighters bulk out more often than they weigh out.

The 777F sells so well because it was essentially the first good option for long haul freight. If parking spots are the limiting factor, then why hasn't Airbus fast-tracked the A330-800 as a freighter? It's cheap to acquire, far more efficient than the 777F, and fits into all the same spots. The 800 also isn't selling well as a passenger plane.


Half of the A338's efficiency comes from being light, but the drawback is an approx 60t payload (A332F payload is 65t, but A338 OEW increases by about 12t relative to A332; a comparable increase can be expected for freight versions). The 77F is almost double that. And with 4 PIPs primarily aimed at 77W, but also applying to 77F, the 77F has not been standing still.

But the biggest issue with longhaul freight is that frequencies and airport access are governed by bilaterial treaties similar to what passenger airlines have to deal with. They can't just double flying into most Asian airports. So they have to respond to growth in freight volume with bigger planes. So the 77F does well and the 748F continues on . . .
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:01 pm

Revelation wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
You would think they would use the -300ER for their base model for this re-engine project. Since you know, it's the best selling one out of this variants and it got no competition from Airbus.
Weirdly enough they choose -400ER for the base. I guess the weakest GEnx engine is still to powerful for such small frame.

And, another indication this is not addressing the same space MOM/NMA would address.

MOM/NMA was more like a 762E size aircraft with half the range of 762E.

This 767-8 idea is a 764E replacement with the same or more range as 764E.

Easily 30 more pax and twice the range than the NMA proposal, +10,000 lbs more thrust, so not the same thing.

Well, the NMA was 240-270 passengers at 10 hours of flying time, or 9000km. While we're obviously going to get more range than that using the ER models, the 763/4 are at the low end of that capacity depending on 2 or 3-class configs, and the ER3 variant essentially has the 788's range with effectively 2/3 the fuel capacity. Assuming the GEnx can remove the need for auxiliary fuel tanks, they'll have the 9,000-10,000km range with HALF the fuel of the 787 (63,000 liters vs. 126,000). That's kind of a bargain.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3921
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:11 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Oh please, that's 1st generation work where super criticality (which is more than just sweep even by your own source) doesn't hold more than 20% the length of the wing. It meets the standard less than half the time.


Your statements above show you have no understanding of 757 wing aerodynamics. That being the case, you'd do well to not comment about the subject.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:13 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Um, carry more in volume, or in weight? Weight I'm afraid is just not true. Passenger craft hit MTOW far more often than freighters, as explained previously on how freighters bulk out more often than they weigh out.


Payload weight =/= MTOW, Pax craft hit MTOW more often because they often fly far longer routes as cargo pallets don't mind some fuel stops and long-haul pax routes regularly require trading payload for extra range. AFAIK 767 pax A/C do not regularly fly around carrying 40+t of pax + cargo like their cargo brethren frequently do, let alone the 90+t that the 777F can carry.

patrickjp93 wrote:
The 777F sells so well because it was essentially the first good option for long haul freight. If parking spots are the limiting factor, then why hasn't Airbus fast-tracked the A330-800 as a freighter? It's cheap to acquire, far more efficient than the 777F, and fits into all the same spots. The 800 also isn't selling well as a passenger plane.


You answered your own question, in the same parking spot (wingspan), the 777F can carry significantly more payload in both weight & volume (103t vs ~70t, 650m^3 vs 470m^3) than a hypothetical A338F, meanwhile, the 763F has volumes close to a A338F (440m^3 vs 470m^3), a 764XF will easily exceed A338F volume with 6m extra fuselage, not to mention the MD-11F, all fitting in a smaller parking spot (or more planes in the same spot). Fuel efficiency just doesn't matter so much relative to other factors if the plane might not crack 150 FH/month.

beechnut wrote:

Don't count on it remaining 2-3-2. I'm sure it will be 8-abreast, if Boeing chooses the lipstick on a pig route again.

Not that I think the 767 is a pig by any stretch; I've flown many, many hours on them, but they are yesterday's plane.

a -400 does seem to me to be a bit big to compete with the A321XLR; a -200 would seem perfect for that and a viable cheap, quick and dirty NMA, but I suspect it would be too heavy to be competitive. So a -400 would be more aimed, I think, at the A330 market. A -300 somewhere in the middle. A sweet spot?

Beech


Given that the 767-400 is already a tad oversized/overcapable for the NMA role to begin with (200t MTOW/5500+nm range), hanging GenXs off it and doing the structural strengthening work for freighter payloads will just make it a homeless man's 788. It's clear this study has cargo as a first priority, the key to this program's success would probably hinge on if this GenX 767 can improve payloads significantly over a plain old B763F.
Last edited by JustSomeDood on Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2693
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:21 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
I assume that this will be the death of the NMA project. The launch of the NMA has been now moved back the third year and I suspect the business case does not match up.


Sure looks like the NMA will be a casualty of the MAX debacle, but maybe Boeing is better off
long term saving their $$$$$ for a true clean sheet 737 replacement
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23956
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:26 pm

JetBuddy wrote:
Revelation wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
You would think they would use the -300ER for their base model for this re-engine project. Since you know, it's the best selling one out of this variants and it got no competition from Airbus.
Weirdly enough they choose -400ER for the base. I guess the weakest GEnx engine is still to powerful for such small frame.

And, another indication this is not addressing the same space MOM/NMA would address.

MOM/NMA was more like a 762E size aircraft with half the range of 762E.

This 767-8 idea is a 764E replacement with the same or more range as 764E.

Easily 30 more pax and twice the range than the NMA proposal, +10,000 lbs more thrust, so not the same thing.


I don't think they mean the -400 length.

I think they mean the -400ER flight deck, landing gear, and updated systems on a -300 length fuselage. Or maybe even -200.

As above, the engines they are putting on to it are capable of 763E/764E thrust levels, plus are ~+25% more efficient so you now have lots more range to add since you are burning much less fuel per mile flown, and still carrying the same reserves, minus the cost of flying the extra fuel around.

No real reason to have that range, so it would seem obvious one would use a 764 length to add payload capacity, in the form of more pax or more boxes.

FX/AMZN are shipping lots of relatively empty boxes on relatively short routes, they can use the length.

UPS are already 748/777 customers, they can deal with the denser freight quite well, or just keep buying 763F.

I don't see the sense in making a better 763F unless it's about competitive threats or about the CF6 life span ending in the mid 2020s.
Last edited by Revelation on Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
raylee67
Posts: 856
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:28 pm

I hope the GEnX engines are not too large to put under the wings of the 767?
319/20/21 332/33 342/43/45 359/51 388 707 717 732/36/3G/38/39 74R/42/43/44/4E/48 757 762/63 772/7L/73/7W 788/89 D10 M80 135/40/45 175/90 DH1/4 CRJ/R7 L10
AY LH OU SR BA FI
AA DL UA NW AC CP WS FL NK PD
CI NH SQ KA CX JL BR OZ TG KE CA CZ NZ JQ RS
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:30 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I assume that this will be the death of the NMA project. The launch of the NMA has been now moved back the third year and I suspect the business case does not match up.


Sure looks like the NMA will be a casualty of the MAX debacle, but maybe Boeing is better off
long term saving their $$$$$ for a true clean sheet 737 replacement

Why clean-sheet replace a TATL narrow body more efficient than the competition? If anything, Boeing needs a 717 clean sheet replacement much sooner than a 737 replacement.
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:35 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Look I get the 767 has been a highly successful freighter, but Boeing can't be serious. The 788F is the obvious successor to that, and the 787 backlog has shrunk once again, so the time to launch the 787F is now. The NMA honestly should be a re-engined, re-winged 757 stretch if they're going to go down a derivative/grandfathering route.


I agree with the re-engine 757. From my limited understanding of such things, it seems that 90% of the fuel savings achieved come from updated engines, correct? The 757 also sits higher off the ground and would appear at first glance to be able to accommodate a larger fan engine without having to possibly change the gear...is that correct?
 
jagraham
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:41 pm

raylee67 wrote:
I hope the GEnX engines are not too large to put under the wings of the 767?


The GEnX2, at 12500lb dry, is only 300 lb heavier than an RB211. And its 105" fan is only 11" larger than the Pratt 4000 used on 763ERs. The 18" higher landing gear of a 764 more than make up for that. And thrust is 67500 lb; they would have to derate it a bit if they didn't want to redesign the wing.

As for the GEnX1, its fan is 13 inches bigger than the GEnX2. 19" bigger than the Pratt 4000. It adds about 2000 lb of weight over the GEnX2. Significant redesign would be called for.

I would think the less than 2% fuel efficiency gain from the bigger fan (less about 1% drag loss from being bigger) would not justify all the redesign the GEnX1 would require. If Boeing is going to do it, they should just stick the GEnX2 on the 764 and be done with it. Find out if UPS and FedEx would want raked wingtips vs winglets, 763 length or 764 length, and just do it from there. If they can get UPS and FedEx (and perhaps Amazon) to sign up for sufficient numbers.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:42 pm

JustSomeDood wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
Um, carry more in volume, or in weight? Weight I'm afraid is just not true. Passenger craft hit MTOW far more often than freighters, as explained previously on how freighters bulk out more often than they weigh out.


Payload weight =/= MTOW, Pax craft hit MTOW more often because they often fly far longer routes as cargo pallets don't mind some fuel stops and long-haul pax routes regularly require trading payload for extra range. AFAIK 767 pax A/C do not regularly fly around carrying 40+t of pax + cargo like their cargo brethren frequently do, let alone the 90+t that the 777F can carry.

patrickjp93 wrote:
The 777F sells so well because it was essentially the first good option for long haul freight. If parking spots are the limiting factor, then why hasn't Airbus fast-tracked the A330-800 as a freighter? It's cheap to acquire, far more efficient than the 777F, and fits into all the same spots. The 800 also isn't selling well as a passenger plane.


You answered your own question, in the same parking spot (wingspan), the 777F can carry significantly more payload in both weight & volume (103t vs ~70t, 650m^3 vs 470m^3) than a hypothetical A338F, meanwhile, the 763F has volumes close to a A338F (440m^3 vs 470m^3), a 764XF will easily exceed A338F volume with 6m extra fuselage, not to mention the MD-11F, all fitting in a smaller parking spot (or more planes in the same spot). Fuel efficiency just doesn't matter so much relative to other factors if the plane might not crack 150 FH/month.

beechnut wrote:

Don't count on it remaining 2-3-2. I'm sure it will be 8-abreast, if Boeing chooses the lipstick on a pig route again.

Not that I think the 767 is a pig by any stretch; I've flown many, many hours on them, but they are yesterday's plane.

a -400 does seem to me to be a bit big to compete with the A321XLR; a -200 would seem perfect for that and a viable cheap, quick and dirty NMA, but I suspect it would be too heavy to be competitive. So a -400 would be more aimed, I think, at the A330 market. A -300 somewhere in the middle. A sweet spot?

Beech


Given that the 767-400 is already a tad oversized/overcapable for the NMA role to begin with (200t MTOW/5500+nm range), hanging GenXs off it and doing the structural strengthening work for freighter payloads will just make it a homeless man's 788. It's clear this study has cargo as a first priority, the key to this program's success would probably hinge on if this GenX 767 can improve payloads significantly over a plain old B763F.


Doing a back of the Envelope calculation taking half the interior width of the 767 (2.36M) as the radius you theoretically you get about 100m^3 more Cargo Volume on an 764. Minus room for the floor- sidewalls in the belly - add a little bit for the elongated crown height - calll it 80m^3 added puts it into the 520ish M^3 range - that's not radically less than an 777-200F - only about 20% less with a MTOW about 37% less (assume 767-400 grows to about 480,000 lbs MTOW).

That could be a big advantage for a package freighter. Aero wouldn't be as good - but engines should be a bit better.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:53 pm

jagraham wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
I hope the GEnX engines are not too large to put under the wings of the 767?


The GEnX2, at 12500lb dry, is only 300 lb heavier than an RB211. And its 105" fan is only 11" larger than the Pratt 4000 used on 763ERs. The 18" higher landing gear of a 764 more than make up for that. And thrust is 67500 lb; they would have to derate it a bit if they didn't want to redesign the wing.

As for the GEnX1, its fan is 13 inches bigger than the GEnX2. 19" bigger than the Pratt 4000. It adds about 2000 lb of weight over the GEnX2. Significant redesign would be called for.

I would think the less than 2% fuel efficiency gain from the bigger fan (less about 1% drag loss from being bigger) would not justify all the redesign the GEnX1 would require. If Boeing is going to do it, they should just stick the GEnX2 on the 764 and be done with it. Find out if UPS and FedEx would want raked wingtips vs winglets, 763 length or 764 length, and just do it from there. If they can get UPS and FedEx (and perhaps Amazon) to sign up for sufficient numbers.


2%? Are you nuts? It'll be on the order of 15-20% more efficient, especially after the GEnx gets its CMC PIP. And with that CMC PIP for all the turbines, that 2000lb weight difference will probably shrink to under 1000 (CMC weighs 1/3 what traditional steel does). That's a 1960s design vs. a 2000s design.
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 3:58 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
UPS and FedEx won't have that ability much longer. Amazon and Uber are already working on a partnership to pick up packages en route to airports and shipping centers, and Amazon's building its own dedicated shipping airports. Amazon will just knock UPS and FedEx off their pedestals as the monopoly incumbents if they push their luck.


Amazon is becoming quite the vertically integrated monopoly itself... But no one has the courage to do anything about it.

1978 was literally 41 years ago.... I hope the MOM isn't just a warmed over 45 year old airframe (EIS would put it at 45 years old by then). But a specialized package freighter based on the 41 year old frame might be palatable to your Amazons , UPSs and FedExs…. Does the USPS maintain a fleet?
learning never stops.
 
mopacair
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:01 pm

I’m inclined to think that if Boeing decides to move forward from this study and into production, they will have determined that the cost of a clean sheet NMA will be far greater than the benefit of an upgraded 767. As we all know, a clean-sheet design carries a high cost when you factor in the R&D, building the support network of subcontractors and parts suppliers, and obtaining the floor space for building the aircraft. With the huge pressure being felt from the MAX issues and the delays with the 777X program, Boeing may feel that the it’s even more important for them to field an aircraft with lower development costs than that of a clean sheet design. Even if they’re unable to increase from 7-abreast to 8-abreast, an improved 767 with the right fuselage length should be able to fill the NMA role at a lower cost of development.
 
ODwyerPW
Posts: 1624
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:30 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:02 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
2%? Are you nuts? It'll be on the order of 15-20% more efficient, especially after the GEnx gets its CMC PIP. And with that CMC PIP for all the turbines, that 2000lb weight difference will probably shrink to under 1000 (CMC weighs 1/3 what traditional steel does). That's a 1960s design vs. a 2000s design.


He was quoting 2% as the difference between the two GEnX engines GEn1 and GEn2.... not the old legacy engines.... Basically stating better to adopt the 747-8 GEnX engine instead of the 787-8 GEnX engine.
learning never stops.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 1809
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:18 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
Why clean-sheet replace a TATL narrow body more efficient than the competition? If anything, Boeing needs a 717 clean sheet replacement much sooner than a 737 replacement.

That's exactly the E2-190's market. Which Boeing recently bought into with a decent chunk of money.
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:27 pm

FLALEFTY wrote:
For those wondering why Boeing is looking at the 764 as a possible platform for a new aircraft to address the NMA/767XF, here's an archived fact sheet for the 764 from Boeing's website for your perusal:

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 01txt.html


Thank you for that link
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:28 pm

The Boeing 767-200

Had under 50,000 lb thrust engines to lift its payload of about 215 people across the continent.

Seems to me with 40 years of engine technology, aircraft design innovation, winglets, and composites... these same people could be lifted across the continent after 40 years, on so much less thrust.

The 767-200 should be the starting point to improve upon this design. What can Boeing do to engineer massive weight savings and fuel efficiency increases into this basic framework at minimum cost? If they can’t engineer these gains ... my opinion is to not bother and just go forward with the costly but revolutionary 797 program.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
jagraham
Posts: 1080
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:40 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
I hope the GEnX engines are not too large to put under the wings of the 767?


The GEnX2, at 12500lb dry, is only 300 lb heavier than an RB211. And its 105" fan is only 11" larger than the Pratt 4000 used on 763ERs. The 18" higher landing gear of a 764 more than make up for that. And thrust is 67500 lb; they would have to derate it a bit if they didn't want to redesign the wing.

As for the GEnX1, its fan is 13 inches bigger than the GEnX2. 19" bigger than the Pratt 4000. It adds about 2000 lb of weight over the GEnX2. Significant redesign would be called for.

I would think the less than 2% fuel efficiency gain from the bigger fan (less about 1% drag loss from being bigger) would not justify all the redesign the GEnX1 would require. If Boeing is going to do it, they should just stick the GEnX2 on the 764 and be done with it. Find out if UPS and FedEx would want raked wingtips vs winglets, 763 length or 764 length, and just do it from there. If they can get UPS and FedEx (and perhaps Amazon) to sign up for sufficient numbers.


2%? Are you nuts? It'll be on the order of 15-20% more efficient, especially after the GEnx gets its CMC PIP. And with that CMC PIP for all the turbines, that 2000lb weight difference will probably shrink to under 1000 (CMC weighs 1/3 what traditional steel does). That's a 1960s design vs. a 2000s design.


2% is GEnX1 vs GEnX2. As is the 2000 lb weight difference.

My comment was directed at a GEnX1 vs GEnX2 choice; whereas GEnX2 is pretty much a drop in (new pylon along the lines of what the Pratt mount is on 763s), GEnX1 requires redesigns. And the 764 doesn't need the thrust unless a significant MTOW increase is also planned, which would entail even more redesign.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:44 pm

The odds on a passenger version actually selling unless they rewing/put a new tail on it/ basically redesign every part on it are so low I don't think it's even worth discussing.

I think what Boeing is thinking is that they are thinking of building an 767-400f with 748 Engines and if for some reason some airlines want some passenger models they will build them some.

This is not a substitute for MOM - but maybe a recognition that if MOM is a tight light 7w with basically an A320 belly - it would suck as a freighter.

This would be a minimal cost design - the engines are already done - the gear may need to be strengthened if they increase MTOW - otherwise it's long enough.

They would be lucky to sell 200 as Passenger models - not worth the effort.
 
UPS757Pilot
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:22 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:50 pm

morrisond wrote:
The odds on a passenger version actually selling unless they rewing/put a new tail on it/ basically redesign every part on it are so low I don't think it's even worth discussing.

I think what Boeing is thinking is that they are thinking of building an 767-400f with 748 Engines and if for some reason some airlines want some passenger models they will build them some.

This is not a substitute for MOM - but maybe a recognition that if MOM is a tight light 7w with basically an A320 belly - it would suck as a freighter.

This would be a minimal cost design - the engines are already done - the gear may need to be strengthened if they increase MTOW - otherwise it's long enough.

They would be lucky to sell 200 as Passenger models - not worth the effort.

Exactly - Folks are focusing this discussion around the passenger variant but I believe it will be optimized for freight and if the price is right, some passenger carriers might give it a try too.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9627
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:00 pm

morrisond wrote:
The odds on a passenger version actually selling unless they rewing/put a new tail on it/ basically redesign every part on it are so low I don't think it's even worth discussing.

I think what Boeing is thinking is that they are thinking of building an 767-400f with 748 Engines and if for some reason some airlines want some passenger models they will build them some.

This is not a substitute for MOM - but maybe a recognition that if MOM is a tight light 7w with basically an A320 belly - it would suck as a freighter.

This would be a minimal cost design - the engines are already done - the gear may need to be strengthened if they increase MTOW - otherwise it's long enough.

They would be lucky to sell 200 as Passenger models - not worth the effort.


As the engine development is paid by the engine OEM it is about the same effort as Airbus had for the A330NEO.

I can not see Boeing doing this for freighters alone and do a complete new MOM in addition.
 
Palop
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:49 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:01 pm

beechnut wrote:
Palop wrote:
It is comfortable and convenient for customers with its 2-3-2.


Don't count on it remaining 2-3-2. I'm sure it will be 8-abreast, if Boeing chooses the lipstick on a pig route again.

Not that I think the 767 is a pig by any stretch; I've flown many, many hours on them, but they are yesterday's plane.

a -400 does seem to me to be a bit big to compete with the A321XLR; a -200 would seem perfect for that and a viable cheap, quick and dirty NMA, but I suspect it would be too heavy to be competitive. So a -400 would be more aimed, I think, at the A330 market. A -300 somewhere in the middle. A sweet spot?

Beech


If a hypothetical passenger 767 MAX remain 7 across, I will actively choose it over alternatives even at a higher price. If it goes 8 across I will actively avoid it, just like a 9 across 787. I’ve told my wife that it is off limits when we book tickets now. I’ll veto any itinerary itinerary with a 3-3-3 787. I’ve had two hellish round trips on that config, and never again. I will not forget.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:20 pm

I don't think they mean the -400 length.

I think they mean the -400ER flight deck, landing gear, and updated systems on a -300 length fuselage. Or maybe even -200.


Very possibly.

Just because United might want it does not mean it will be a success.


It doesn't need to be a rousing success. It just needs to sell enough to justify the costs of development. If it sells halfway decently, Boeing will keep the line moving, make some long term customers happy, and keep some revenue coming in at a time when they're going to take a huge hit on the MAX. Assuming a passenger version is also offered, I could see some of the charter and leisure operations buying a few. With the long range of the basic 764 and far more efficient new engines, it might be a 753 replacement; certainly not an ideal one, but a decent one. If United is serious about a passenger version (and, they really were seriously inquiring about buying new build 763s last year) then we could see a significant order from them which Boeing would only too happily discount to keep a major purchaser happy, especially a major 737-MAX purchaser.

As I said in a prior post, I really want to see a clean sheet design from Boeing, whose stock I own and who has disappointed me considerably over the past few years. Warmed over modifications of existing aircraft aren't ideal, but they do sometimes work in certain situations and in certain niche areas. This might prove to be one of them.
Last edited by Aptivaboy on Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos