Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
VV
Posts: 1865
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:21 am

A lot of people have made the wrong assumptions and conclusion concerning the very large aircraft in this discussion forum.
We know what happened to the 747-8 Intercontinental and the A380.

Today we see hasty conclusions about a potential 767 derivative.

I think people need to think a little bit differently and look at the big picture. There are a lot more to consider that "the aircraft".
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9682
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:35 am

RJMAZ wrote:
speedbird52 wrote:
OA940 wrote:
OK but the 764 is literally the 788 of the family. If they wanna launch a re-engined 767 and not doing it on the -300ER platform I'm actually convinced they are dumb.

I am completely and utterly perplexed as to why anyone would pick a engined 764 over a 788 for PAX hauling. What's the point? A 763 based design makes more sense to me as well imo unless this is purely intended for the freighter market.

Agreed.

The 767-400ER would actually burn slightly more fuel in an aircraft with slightly less cabin area. Even if the GenX pushed range of the 5625nm to 6600nm it is still 700nm short of the 787-8. The 787-8 would only need to take off at approximately 215t to have the same payload range as the GenX 204t 767-400ER.

The takeoff performance of the 767-400ER is actually quite poor compared to the 787-8. The 787-8 can operate from short runways and hot/high airports with ease.

The 767-400ER would effectively be like the 787-3. In theory it would have a slight advantage on very short routes under say 500nm. Airport fees make up a large portion of cost of these shirt flights, the slight empty weight per seat advantage helps in this area. I still don't see how this can make it attractive.

Pricing it might also have an advantage. There is a very slim chance the a 767-400MAX could cost say 20% less than the 787-8. This could offset the increased fuel burn per passenger.


Based on the -400 does not have to mean -400 length. The -400 was the most modern version and has the higher landing gear, but there is no reason you can not match it with a -300 or even -200 fuselage (as the KC-46 shows). And then you can easily come out at 75% or less of the OEW of a 787-8 and with a lower capacity.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:58 am

seahawk wrote:
Based on the -400 does not have to mean -400 length. The -400 was the most modern version and has the higher landing gear, but there is no reason you can not match it with a -300 or even -200 fuselage (as the KC-46 shows). And then you can easily come out at 75% or less of the OEW of a 787-8 and with a lower capacity.

That would result in a 7000+nm frame though.

I guess travelling across the Pacific in a 7ab 767-300MAX would be pretty nice.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9682
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:14 am

That would be a side effect, but it would still be a lot more efficient than a 767-300ER. And if you look at some 767 operators, they might like the extra range (or extra payload).

In the end the big question for the 797 always was if it can be a competition to the A321LR/XLR, a replacement for the 757 and a replacement for 767 at the same time. Maybe Boeing had to admit that this would be hard and risky, while a 737-10, 737-9ERMAX and 767MAX are easy.
 
FrancisBegbie
Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:22 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:53 am

speedbird52 wrote:
OA940 wrote:
OK but the 764 is literally the 788 of the family. If they wanna launch a re-engined 767 and not doing it on the -300ER platform I'm actually convinced they are dumb.

I am completely and utterly perplexed as to why anyone would pick a engined 764 over a 788 for PAX hauling. What's the point? A 763 based design makes more sense to me as well imo unless this is purely intended for the freighter market.


Why do people buy Toyota Camry’s when they could also buy BMW 5-Series?

I think the 764-MAX(?) needs a very friendly price tag to make a chance against the 787 or 330neo. Not sure if Boeing currently has the financial room to price it that way if I am honest.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9682
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:16 am

The 767MAX has an excellent position in that regard.

The production line is secure through tankers and freighters
The development costs are low and the freighters alone will probably be enough to make it worthwhile
The engine OEM would have very little cost and could price the engines competitively
Some airlines asked for new 767 in the last years

It is probably not a big winner selling thousands, but a very good opportunity.
 
justloveplanes
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 5:38 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:44 am

mjoelnir wrote:
We have here starting the comparing of apples at Boeing with Bananas at Airbus, when people compare the strait numbers from the Annual reports. They are not comparable without serious calculations, not because the numbers are different presented, but because Boeing and Airbus account to ratherer different systems.
Do people want to run this discussion here in this thread?


One would need to just compare commercial aircraft divisions to get ose to making any assumptions.

Ivan
 
User avatar
frigatebird
Posts: 1789
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:02 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:51 am

keesje wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
Why the GEnX? Seems like an awfully old engine to be installing on a new upgrade, seeing as how the first ones were delivered 11+ years ago.


It is. Plus would be that it is matured. Operating it under it's design thrust levels might compensate the higher cycles of medium flights, helping time on wing. Trent 7000 (bleed air) might also be an option, but is really optimized for 70k lbs for the long haul mission of the a330NEO.

A GenX-2B optimzed variant, incorporating all lessons learned, service data might be the lower risk way forward. GE is now at a production rate 20-25/yr for those engines and no doubt would prefer a better rate. Not to be ignored, the GEnX is way quieter, savier and cleaner then the PW4000, RB211's and CF6 currently used on the 767. Which helps a lot flying into noise restricted airports around large populated areas.

A GEnX-2 offered in the middle of the next decade would also be incomparable to the ones delivered in 2010. Several PiPs, additional CMC's, GE9x tech incorporated, it would be an engine which would compete very well with RR's T7000 and even T-XWB engines.

seahawk wrote:
The 767MAX has an excellent position in that regard.

The production line is secure through tankers and freighters
The development costs are low and the freighters alone will probably be enough to make it worthwhile
The engine OEM would have very little cost and could price the engines competitively
Some airlines asked for new 767 in the last years

It is probably not a big winner selling thousands, but a very good opportunity.


Agreed. The numbers for a clean sheet, dual aisle NMA probably don't add up. Not enough market to justify the huge development cost, uncertainty about any RoI. So a re-engined 767X (i don't think it will be called MAX) could be a stop gap solution.

I understand the arguments against a 764X in passenger version, but I can also imagine cargo airlines would like little more capacity than the 763F. Could it be possible Boeing will offer a 767X in 2 variants: a 767-400 sized freighter as MD10/11 replacement, and a 763 sized pax variant? The 747-8 initially had 2 sizes too, a 744 sized pax variant and a stretch as a freighter. But LH wanted a longer 747-8i. I guess the market will answer this question, will be interesting to hear airlines respond the next few months.

John Leahy said in an interview some time back Boeing should develop an all new NB instead of a dual aisle NMA. I hope Boeing follows his advice. The 737MAX wouldn't have lasted beyond 2030 anyway, now that confidence in the MAX is low Boeing should launch a new aircraft with EIS around 2027. New engines should be ready around that time too.
146,318/19/20/21, AB6,332,333,343,345,346,359,388, 722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9, 742,74E,744,752,762,763, 772,77E,773,77W,788 AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E75/90,F50/70
 
Pottok
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 11:03 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:50 am

Hello,


The Boeing 767-400 wasn't sold because it doesn't have a suficient range face the A330-200
 
VV
Posts: 1865
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:46 pm

I do not understand how 767-400 sized derivative entered into this thread.

If a derivative of the 767 is launched, the first version would be the size of 767-300ER, although the wingspan should be similar to that of 767-409ER.


I don't understand how every single thread here becomes incoherent at some point.

This said, people seem to like science fiction and incoherent stuff.
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:54 pm

So many ramblings considering this is mostly about the 767F program. It’s all hypothetical about any modernized pax variants. Slightly stretched 300ER fuselag, raked wing tips, modernized landing gear and cockpit could make the upgraded freighter a hot item.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
DCAfan
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:22 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:56 pm

The 767-400 entered this thread in the very first post, as that was the subject of the Flightglobal article.
 
LGeneReese
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:36 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:21 pm

DenverTed wrote:
If they can produce 200 764F or so they can get an ROI. Passenger version might be a tougher sell similar to the 748 intercontinental.

I think it’s safe to say UA would be an easy sale on 25+ of these... if the deal is right.
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 563
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:58 pm

I believe that, given the likely change in the center of mass due to the heavier GenX engines, and the need to use the longer -400 gears, there will likely have to be at least some sort of cabin stretch associated with this project.You'd have to add a bit of length to the nose to handle the longer nose gear. If you add mass at the front, you'll need to add some in the rear to balance that. So, I think it's possible that we'll see an intermediate length between the -300 and -400 for this project. Making it the full -400 length just seems to butt up against the 787-8 in size and weight too much. Keeping it a bit shorter gives a bit more separation, and also adds to the weight savings. Since this is being designed as a shorter range high capacity hauler, it'll have more cycles, meaning that weight savings will be more important to efficiency gains. Lighter weight, coupled with slightly more powerful engines, could also improve the hot and high and general runway performance of this derivative over the issues that the -400 was noted to have.

I also have to wonder about the winglet vs raked wingtip issue. I think that the currently offered -300 winglets are very close to the efficiency of the raked wingtips from the -400, and are more appropriate to the expected shorter stage lengths that the plane is supposed to fly. They also offer more commonality to the rest of the 767 fleets out there that are going to be using them for years to come, as opposed to the very limited number of -400s in service. With that said, I believe that they will go the winglet route.

In the end, it'll likely effectively be a more fuel efficient, longer ranged -300ER with a bit more cabin length that can handle a few more passengers or a few more freight containers. If they find a freight company that is willing to place a larger order, they may instead offer it at the -400 length, but, I don't really see much of an advantage to that as the capacity advantage of the MD-10/11 won't be that much greater.
 
mham001
Posts: 5745
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:03 pm

JonesNL wrote:

Exactly this, 50% to 60% of all profits of the commercial aircraft division are contributed by the 737.


I think that is being a bit overblown. Any profits Boeing has reported since the 737 grounding also includes the expenditure of building all those 737s that don't go farther than the parking lot. Unless those expenditures are separated from the "profit" report, your numbers are skewed. In fact, widebody profits are fairly impressive if they are covering free 737s.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2791
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:04 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The GEnx 2B is with 5,623 kg quite a bit heavier than the CF6-80C with about 4,470 kg.

The GEnx is the version with bleed air rather than a big generator, so an all electric 767-400ER would need a new, not developed version, therefor I would rule that out straight away.

The 767-400ER did not manage to compete well with the A330, both offered with the CF6-80, the 767-400ER with the C version and the A330 with the E version, besides P&W and RR..
At least in regards to a passenger version, I do not see how the 767-400ER, with the slightly inferior GEnx, should be able to compete well with the A330neo, with the slightly superior, newer T7000.
Regarding the A330F, a 767-400 freighter would offer a smaller wing span, about the only advantage I can think of,


No idea if Wiki is right but they say RB211-524G's (767-300ER engines) are 5,688–5,790 kg so the weight of the 2B's shouldn't be an issue.
 
phollingsworth
Posts: 759
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:05 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:15 pm

morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The GEnx 2B is with 5,623 kg quite a bit heavier than the CF6-80C with about 4,470 kg.

The GEnx is the version with bleed air rather than a big generator, so an all electric 767-400ER would need a new, not developed version, therefor I would rule that out straight away.

The 767-400ER did not manage to compete well with the A330, both offered with the CF6-80, the 767-400ER with the C version and the A330 with the E version, besides P&W and RR..
At least in regards to a passenger version, I do not see how the 767-400ER, with the slightly inferior GEnx, should be able to compete well with the A330neo, with the slightly superior, newer T7000.
Regarding the A330F, a 767-400 freighter would offer a smaller wing span, about the only advantage I can think of,


No idea if Wiki is right but they say RB211-524G's (767-300ER engines) are 5,688–5,790 kg so the weight of the 2B's shouldn't be an issue.


Those number looks about right when comparing the FAA's TCDSs. However, what makes up 'engine weight' might not be the same between the RRs and the GEs. Some are dry engine only, some are dry pod, which includes cowling and nacelle components.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19184
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:28 pm

VV wrote:
I do not understand how 767-400 sized derivative entered into this thread.

If a derivative of the 767 is launched, the first version would be the size of 767-300ER, although the wingspan should be similar to that of 767-409ER.


I don't understand how every single thread here becomes incoherent at some point.

This said, people seem to like science fiction and incoherent stuff.


Did you read the linked article in the very first post. If you did, I don’t understand how you do not understand. Very curious.
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.
 
ILNFlyer
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:10 pm

LGeneReese wrote:
DenverTed wrote:
If they can produce 200 764F or so they can get an ROI. Passenger version might be a tougher sell similar to the 748 intercontinental.

I think it’s safe to say UA would be an easy sale on 25+ of these... if the deal is right.


Hardly enough to justify the cash outlay and start of production by BA.
 
QXAS
Posts: 366
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:26 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:53 pm

Probably silly to ask at this point since such a plane hasn’t even been launched. But Boeing offered 3 exit configurations on the 763. 4 door, 6 door, and 8 door. Would Boeing likely settle on a single configuration, keep all three or only offer the two far more popular 4 door and 8 door configurations?
I am NOT an employee of any airline or manufacturer. I speak for myself, not on the behalf of any company.
 
VV
Posts: 1865
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:06 pm

QXAS wrote:
Probably silly to ask at this point since such a plane hasn’t even been launched. But Boeing offered 3 exit configurations on the 763. 4 door, 6 door, and 8 door. Would Boeing likely settle on a single configuration, keep all three or only offer the two far more popular 4 door and 8 door configurations?



Most probably 8, with optional"plugs".
 
User avatar
FLYERLHR
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 4:34 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:52 pm

Adding heavier engines just don't do the job for Boeing - the 737 was a perfect project, created the 737 max by adding bigger engines which ultimately resulted in two crashes, and a global grounding

Will Boeing learn? Can't they just start a new NMA project instead of adding the GE-Nx on the 767s?
 
Reddevil556
Posts: 222
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:12 pm

FLYERLHR wrote:
Adding heavier engines just don't do the job for Boeing - the 737 was a perfect project, created the 737 max by adding bigger engines which ultimately resulted in two crashes, and a global grounding

Will Boeing learn? Can't they just start a new NMA project instead of adding the GE-Nx on the 767s?


Airbus did it with both the A320 and the A330, albeit they did both successfully. The 737 was maxed out with the NGs. Boeing gambled with the MAX and so far has lost big time. The MAX could make up some ground but time will tell. However the 737 debacle doesn’t mean Boeing couldn’t pull of a 767-XF. Apply lessons learned like not rushing a project through certifications.
Jumped out of: C130H, C130J, C17A, C212, CH47, and UH60. Bucket list: C160, A400, C2
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10737
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:27 pm

FLYERLHR wrote:
Adding heavier engines just don't do the job for Boeing - the 737 was a perfect project, created the 737 max by adding bigger engines which ultimately resulted in two crashes, and a global grounding

Will Boeing learn? Can't they just start a new NMA project instead of adding the GE-Nx on the 767s?

That kind of ignores how the NG (and classic 300/400/500) wasn’t an all new plane. And very successful.

One mistake does not invalidate the entire concept of re-engining.
 
Dave05
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:05 am

It seems a good idea, as we know the Genx is an efficient engine. However, wouldn't the center of gravity of the 767 moved causing problems like the Max 8? Also I think the 767 would be too low for the GeNx?
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9682
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:00 am

That is why they start with the 400, which has a higher landing gear. Take the wings and MLG of the 400, the fuselage of the 300, the cockpit of the KC46 and add the new engine and the thing will be decently competitive and closing the gap between the 737 and the 787 for very little extra effort. (and there is no other plane in the gap)
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15747
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:46 am

seahawk wrote:
That is why they start with the 400, which has a higher landing gear. Take the wings and MLG of the 400, the fuselage of the 300, the cockpit of the KC46 and add the new engine and the thing will be decently competitive and closing the gap between the 737 and the 787 for very little extra effort. (and there is no other plane in the gap)


Seating how many in a two-class configuration - 250ish? Or around 230 in a three-class?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9682
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:49 am

More or less like a current 763.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:52 am

The Rockwell Collins cockpit on FedEx/UPS freighters is quite different from the 767-2C/KC-46 one.

All new 767-300F aircraft to be delivered (UPS and FEDEX) will be delivered with the Rockwell Collins-2100 LDS ( Large Display System), consisting of 3 large displays.
- All new 767-2C (KC-46A) aircraft will be dlivered with a "787 style" flightdeck, consisting of 4 large displays.
- For all new built 767-300F aircraft the FAA certified a new subtype : 767-300F Major Design Change – Large Format Display System,
See Type Certificate Boeing 767 at page 8/27 : http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guida ... Rev_37.pdf

All CRT equipped 767-300F and 767-200 aircraft can be modified by third parties to the Rockwell Collins Large Format Display System with STC number ST01750WI
See : http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_an ... 1750WI.pdf

Interestingly, I think originally the Rockwell cockpit was installed aftermarket in Indianapolis for FedEx, but now is handled by Boeing themselves (but for the HUD). The KC46 also has a different SMC.

The HUD mod for the FedEx 767's are done in Indianapolis. The ship arrives directly from Boeing and is placed into our east hangar for modification. The entire project takes about two to three weeks. In the past, the ships arrived with the standard Boeing approved flight deck instrumentation. The original flight deck was removed and returned to Boeing and FedEx techs installed our style of flight deck. A lot of work. Apparently, a deal was reached where Boeing now installs our style of flight deck and we do the HUD mod. Work is also done on the Forward Looking Infrared system, lower cargo floorboards and the ship is set up for service with the addition of several other items that have to be installed. A test flight is done to check the HUD installation. It is a very interesting work and quite a few ships have been done with many more to go.


viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1417199

A lot of the Thales, Honeywell, Teledyne and even the Rockwell display systems in the KC-46 are not common to any commercial model, but I would think they are at this point certified. Of some note, as there is debate above about ‘starting with’ the 764 for a potential GEnX variant, I’d think those higher gear, wing box, and engine changes would be easier to apply to the STC for the 767-2C. That is the variant with all the USAF improvements/updates, and it also is 20 feet longer than a 767-200.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-12-21 ... C-Aircraft
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10737
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:12 am

texl1649 wrote:
is the variant with all the USAF improvements/updates, and it also is 20 feet longer than a 767-200.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-12-21 ... C-Aircraft

20’ longer than the 767-200 makes it a 767-300 ;)

It’s was going to be about 2m/6’ longer? I know there was debate about whether it was actually stretched in the end or not. Hard to find solid info.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24641
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:19 am

seahawk wrote:
That is why they start with the 400, which has a higher landing gear. Take the wings and MLG of the 400, the fuselage of the 300, the cockpit of the KC46 and add the new engine and the thing will be decently competitive and closing the gap between the 737 and the 787 for very little extra effort. (and there is no other plane in the gap)

I'm not seeing why you would add a heavier and costlier engine along with heavier and costlier gear and not try to improve revenue by doing a stretch. The efficiency gain of the engines is ~25% relative to CF6 so you now are creating a large amount of empty space in the fuel tanks to get the range the 763ER customers already are happy with, and you are also boosting payload capacity due to less fuel per mile flown. Basically you are creating an unbalanced plane, one with too much tank space and MTOW.

Meanwhile over in TLS they have A330-800/900 with an even newer engine hanging on a better wing with a fuse that comfortably allows 8x seating and standard containers under the deck which is already certified and in production, but not really selling.

To me the only market available to the GEnX powered 767 is the freighter market, where a 764F makes some sense, as long as the investment is low and the signed commitments are high. The later is a problem since the freighter market isn't exactly booming right now.
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
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1869
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:31 am

The 767 will be smaller and lighter than the A330. The proposed MOM was already not going to have container capability and the customers were going to be happy with that. They want a small twin aisle with a good range.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9682
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:39 am

If airlines consider the A338/A339 as well as the 787 family too big and too capable to replace their existing 767 (753s) they might not want a stretch and to be honest excess tank capacity is not that bad, as it gives a nice choice between using the extra range or carrying more payload over the same distance.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ps/767.pdf

Considering the max MTOW payload for the 767-300ER only takes it about 4000nm (6000nm only with pax and bags) 25% extra range with max MTOW seems useful.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:40 am

Polot wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
is the variant with all the USAF improvements/updates, and it also is 20 feet longer than a 767-200.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-12-21 ... C-Aircraft

20’ longer than the 767-200 makes it a 767-300 ;)

It’s was going to be about 2m/6’ longer? I know there was debate about whether it was actually stretched in the end or not. Hard to find solid info.


Close, it’s 50.5m in length vs. the 300 @ 54.94, and the 200 @ 48.51. Basically a ‘tweener. The 400 was comparatively massive by comparison, 61.37 (just over 200 feet).
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10737
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:05 pm

RickNRoll wrote:
The 767 will be smaller and lighter than the A330. The proposed MOM was already not going to have container capability and the customers were going to be happy with that. They want a small twin aisle with a good range.

The 767 is containerized, just using LD2s and not LD3s side by side. For existing 767 operators it is no big deal, as they already have and use LD2s, and as you mentioned any new build Boeing drafts up probably also won’t fit LD3s side by side, so new operators would be getting new containers anyways.

texl1649 wrote:
Polot wrote:
texl1649 wrote:
is the variant with all the USAF improvements/updates, and it also is 20 feet longer than a 767-200.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-12-21 ... C-Aircraft

20’ longer than the 767-200 makes it a 767-300 ;)

It’s was going to be about 2m/6’ longer? I know there was debate about whether it was actually stretched in the end or not. Hard to find solid info.


Close, it’s 50.5m in length vs. the 300 @ 54.94, and the 200 @ 48.51. Basically a ‘tweener. The 400 was comparatively massive by comparison, 61.37 (just over 200 feet).


Boeing uses that number for the KC-46 but it is not clear to me whether that is the length including the boom (which sticks out past the tail cone when stowed) or just the actual airframe.
Last edited by Polot on Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:06 pm

So Boeing have spent the guts of 10 years talking shoot about a "game-changing" MoM when they could just have hung a couple of new engines off a 767 and got the job done?

Aye, dead on.

If the MoM were able to make a compelling case over the A321XLR and the 787-8 over a payload-range of X-Y to X+Y nm, then a 767neo will make a compelling case over the A321XLR and the 787-8 over a payload-range of X-(Y/5) to X+(Y/5) nm or similar!

If Airbus were to introduce the A30X in the 2030 timeframe (which will have a larger capacity, longer ranged variant than even the A321XLR), or an A330 replacement - then the shelf-life of this 767neo program will be <5 years [as I don't see an EIS this side of 2025].



It is a ludicrous proposition and indicates the takeover of Boeing by McDonnell Douglas is complete.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:44 pm

Polot wrote:
RickNRoll wrote:
The 767 will be smaller and lighter than the A330. The proposed MOM was already not going to have container capability and the customers were going to be happy with that. They want a small twin aisle with a good range.

The 767 is containerized, just using LD2s and not LD3s side by side. For existing 767 operators it is no big deal, as they already have and use LD2s, and as you mentioned any new build Boeing drafts up probably also won’t fit LD3s side by side, so new operators would be getting new containers anyways.

texl1649 wrote:
Polot wrote:
20’ longer than the 767-200 makes it a 767-300 ;)

It’s was going to be about 2m/6’ longer? I know there was debate about whether it was actually stretched in the end or not. Hard to find solid info.


Close, it’s 50.5m in length vs. the 300 @ 54.94, and the 200 @ 48.51. Basically a ‘tweener. The 400 was comparatively massive by comparison, 61.37 (just over 200 feet).


Boeing uses that number for the KC-46 but it is not clear to me whether that is the length including the boom (which sticks out past the tail cone when stowed) or just the actual airframe.


Some other anutters helped us all out by counting frames:
viewtopic.php?t=1026493&start=250#p13615237

KC-46 has the same fuselage length as the 200.
 
mopacair
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:13 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:46 pm

I don’t claim to be an aviation savant, but I’ve been a fan for a long time. I can understand why Boeing would want to take a hard look at this project for freight and possibly passenger variants. As has been noted, the DC-10/MD-11 cargo fleets are fast approaching retirement with no clear replacement available. Boeing can corner that market with a re-engined offering based on the B764.

While I do understand the weight concerns with a 762/763 sized fuselage in passenger use, wouldn’t the increased efficiency from the GEnX engines offset many of those concerns?

Why does there seem to be a fascination with getting the fuselage to fit 8-abreast seating? The article only refers to the freight version as being based on the 764, not the passenger version. It would stand to reason that if Boeing decides to move forward with a passenger variant of the 767X for the MOM, 7-abreast seating might offer the right density. As others have pointed out, the 787-3 offered 8-abreast seating in the right sized airframe but the plane was cancelled as it was too heavy and inefficient. The 767, on the other hand, may be the perfect size for the NMA.

Also, I don’t understand why all the disdain towards a possible passenger variant. I’m fully aware that the 767 is not a modern design but consider the current situation at Boeing. Of course, Boeing would prefer a clean sheet NMA, but it would be expensive to build and would likely not be ready before 2030. As a result of the 737MAX debacle the NSA has become even more imperative for Boeing. Additionally, the 777X is well behind schedule due to the engine issues and the Boeing brand name has taken extensive damage in public over the last couple years. They desperately need a win with the public and the airlines- the 767X could potentially do that and save some money as well.
 
dcs921
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:40 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:15 pm

phollingsworth wrote:
morrisond wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The GEnx 2B is with 5,623 kg quite a bit heavier than the CF6-80C with about 4,470 kg.

The GEnx is the version with bleed air rather than a big generator, so an all electric 767-400ER would need a new, not developed version, therefor I would rule that out straight away.

The 767-400ER did not manage to compete well with the A330, both offered with the CF6-80, the 767-400ER with the C version and the A330 with the E version, besides P&W and RR..
At least in regards to a passenger version, I do not see how the 767-400ER, with the slightly inferior GEnx, should be able to compete well with the A330neo, with the slightly superior, newer T7000.
Regarding the A330F, a 767-400 freighter would offer a smaller wing span, about the only advantage I can think of,


No idea if Wiki is right but they say RB211-524G's (767-300ER engines) are 5,688–5,790 kg so the weight of the 2B's shouldn't be an issue.


Those number looks about right when comparing the FAA's TCDSs. However, what makes up 'engine weight' might not be the same between the RRs and the GEs. Some are dry engine only, some are dry pod, which includes cowling and nacelle components.


If you follow the reference link on Wikipedia for the RB211 weight, it takes you to the UK Civil Aviation Authority's TCDS for the RB211. It states the listed weight as the dry weight for the engine. The GEnx should be okay, based off the listed dry weight of the RB211 is higher than the listed with l weight of GEnx.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150601211403/http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1419/SRG_PRO_1049%20iss2.pdf

The dry Powerplant weight less intake, intake systems, cowl doors and cowl doors support structure is


524H-36 5775 Kg ( 12731 lbs)
524H2-19 5790 Kg (12764 lbs)
524H-T-36 5688 Kg (12540 lbs)
524H2-T-19 5703 Kg (12573 lbs)
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4340
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:29 pm

I am itemizing some bits and pieces from the almost 400 posts here, and 'grammarizing' them as questions. Clarification requested.

The engine in new 767 freighters is kind of old and OK, but needs an update, not a PIP but a new engine. Sometime in the mid 20s it no longer will meet regulations.

But the best available new engines will add about 4 tons, so optimizations of the rest of the frame to a more efficient, more powerful, but heavier plane need to take place. Otherwise it may face competition from 330 updated freighter

Is there agreement that if a newer, more efficient and lighter engine were available it be used. There is no such engine available, and not economic to design and built one. It has to be an existing available engine.

It is difficult to reposition the 767F, which has been astoundingly successful as a freighter. Bigger is not always better.

Some people are intrigued by the possibility that this could revive the 767 passenger version. Oddly that middle of the market gap is difficult to define, and the 767 does meet a couple of the specs. (I am not persuaded as of today).
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
morrisond
Posts: 2791
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:35 pm

dcs921 wrote:
phollingsworth wrote:
morrisond wrote:

No idea if Wiki is right but they say RB211-524G's (767-300ER engines) are 5,688–5,790 kg so the weight of the 2B's shouldn't be an issue.


Those number looks about right when comparing the FAA's TCDSs. However, what makes up 'engine weight' might not be the same between the RRs and the GEs. Some are dry engine only, some are dry pod, which includes cowling and nacelle components.


If you follow the reference link on Wikipedia for the RB211 weight, it takes you to the UK Civil Aviation Authority's TCDS for the RB211. It states the listed weight as the dry weight for the engine. The GEnx should be okay, based off the listed dry weight of the RB211 is higher than the listed with l weight of GEnx.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150601211403/http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1419/SRG_PRO_1049%20iss2.pdf

The dry Powerplant weight less intake, intake systems, cowl doors and cowl doors support structure is


524H-36 5775 Kg ( 12731 lbs)
524H2-19 5790 Kg (12764 lbs)
524H-T-36 5688 Kg (12540 lbs)
524H2-T-19 5703 Kg (12573 lbs)


Good find. Then the structure should be good for extra weight and it is only 5% more thrust than the 63,500 lb thrust the 400 was offered with - so that shouldn't be a problem. A minor derate if really necessary.

Bolt up the 2b's and time to take it for a flight! ( I know it's not that easy).
 
ewt340
Posts: 1275
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:22 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:42 pm

morrisond wrote:
63,500 LB Engines were an option on 764 - 2B's are only 66,500 - that is not a massive difference.

No one would think much of an Single Aisle going from 20,000 to 21,000 lb engines.


Well here's the thing, B767-400ER is not a big seller. The smaller -300ER is. Mainly because of the capacity of tha frame. Not too big and have enough range for most flights.

B767-400ER have almost similar capacity to A330-200 and B787-8.

What the market wants is widebody aircraft with the capacity of either B767-300ER or A300-600.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:44 pm

Thx ssteve above.

Question; if Boeing is about to launch NMA as a pax aircraft without much belly/cargo applications, they'll be getting a new CFM engine in the right class toward 2025, right? Is there a reason they or GE would favor doing something for the GEnX vs. that product (about which we effectively only know GE decided to stick with the CFM partnership, and not do a geared config)?

Would it make sense even to put that new product on the marginally refreshed 767 freighter first, to minimize NMA timeline risks? Also/alternatively, could pax models of said "767 Max" even be sold to the US3 if they need them, as an interim, if NMA then slips to 2026-2027, with buyback guarantees for P2F conversions for NMA orders?
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:22 pm

Revelation wrote:
seahawk wrote:
That is why they start with the 400, which has a higher landing gear. Take the wings and MLG of the 400, the fuselage of the 300, the cockpit of the KC46 and add the new engine and the thing will be decently competitive and closing the gap between the 737 and the 787 for very little extra effort. (and there is no other plane in the gap)

I'm not seeing why you would add a heavier and costlier engine along with heavier and costlier gear and not try to improve revenue by doing a stretch. The efficiency gain of the engines is ~25% relative to CF6 so you now are creating a large amount of empty space in the fuel tanks to get the range the 763ER customers already are happy with, and you are also boosting payload capacity due to less fuel per mile flown. Basically you are creating an unbalanced plane, one with too much tank space and MTOW.

Meanwhile over in TLS they have A330-800/900 with an even newer engine hanging on a better wing with a fuse that comfortably allows 8x seating and standard containers under the deck which is already certified and in production, but not really selling.

To me the only market available to the GEnX powered 767 is the freighter market, where a 764F makes some sense, as long as the investment is low and the signed commitments are high. The later is a problem since the freighter market isn't exactly booming right now.


It means a freighter would have more payload/range performance. The main landing gear is adapted from the the 777-200 gear, so it can handle high landing weights from a fully loaded 764F. Perhaps Boeing is looking to makee a 764F into an MD-11F replacement. They say it would be available in the 2025 timeframe when the youngest MD-11F will be 26 years old. The 767 line will still have lots of latent capacity that could be used to easily increase the monthly production rate. The freighter specific parts are already developed for the 767-300F. It means Boeing could crank out passenger 787's from its existing production lines at their maximum rates to meet demand for passenger 787's without having to compete for slots with a freighter variant. They also would not have to spend money and engineering talent developing a 787- F variant and design a freighter floor. A 764F would also share an engine in common with the 747-8F. This could allow rotating engines through both 764F and 747-8F fleets as can be done with 747-400 and 763.
 
Guillaume787
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:02 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:31 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
I am itemizing some bits and pieces from the almost 400 posts here, and 'grammarizing' them as questions. Clarification requested.

The engine in new 767 freighters is kind of old and OK, but needs an update, not a PIP but a new engine. Sometime in the mid 20s it no longer will meet regulations.

But the best available new engines will add about 4 tons, so optimizations of the rest of the frame to a more efficient, more powerful, but heavier plane need to take place. Otherwise it may face competition from 330 updated freighter

Is there agreement that if a newer, more efficient and lighter engine were available it be used. There is no such engine available, and not economic to design and built one. It has to be an existing available engine.

It is difficult to reposition the 767F, which has been astoundingly successful as a freighter. Bigger is not always better.

Some people are intrigued by the possibility that this could revive the 767 passenger version. Oddly that middle of the market gap is difficult to define, and the 767 does meet a couple of the specs. (I am not persuaded as of today).


Thank you for this comprehensive summary! :bigthumbsup:
 
jagraham
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:59 am

seahawk wrote:
If airlines consider the A338/A339 as well as the 787 family too big and too capable to replace their existing 767 (753s) they might not want a stretch and to be honest excess tank capacity is not that bad, as it gives a nice choice between using the extra range or carrying more payload over the same distance.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ps/767.pdf

Considering the max MTOW payload for the 767-300ER only takes it about 4000nm (6000nm only with pax and bags) 25% extra range with max MTOW seems useful.


agreed. if a 767 upgrade isn't about purchase price and weight derived fuel economy, you're smack dab in 787 territory. so the change should be minimal. a GEnx2 on a 764 is minimal. a GEnx1 is not minimal. and there is no point competing range wise when 767 cruise speed is only M0.8
 
Buffalomatt1027
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:02 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:08 am

jagraham wrote:
seahawk wrote:
If airlines consider the A338/A339 as well as the 787 family too big and too capable to replace their existing 767 (753s) they might not want a stretch and to be honest excess tank capacity is not that bad, as it gives a nice choice between using the extra range or carrying more payload over the same distance.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ps/767.pdf

Considering the max MTOW payload for the 767-300ER only takes it about 4000nm (6000nm only with pax and bags) 25% extra range with max MTOW seems useful.


agreed. if a 767 upgrade isn't about purchase price and weight derived fuel economy, you're smack dab in 787 territory. so the change should be minimal. a GEnx2 on a 764 is minimal. a GEnx1 is not minimal. and there is no point competing range wise when 767 cruise speed is only M0.8


They arent doing a full on 767 max type plane, they are just replacing the engines to help fedex and ups save some fuel cargo wise.
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1841
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:26 am

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
jagraham wrote:
seahawk wrote:
If airlines consider the A338/A339 as well as the 787 family too big and too capable to replace their existing 767 (753s) they might not want a stretch and to be honest excess tank capacity is not that bad, as it gives a nice choice between using the extra range or carrying more payload over the same distance.

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commer ... ps/767.pdf

Considering the max MTOW payload for the 767-300ER only takes it about 4000nm (6000nm only with pax and bags) 25% extra range with max MTOW seems useful.


agreed. if a 767 upgrade isn't about purchase price and weight derived fuel economy, you're smack dab in 787 territory. so the change should be minimal. a GEnx2 on a 764 is minimal. a GEnx1 is not minimal. and there is no point competing range wise when 767 cruise speed is only M0.8


They arent doing a full on 767 max type plane, they are just replacing the engines to help fedex and ups save some fuel cargo wise.

To be all honest isn't this what 737MAX was about, that replacing the engine and be done with it?

It's only when they realised the reengine will affect central gravity and the flight profile then they look at software fix that leads to MCAS.

Michael
 
Noshow
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Thu Oct 17, 2019 8:20 am

Could this GEnx 767 just be a show spectacle to distract everybody from Mr. Muilenburg's headlines published on the very same day?
 
dampfnudel
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:42 am

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:09 am

Maybe a few years ago, I would’ve been cool with this, but now after the 737 MAX fiasco, I can only see this as another poor decision (potentially) Boeing makes based on some degree of desperation.
A313 332 343 B703 712 722 732 73G 738 739 741 742 744 752 762 76E 764 772 AT5 CR9 D10 DHH DHT F27 GRM L10 M83 TU5

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