Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 13
 
morrisond
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:20 pm

seahawk wrote:
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.


As a freighter this would be minimum effort - it would not preclude them from doing MOM at all.

They need MOM to prove out the production system for NSA.

The cost of making 767 competitive as a passenger model (GEnx's aren't efficient enough for Passenger use in 2025 probably) would probably not be significantly different than MOM - especially if they can amortize MOM costs over a combined MOM/NSA program.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:27 pm

PAX comfort is one reason the 767 is so universally loved. Yes there is life left in the basic 767 design.

Unfortunately, longevity most likely means an 8 abreast cabin, targeted at a very few world airlines that might have an all coach product, which could make the investment of a staggered seating cabin configuration somewhat comfortable and tolerable.

Dilemma is there does not seem to be enough gain for airlines with a plus economy, first class, and economy cabin product, unless you scale it up to a tight 767-300 cabin or a nice 767-400 cabin.

Once you hit the 767-300 size reduced seat pitch and 8 abreast efficiency level, the lower end of the Middle Market is no longer covered and an airline might just as well go with a more comfortable aircraft offering simpler fuel efficient longevity and longer term residual value.

A 767-200 8 abreast really could only suit the likes of Southwest, Sun Country, Frontier, or JetBlue, or the ULCC’s in the US. The execution of staggered seating however on a ULCC might get somewhat interesting though once getting away from B6 or WN.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:30 pm

jagraham wrote:
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.


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.


My derp.

The 1B DOES have a properly placed 60,500lb thrust variant already certified. The only question is if they can cheaply modify the design for a bleed air system. Otherwise, it'll take a brand new variant of the 2B. Way too powerful...
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9645
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:32 pm

morrisond wrote:
seahawk wrote:
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.


As a freighter this would be minimum effort - it would not preclude them from doing MOM at all.

They need MOM to prove out the production system for NSA.

The cost of making 767 competitive as a passenger model (GEnx's aren't efficient enough for Passenger use in 2025 probably) would probably not be significantly different than MOM - especially if they can amortize MOM costs over a combined MOM/NSA program.


Sorry, I can not see how it will be less effort than the NEOs from Airbus.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19116
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:32 pm

afgeneral wrote:
this would be amazing for passengers. 2-3-2 config


That's with the not inconsiderable assumption that Boeing wouldn't go to a "cosy" 2-4-2 config. I certainly wouldn't bet against it.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:36 pm

scbriml wrote:
afgeneral wrote:
this would be amazing for passengers. 2-3-2 config


That's with the not inconsiderable assumption that Boeing wouldn't go to a "cosy" 2-4-2 config. I certainly wouldn't bet against it.


8 abreast It is the only way to extract the necessary efficiency gains. How 8 across is executed could be the unique challenge.

3-2-3 config? KISS concept.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:38 pm

morrisond wrote:
seahawk wrote:
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.


As a freighter this would be minimum effort - it would not preclude them from doing MOM at all.

They need MOM to prove out the production system for NSA.

The cost of making 767 competitive as a passenger model (GEnx's aren't efficient enough for Passenger use in 2025 probably) would probably not be significantly different than MOM - especially if they can amortize MOM costs over a combined MOM/NSA program.


Let's wait to see how much the GE9X PIP for its predecessor comes in at. That's a lot of weight reduction, hotter temps, and leaner burn. If it's as significant as 3-4% in efficiency gains, it'll easily hold up for another 20 years at the top of the efficiency charts for widebody engines. If any PIPs come in from the LEAP side on top of that, we're looking at 30 years of useful life for the architecture, whereas the Trent 1000 is effectively dead.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:39 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
scbriml wrote:
afgeneral wrote:
this would be amazing for passengers. 2-3-2 config


That's with the not inconsiderable assumption that Boeing wouldn't go to a "cosy" 2-4-2 config. I certainly wouldn't bet against it.


8 abreast It is the only way to extract the necessary efficiency gains. How 8 across is executed could be the unique challenge.

3-2-3 config? KISS concept.


2-4-2 more likely both for COG management and for flight attendant long-term health. That said, I don't see how Boeing will pull that off unless someone can show me there's 7+ inches of space to steal from the inner and outer walls of the fuselage. Boeing got 4 out of the 777-300, but that was already much thicker due to the greater diameter and strength needed. The 767 couldn't possibly be THAT over engineered, could it?
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:54 pm

patrickjp93 wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
scbriml wrote:

That's with the not inconsiderable assumption that Boeing wouldn't go to a "cosy" 2-4-2 config. I certainly wouldn't bet against it.


8 abreast It is the only way to extract the necessary efficiency gains. How 8 across is executed could be the unique challenge.

3-2-3 config? KISS concept.


2-4-2 more likely both for COG management and for flight attendant long-term health. That said, I don't see how Boeing will pull that off unless someone can show me there's 7+ inches of space to steal from the inner and outer walls of the fuselage. Boeing got 4 out of the 777-300, but that was already much thicker due to the greater diameter and strength needed. The 767 couldn't possibly be THAT over engineered, could it?


This is NOT about flight attendants... it is about quickest boarding efficiency... and keeping the costs down to a minimum to extract the maximum efficiency of this aircraft.

Legacy carriers would never go with 7 abreast or
3-2-3 in the US. The only way a legacy carrier could make 8 abreast work on a 767 for their clientele MIGHT be with a cozy suite or staggered seat concept.

I emphasize MIGHT, cause there are just NOT enough rows on the 767-200 basic version to keep things KISS for innovative seating. (767-300 innovative seating just becomes too much aircraft for many of the 797 interested type carriers.)
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:04 pm

Doesn't the A321 and 767-200 seat the same? Delta had 202 pax in their 767-200s. Just trying to see how an airline would choose a 767-200 upgrade over a A321NEO?
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:04 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:

8 abreast It is the only way to extract the necessary efficiency gains. How 8 across is executed could be the unique challenge.

3-2-3 config? KISS concept.


2-4-2 more likely both for COG management and for flight attendant long-term health. That said, I don't see how Boeing will pull that off unless someone can show me there's 7+ inches of space to steal from the inner and outer walls of the fuselage. Boeing got 4 out of the 777-300, but that was already much thicker due to the greater diameter and strength needed. The 767 couldn't possibly be THAT over engineered, could it?


This is NOT about flight attendants... it is about quickest boarding efficiency... and keeping the costs down to a minimum to extract the maximum efficiency of this aircraft.

Legacy carriers would never go with 7 abreast or
3-2-3 in the US. The only way a legacy carrier could make 8 abreast work on a 767 for their clientele MIGHT be with a cozy suite or staggered seat concept.

I emphasize MIGHT, cause there are just NOT enough rows on the 767-200 basic version to keep things KISS for innovative seating. (767-300 innovative seating just becomes too much aircraft for many of the 797 interested type carriers.)


Airlines do NOT give a rat's rear end on boarding or deplaning efficiency. That's indisputable. You could put 298 butts on a 789 in just 12 minutes if you seated Business & PE first and then filled Economy optimally (and limit elderly people to the aisle or window seats).

No carrier breaks down boarding as back-to-front, window-to-aisle, even though that's the optimal way to do it from a mathematical standpoint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHbLRjF0vo
 
morrisond
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:04 pm

seahawk wrote:
morrisond wrote:
seahawk wrote:

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.


As a freighter this would be minimum effort - it would not preclude them from doing MOM at all.

They need MOM to prove out the production system for NSA.

The cost of making 767 competitive as a passenger model (GEnx's aren't efficient enough for Passenger use in 2025 probably) would probably not be significantly different than MOM - especially if they can amortize MOM costs over a combined MOM/NSA program.


Sorry, I can not see how it will be less effort than the NEOs from Airbus.


The engines are already done and as one poster above mentioned the weight of the them would be within a few % of the RB211's.

This would not consume a lot of engineering resources and maybe cost $1B - maybe -depending on whether or not they do a stronger gear and beef up the MTOW.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:31 pm

Here is a 767-200 seat map of Omni Air

https://www.oai.aero/fleet_secondary
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9645
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:33 pm

morrisond wrote:
seahawk wrote:
morrisond wrote:

As a freighter this would be minimum effort - it would not preclude them from doing MOM at all.

They need MOM to prove out the production system for NSA.

The cost of making 767 competitive as a passenger model (GEnx's aren't efficient enough for Passenger use in 2025 probably) would probably not be significantly different than MOM - especially if they can amortize MOM costs over a combined MOM/NSA program.


Sorry, I can not see how it will be less effort than the NEOs from Airbus.


The engines are already done and as one poster above mentioned the weight of the them would be within a few % of the RB211's.

This would not consume a lot of engineering resources and maybe cost $1B - maybe -depending on whether or not they do a stronger gear and beef up the MTOW.


Again, neither Boeing nor Airbus pay for the engine development - so same question again.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2218
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 7:59 pm

This is an update of the freighter, I believe the CORSIA agreement requires the CF6 era planes to stop in about 2027. Boeing needs a freighter outside of the B777F (which if this move is done may be delayed a number of years)

The CF6 was on both the 767 and 744 so bleed air and controls are similar. The GEnx 2B is the bleed version that is on the 748F. Having it on both the 767 and 748 for an operator like UPS brings lots of advantages. Its weight is 2,537 lb each more than the CF6, but would save 20% of fuel (roughly), with same payload and deducting the added weight from fuel of 33 tons to 30 tons still adds nearly 500 miles to the range, at max payload.

The 764 gear allows for a landing weight of 175 tons, up from the 163 tons of the 763F. An added 12 tons for payload.

The thrust is up 7%, the gear height issue is solved by using the 764's, the increased angle on takeoff provided by the 18" added height improves performance. The question would be what actual length it becomes and what wingspan. Both of these can be somewhere between the 763 and 764. The longer hull would compensate for the added 7% thrust so the tail can remain per the 764.

It is a perfect MD-11 replacement for volume and payload, still fits at a class D stand/gate, and could become a KC-10 replacement out there. As a KC-10 replacement it might keep the current KC-46 length or a small add to keep the balance correct.

This appears to be a win for GE, Boeing, and the freight operators. Also, it makes the freighter more capable, differing it from the 767 P2F conversions.
 
Noshow
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:17 pm

So in the name of climate protection you take the oldest airframe around and continue to build it? Old technology? Old aerodynamics? Old materials? And this from Boeing, a top modern technology group? No way.
This whole 767 thing seems to be just a spoiler to conquer the headlines before today's MAX report does.
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7072
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:53 pm

And now the most intriguing question is asked..... :old: .....

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ma-461437/


Anyone with a subscription able to provide the gist of FG's opinion :?:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
UPS757Pilot
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:22 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:10 pm

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ma-461437/
OPINION: Could Genx-powered 767-X usurp Boeing's NMA?
Boeing’s closely guarded studies into what would effectively be a relaunch of the 767 for the 2020s add a fascinating new aspect to the long-running debate about the mid-market sector.

The thrust of the studies into a GE Aviation GEnx-powered “767-X” derivative are for the cargo market. New-production 767Fs continue to sell well, so if Boeing is to remain the leader in this market, it needs to either refresh the design or develop a cargo derivative of the 787. But there may be questions about how viable an all-cargo version of the composite Dreamliner would be, both from a design and cost/price perspective.

Image
Back to the future?

AP/Shutterstock

Significantly, the airframer is also evaluating whether the 767-X could succeed in the passenger market. An impulse reaction might be that the concept of creating a competitive product from a 1970s design – albeit at a fraction of the cost of an all-new aircraft – would be a challenge. How could a 767-X be seriously considered as a viable substitute for Seattle’s long talked-about New Mid-market Airplane (NMA)?

But a more detailed evaluation suggests the idea might not be so crazy. Realistically, the NMA will be a $15-20 billion project built for an already congested market sector where sufficient orders to ensure commercial success are not a foregone conclusion. And a key component for the NMA to deliver the necessary step in performance is outside Boeing’s direct control – its powerplant.

The market into which the NMA – or indeed the 767-X – would be pitched is already populated by rebooted versions of relatively old Airbus designs. The original A320-100 arrived in 1988, while the A330/A340 family debuted in 1992-1993, so the competitive landscape is actually more last century than this one.

Another important aspect is the potential long-term impact that the 737 Max saga will have on Boeing product development. Does Boeing – and for that matter an engine manufacturer – really want to commit huge financial and engineering resources to deliver NMA, when a requirement for a “Future Small Aircraft” could suddenly become urgent?

What hangs over all this is how a re-engined 767 would sit alongside the aircraft built to replace it – the 787. The reality is that Boeing must respond to the demand Airbus is tapping with the A321XLR, and it does not seem to have much in its armoury.

Perhaps the aircraft with which Seattle first took on Airbus in the widebody twinjet battle will again be Boeing’s saviour?
 
Curiousflyer
Posts: 583
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:19 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:33 pm

This must be a joke, a new 767? Why not a DC-3 Max? The thing is heavy, loud, sucks gas like a youknowwhat, most of the people who originally engineered it or know how to pilot it are geriatric or dead. Boeing is becoming the Haunted Mansion.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 926
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:53 pm

This must be a joke, a new 767? Why not a DC-3 Max?


Its called the Baseler BT-67. :D :D :D
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:55 pm

Curiousflyer wrote:
This must be a joke, a new 767? Why not a DC-3 Max? The thing is heavy, loud, sucks gas like a youknowwhat, most of the people who originally engineered it or know how to pilot it are geriatric or dead. Boeing is becoming the Haunted Mansion.

It's really not that heavy and can be pretty easily optimized on that front, the 7% range boost from the improved winglets and 15-20% range boost from the GEnx basically puts the 767-300 range at 9500-10,000km at just 63,000 liters of fuel (half the fuel capacity of the 788) while a conservative 15% engine boost alone puts the ER range up to 13,443.5km with just 91,400 liters of fuel (3/4 the fuel capacity of the 788).

http://www.modernairliners.com/boeing-767/
http://www.modernairliners.com/boeing-7 ... ner-specs/

In other words, with the 767-300 frame you land exactly in the middle of the market where Boeing has been stating it wants to be, and with the ER variant you can essentially chuck the 788 out the door. And this is ALL before Boeing does any optimizing of the frame and wing.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20016
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:10 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
This must be a joke, a new 767? Why not a DC-3 Max?


Its called the Baseler BT-67. :D :D :D

I hope a new plane sells better than the BT-67. ;)

Ok, for a 767MAX to compete:
1. Electrical subsystems, saves about 3% in fuel
2. Updated cockpit. The 764 is fine, there is better
3. Updated wing tip treatment

What a 767MAX lacks:
1. Weight savings CFRP wings
2. Folding wingtips, a necessity for:
3. Underside laminar flow

Egg... Not happening is my bet.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13958
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:29 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
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.


7 abreast a 763 can hold ~288 passengers, 8 abreast >320, 762 probably 250 single class 7 abreast.

https://www.airdo.jp/en/service/fleet/boeing767/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
DWC
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 7:49 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 11, 2019 11:50 pm

keesje wrote:
I think I created posts on that 13, 7, 2, 1 years ago. First I had the Dreamliner crowd all over me (787 = 767 replacement) later on the MOM/NMA crowd.
Always felt it was a reasonable idea. The 767 is 30t lighter than the A330/787, right sized, got significant updated for the -400ER and KC-46.
And it has an existing production line and supply chain. And United asked for it.. and can do serious cargo.. and lacks expensive composites infrastructure.. and has a much better MCAS..
Image

Yes, I've been following you for a while & you clearly see further than most into what kinds of tweaks, stretches, etc, can be made to the market.
I don't know what you do for a living, but this is clearly where you should be working. I mean it ;)

To add to the OP, seems that 787 aside, Boeing is playing catch-up & putting lipstick on old ladies :
1) while the 737 MAX have little in common with the first two generations of 737s, the fuselage & low wing are losing to the extended A320 family.
2) the 748i never caught up, only the 748F did, which I think foretells what will happen with this 767 project.
3) the 777X, while a remarkable development on the no less remarkable 77W, is nonetheless a middle aged maid with some overweight courting what few suitors are left
4) threw a tantrum against young bride BBD C-Series, who scared of Big Foot happily jumped into bed with Earl Airbus, married him & took his lordship's name - a disaster for B all down the line.
5) B then courted Embraer, also face-lifted.
6) and now a face-lifted 767 as MOM/NMA ???

This is a proposal of despair, no new frame to counter A in the MOM segment A has locked at both ends. Air Astana is dumping their 767s for the A321LR, LA got rid of many of theirs for the 778/9. Might work in the short term, especially with US carriers, but tweaking on old DNA has limits. I find Boeing strategies & line-up going dangerously outdated considering the formidable competition out there, the 738 grounding is just one dire consequence. In the past, companies that let their line-up lag behind have met with deep troubles :
- Nokia went out of business tweaking their technology while Apple was cruising stratospherically with their iphones
- The US car makers all went into bankruptcy with their large tanks ( except Ford, but barely ) while the Japanese flooded the market with newer sedans.
- Even Airbus was sneered at with their relifted A330 as the A350, until they came up with the brand new A350-XWB.
Other than as reengined cargo & tanker, I see no future in the 767 as a pax frame.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2024
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:13 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
[My derp.

The 1B DOES have a properly placed 60,500lb thrust variant already certified. The only question is if they can cheaply modify the design for a bleed air system. Otherwise, it'll take a brand new variant of the 2B. Way too powerful...
It would definitely be the 2B with a simple paper derate.

With the larger diameter 1B the lower thrust variants have longer service intervals and lower maintenance. The 60,500lb 1B is highly derated. The engine on the 787-10 is running closer to redline. Running close to redline does gains efficiency.

With the 2B on the 747-8 it is also running close to redline getting as much thrust as possible from the smaller diameter fan. A derated 2B to around 60,000lb will actually provide better service intervals and maintenance cost. Lets call it the 2B60B.

I think the freighter market alone could fully cover development costs of this new engine on the 767F. Boeing may have worked out it would be too costly to turn the 787-8 into a freighter. GenX on the 767F is the result. I think the rumours of the 400ER length are not correct. It would most likely be fitting 400ER parts to the current 767 freighter fuselage length.

This would not change the 797. It would actually allow the 797 to be lighter and strictly passenger only. The floor beams can be lighter. The weight limits of the container positions can be lighter. The landing weight can be lighter with no heavy landing weight freighter variant on the horizon.
 
KlimaBXsst
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:14 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:14 am

keesje wrote:
7 abreast a 763 can hold ~288 passengers, 8 abreast >320, 762 probably 250 single class 7 abreast.

https://www.airdo.jp/en/service/fleet/boeing767/


Thanks for posting this. 250-288 pax is WAY too big for the possible needs of the US non-legacy carriers. 210 - mixed class 240 all coach is about the maximum number of pax for this offering to have a chance with any possible US carriers, if Boeing can get the numbers and fuel burn right and substantially lower.

Not sure what the free enterprise airline market is saying in other parts of the world though.
Aesthetically the A 340 got it right!
 
UPS757Pilot
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:22 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:25 am

RJMAZ wrote:
I think the freighter market alone could fully cover development costs of this new engine on the 767F. Boeing may have worked out it would be too costly to turn the 787-8 into a freighter. GenX on the 767F is the result. I think the rumours of the 400ER length are not correct. It would most likely be fitting 400ER parts to the current 767 freighter fuselage length.


I disagree. 767-400 length would effectively make it an MD-11 replacement. Throw in the already certified Rockwell-Collins LDS cockpit which UPS is adopting and you have a quick solution for a fleet which needs replacing within the decade. UPS, FedEx, Atlas, etc...probably several hundred airframes for freight at least. Boeing probably doesn't want to work on a 787F at this time and the integrators need the MD-11 replacement soon. This is the best solution for their base infrastructure.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:36 am

RJMAZ wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:
[My derp.

The 1B DOES have a properly placed 60,500lb thrust variant already certified. The only question is if they can cheaply modify the design for a bleed air system. Otherwise, it'll take a brand new variant of the 2B. Way too powerful...
It would definitely be the 2B with a simple paper derate.

With the larger diameter 1B the lower thrust variants have longer service intervals and lower maintenance. The 60,500lb 1B is highly derated. The engine on the 787-10 is running closer to redline. Running close to redline does gains efficiency.

With the 2B on the 747-8 it is also running close to redline getting as much thrust as possible from the smaller diameter fan. A derated 2B to around 60,000lb will actually provide better service intervals and maintenance cost. Lets call it the 2B60B.

I think the freighter market alone could fully cover development costs of this new engine on the 767F. Boeing may have worked out it would be too costly to turn the 787-8 into a freighter. GenX on the 767F is the result. I think the rumours of the 400ER length are not correct. It would most likely be fitting 400ER parts to the current 767 freighter fuselage length.

This would not change the 797. It would actually allow the 797 to be lighter and strictly passenger only. The floor beams can be lighter. The weight limits of the container positions can be lighter. The landing weight can be lighter with no heavy landing weight freighter variant on the horizon.

So you're proposing GE bother with putting the CMC PIP into the DEAD GEnx 2B just for this limited production run and duplicate all that certification? Uh, no.
 
User avatar
monomojo
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:39 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:12 am

This is Boeing derisking the 787-8F. The 787-8F would be a fantastic freighter, but it'd also be a lot more expensive for both Boeing and its customers. Warming over the 767-F with new engines, cockpit, uprated gear, and possibly a stretch to -400 lengths would make the freight companies extremely happy in their wallets, would be the slam-dunk product to replace the DC-10/MD-11, and let Boeing kick the 787-8F down the road another decade and engine PiP or two, at which point it can be used to supplement orders for the pax 787s as they dwindle toward the end of that aircraft's sales life.
 
User avatar
DBCoop3r
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2019 2:28 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:16 am

Curiousflyer wrote:
This must be a joke, a new 767? Why not a DC-3 Max? The thing is heavy, loud, sucks gas like a youknowwhat, most of the people who originally engineered it or know how to pilot it are geriatric or dead. Boeing is becoming the Haunted Mansion.

And yet that ol' girl outsold all wide-bodies save the 787 last year.
 
patrickjp93
Posts: 648
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:00 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:22 am

monomojo wrote:
This is Boeing derisking the 787-8F. The 787-8F would be a fantastic freighter, but it'd also be a lot more expensive for both Boeing and its customers. Warming over the 767-F with new engines, cockpit, uprated gear, and possibly a stretch to -400 lengths would make the freight companies extremely happy in their wallets, would be the slam-dunk product to replace the DC-10/MD-11, and let Boeing kick the 787-8F down the road another decade and engine PiP or two, at which point it can be used to supplement orders for the pax 787s as they dwindle toward the end of that aircraft's sales life.

I don't know about all that. Amazon will just go with the 787F if it launches. UPS and FedEx at this point have to realize they're staring down the barrel of a loaded shotgun between Amazon's drone delivery systems and their own private airport construction. I don't envy their chief executives in the slightest.
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 956
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:45 am

God help us!
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
Sparker
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:54 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:57 am

Between this and Boeing shopping around a 737MAX-9ER, I'm starting to feel doubtful about the NMA. This feels like Boeing is moving to hold off the A321LR and A338, while it moves straight to the NSA.
 
Akwagon
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:01 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:00 am

Reg FedEx and freight

The new build 767f are replacing the MD10

767 cant touch the MD11 for carrying and distance

777 is a lot more plane then most MD11 routes needed.

Could this new re engine 767 match the performance of the MD11? If so I see a good market for this idea
 
jagraham
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:01 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
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.


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.


My derp.

The 1B DOES have a properly placed 60,500lb thrust variant already certified. The only question is if they can cheaply modify the design for a bleed air system. Otherwise, it'll take a brand new variant of the 2B. Way too powerful...


The GEnX2 is used in the 748. Already bleed air equipped.

Yet another reason not to do a GEnX1 upgrade.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:07 am

I vote for a 762 frame and GEnX engines from the 789. Reach any place on earth with 130 people in intl config. :lol:
 
jagraham
Posts: 1104
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:16 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
patrickjp93 wrote:

2-4-2 more likely both for COG management and for flight attendant long-term health. That said, I don't see how Boeing will pull that off unless someone can show me there's 7+ inches of space to steal from the inner and outer walls of the fuselage. Boeing got 4 out of the 777-300, but that was already much thicker due to the greater diameter and strength needed. The 767 couldn't possibly be THAT over engineered, could it?


This is NOT about flight attendants... it is about quickest boarding efficiency... and keeping the costs down to a minimum to extract the maximum efficiency of this aircraft.

Legacy carriers would never go with 7 abreast or
3-2-3 in the US. The only way a legacy carrier could make 8 abreast work on a 767 for their clientele MIGHT be with a cozy suite or staggered seat concept.

I emphasize MIGHT, cause there are just NOT enough rows on the 767-200 basic version to keep things KISS for innovative seating. (767-300 innovative seating just becomes too much aircraft for many of the 797 interested type carriers.)


Airlines do NOT give a rat's rear end on boarding or deplaning efficiency. That's indisputable. You could put 298 butts on a 789 in just 12 minutes if you seated Business & PE first and then filled Economy optimally (and limit elderly people to the aisle or window seats).

No carrier breaks down boarding as back-to-front, window-to-aisle, even though that's the optimal way to do it from a mathematical standpoint. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAHbLRjF0vo


The United WILMA system from some years back did exactly that. Passengers hated it. So WILMA did not last. United's other problem is their 1Ks are spread throughout the plane, and making them wait was quite counterproductive. So the 1Ks and Mileage Plus Premiers board after Business Class, and that is half the plane on many UA flights.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1479
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:25 am

2175301 wrote:
I'd like to provide a more complete answer as to why it is not than just that the main tooling was destroyed (as it could be recreated if everything else was in place).

Restarting production of a 757 type aircraft would require much more than just building a new set of tooling. You would first have to convert all the drawings from mylar (paper original Final drawings died before the 757 was designed). Most companies cannot work from actual "blueprints" anymore. You need to have CAD controlled items - which means CAD drawings. Boeing found out how much of challenge and mess converting drawings were for the 747-8; and they have had to digitize a lot of prints related to the 737 and modern versions of the 767. This is a massive project.

Since virtually all major part production has been shut down and the tooling destroyed (even at the sub contractor level); its better to design many new parts than to try to recreate the older parts. Most of the subcontractors who supplied the parts are actually not interested in going back to doing things the old way or producing the old version of current things they make for the aircraft industry.

There will by it's very nature of how the industry and parts suppliers have changed - require a lot of modernization work with the relevant certifications.

A reality, is that you would likely cost at least 50%, and perhaps 75%, of a clean sheet design to pull this off, and return to market would not be much faster than a clean sheet program as well.

There is not enough of a market to justify that cost.

Of course... IF... IF it was still in production and all the old parts and equipment pieces still available... It would be a lot less costly and faster to modify and bring to market in a modern format.

Sometimes reality hurts.... The 757 is dead, and not coming back.

Have a great day,


Surely one can buy new 757 parts? There are hundreds of 757s out there. I understand that scrap yards also provide parts, but I was under the impression that all parts needed to operate a 757 could be bought from Boeing (at a possible high price, but still available).
 
ewt340
Posts: 1272
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:43 am

Rifitto wrote:
RalXWB wrote:
Great decision from Boeing since the 764 was selling like hot cakes and airlines are still standing in line to get some...Oh wait...


That's silly and non sens to link the freighter succes with the pax version ,the 748I and 77L both sold poorly but their freighters are doing outstanding job
the A33F in the other hand That nobody is interessted in ,it's pax version is the second best widebody ever built


It just mean that they don't really try to create temporary product for the MoM market. Cause they focus too much on the freighter aspect instead of the versatility for both freighters and pax version.

Otherwise they would use -300ER as the base.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2024
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:04 am

patrickjp93 wrote:
So you're proposing GE bother with putting the CMC PIP into the DEAD GEnx 2B just for this limited production run and duplicate all that certification? Uh, no.

Who ever said CMC?

So you're proposing they completely modify the 1B to allow for bleed air for a limited production run, derate the engine by 20% reducing efficiency and carry 1000kg of extra deadweight? Crazy stuff.

Boeing would fit a completely standard 2B67B to the 767. Simply derating the 2B by 10% would cost a fraction of the money compared to adding bleed air to the 1B engine.

The GenX 2B just got a big upgrade 12 months ago. The 747-8's core is now the same tech as the core on the current 787-8's.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -8-446969/

Engine fuel consumption is at its best near max power where the core is running hottest. Derating the 1B by 20% and the 2B by 10% to hit the same 60,000lb thrust level would narrow the fuel consumption gap.

The 2B would most likely have better fuel burn per kg of payload carried. The pair of 2B engines would be 1000kg lighter allowing for 1000kg of extra payload with the same max takeoff/landing weights. Payload for an improved 767 freighter might go up from say 50 to 51t. That is 2% extra payload. If fuel burn of the 2B only goes up by only 1% then it is the better option.

Adding 2B to the 767F would be a fraction of the cost of making a 787 freighter. A net saving. Also with the 2B on another airframe it might build a business case for GE to do another PIP with CMC's and allow the 747-8 to also gain performance. That could add another decade of production onto the 747-8F with additional sales.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2024
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:15 am

UPS757Pilot wrote:
I disagree. 767-400 length would effectively make it an MD-11 replacement.

Boeing probably doesn't want to work on a 787F at this time and the integrators need the MD-11 replacement soon. This is the best solution for their base infrastructure.

Many also agree the 777-8 freighter has questionable economics due to the increased OEW eating into payload. Fuel burn improves by 15% but payload also reduces by 15%. Fuel burn per kg of payload does not really improve over the old 777F.

Increasing the 767 freighter size and capability would definitely allow it to capture the MD-11 market. A 767-400 freighter with 65t payload could combine with PIP'd 747-8F's to effectively cover the 777F's role. The 777-8F would no longer have a business case. Freight operators could either downgauge or upgauge when their 777F's are due for replacement.

I think the 747-8F's production is very safe and they would sacrifice the 777F if they had to choose. The US military relies on private operators using the 747F for oversized cargo.
 
VV
Posts: 1841
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:47 am

GEnx powered 767.

I read about it somewhere already.
 
User avatar
Antaras
Posts: 820
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:06 am

Do the 767-400 size (even bigger than 787-8, approx the size of 787-9) too big for the NMA?
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
A380MSN004
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:11 am

Any ideas of the MTOW / Pax capacity / Fuel brun / range with this GEnx powered 767-400 ?

The 2-3-2 cabin configuration is gold for pax experience
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2024
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:56 am

A380MSN004 wrote:
Any ideas of the MTOW / Pax capacity / Fuel brun / range with this GEnx powered 767-400 ?

The 2-3-2 cabin configuration is gold for pax experience

There is no indication this improved 767 is for passenger use. Everything points to a simple engine upgrade to the freighter.

Antaras wrote:
Do the 767-400 size (even bigger than 787-8, approx the size of 787-9) too big for the NMA?

Cabin area and range
767-200ER 160m2 6590nm
767-300ER 190m2 5980nm
767-400ER 220m2 5625nm
787-8 232m2 7355nm
787-9 265m2 7365nm

The 767-400ER is extremely close to the 787-8 in cabin area. Once you add new engines you'll also be very close in range. The 787-8 might weigh 10% more but its bigger wing will give it similar fuel burn. There is no advantage to a 767-400MAX over a 787-8 for passenger use that is why everything points to it being a freighter only.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13958
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:51 am

United has been considering it for years, despite being a big 787 and MAX customer.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/united-con ... 1509890401
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9645
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:07 am

It says "Based on the -400" which has the higher landing gear- I see no reason why you could not do a -300 length fuselage on that too, but it makes sense to base it on the -400 which already has the landing gear and is also the most modern version.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2702
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:31 am

morrisond wrote:
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?


1. The biggest 'problem' the 767F faces, is that it's too narrow to carry 125*96 pallets side-by-side, and LD3s side-by-side and/or 125*88/96 transversely in the lower-deck. Pallets, contrary to your statement, comes in all kinds of shapes and sizes. But for integrators the most commonly used ULD is not a pallet, but a container. The 777F can hold a full-contoured 125*96 ULD, just like the 747F, whereas the 767F cannot even load ULDs to the same contour as a an A300.

2. It will never be a better package freighter, or any kind of freighter, than the 777F if used in the market the 777F is intended for. Sure, if you're only going to haul 50 tons over 3000NM, the 767F is a vastly superior proposition. But if we're talking 105 tons and 5000NM, there's only one game in town. Even on a trans-pacific service, or US west coast to Europe the 767F will start trading a lot of payload for fuel very early on. The 777F will just soldier on, not least evidence by the fact it's used every single day between the US midwest and Asia; a 14-hour journey carrying around 80 tons. And you're dead wrong about the density of packages; both Brown, Purple and Yellow are carrying some pretty dense cargo in between the documents, electronics, medicine and FFV.

3. That would be an interesting metric, and I think you'll find the champion in that area to be the A330-300P2F.
Signature. You just read one.
 
User avatar
hilram
Posts: 753
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:12 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 10:46 am

lightsaber wrote:
Ok, for a 767MAX to compete:
1. Electrical subsystems, saves about 3% in fuel
2. Updated cockpit. The 764 is fine, there is better

They already have the KC46-Update to the cockpit, which makes it quite like a 787

lightsaber wrote:
3. Updated wing tip treatment


Surely, the 764 has excellent wing tips?
Flown on: A319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343 | B732, 734, 735, 736, 73G, 738, 743, 744, 772, 77W | CRJ9 | BAe-146 | DHC-6, 7, 8 | F50 | E195 | MD DC-9 41, MD-82, MD-87
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Sat Oct 12, 2019 11:26 am

seahawk wrote:
It says "Based on the -400" which has the higher landing gear- I see no reason why you could not do a -300 length fuselage on that too, but it makes sense to base it on the -400 which already has the landing gear and is also the most modern version.


A 767-300 size is feasible no problem for me. The additional ground clearance will be used to adapt the GEnx. Remain to know if is that there will be new CFRP wings new digital cockpit, new systems, new cabin, larger windows (à la 777-X)

Time will tell...
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 13

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