Page 9 of 11

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:06 am
by RJMAZ
dampfnudel wrote:
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.

We have had many successful NEO programs, just because the 737MAX had problems does not mean they should never fit new engines to an old aircraft.

GenX 2B's on a standard 767F would work OK. The longer landing legs of the 767-400ER on the standard 767-300 freighter would be fairly simple. It would allow the aircraft to fly 10-15% further at the same maximum payload. Or it would allow 10-15% more payload weight on very long routes. The longer landing legs could also allow a slightly higher MTOW or Landing weight to the current 767-300F. That is if the landing gear was the limiting factor. That could see 25% more payload on the same route.

It makes no sense for Boeing to spend a couple billion fitting new engines if the customer would have just bought the current 767 freighter model anyway. This to me confirms that Amazon has threatened to buy an Airbus freighter.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:51 am
by Francoflier
RJMAZ wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
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.

We have had many successful NEO programs, just because the 737MAX had problems does not mean they should never fit new engines to an old aircraft.

GenX 2B's on a standard 767F would work OK. The longer landing legs of the 767-400ER on the standard 767-300 freighter would be fairly simple. It would allow the aircraft to fly 10-15% further at the same maximum payload. Or it would allow 10-15% more payload weight on very long routes. The longer landing legs could also allow a slightly higher MTOW or Landing weight to the current 767-300F. That is if the landing gear was the limiting factor. That could see 25% more payload on the same route.

It makes no sense for Boeing to spend a couple billion fitting new engines if the customer would have just bought the current 767 freighter model anyway. This to me confirms that Amazon has threatened to buy an Airbus freighter.


Those figures are quite audacious. I'd like to know where you get them from, or how you get them.

Adding GenX engines and a longer gear will add quite a bit of weight to the frame. Without an increase in MZFW and maybe MTOW (which might not be that straightforward), that extra weight is only going to impact payload on shorter sectors. The benefits of this would only be felt on rather long sectors, and I'm not sure many operators would really gain from this, especially considering the higher purchase price.

This is the same reason the 330 Neo hasn't really found itself replacing what was essentially its biggest market pre-Neo: short to medium high capacity routes. The weight penalty of the Neo-fication is only worth it if you fly long enough for those sippy engines to compensate for the added girth and cost.

How many 76F operators use it on really long routes anyway? I'd say most operators nowadays are parcel carriers who prefer multiple shorter hops within their continent.

As for increasing the longer landing gear allowing for an increase in weight, I'm not so sure it would be that easy. There are many things that limit the certified weights, and the landing gear is not usually top of that list. I don't know if that's the case for the 76F, but I suspect it might take a bit more than that. Certifying an aircraft for a higher weight is also somewhat costly and would add to the development cost, which they're trying to keep in check as much as possible.

I'm really not sure the whole thing would be an interesting proposition. If anything, it might be better suited to passenger transport, if they can keep the cost and weight down and decide to not go ahead with the NMA.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:11 am
by RJMAZ
Francoflier wrote:
Those figures are quite audacious. I'd like to know where you get them from, or how you get them.

The 767F can only carry max payload to 3200nm. So after this the GenX engines would start to gain a significant advantage.

On a 5000nm flight for example the current 767F would carry 35t of payload with 65t of fuel carried. A GenX would burn 15% less fuel or roughly 9t less. If the OEW increased by 3t that still leaves 6t of extra room for payload before hitting MTOW.

So it would be 35t vs 41t of payload on a 5000nm flight. That is more than a 16% payload increase. If the OEW increased by 5t then it will still have 11% more payload.

On a 6000nm flight the advantage is huge. The current 767F can carry 28t of payload with 73t of fuel carried. The GenX's would burn 11t less fuel. With a 3t OEW increase that is 36t vs 28t payload or up to 28% increase.

No current freight operator would use the current 767F on a 6000nm flight but Amazon might not want to purchase a second aircraft type such as the 777F for such long routes. A single fleet of GenX 767's would allow them to stretch the aircraft for a handful of longer routes. This is why the A330-800 freighter would be very flexible for Amazon.

On flights below 3500nm the GenX offers no payload weight increase but it will still burn 10+% less fuel per kg of payload even on the shortest hop.

Even if you stack the deck against the GenX and assume OEW will increase by 5t and fuel burn will only be 10% less it will still burn less fuel per kg of payload on all flights greater than about 1000nm.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:19 am
by DL757NYC
If they had done this for the 757/767 they would have sold many examples.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:31 am
by KlimaBXsst
I just really don’t see the US Legacy carriers buying this plane. 210-230 seats is the magic middle market small wide-body pax number.

Maybe Boeing can get the numbers right... for a premium heavy configuration, but to me the range capabilities are still making this way too much of an aircraft.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:39 am
by jagraham
The legacy carriers who the 767 / GEnx is targeted at are UPS and FedEx. The 767 / GEnx combo does not beat the 788 unless it is much cheaper. And Leeham believes that the 788 was sold for under $90 million to win the latest AA order. So less than $80 million; maybe much less?? I don't think so. Despite what the article says

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:41 am
by jagraham
There could be something to the rumor about an Amazon 'threat'. An improved 767 cargo plane can be made cheaper - and quicker - than a 787F. It doesn't need to carry 100t; there's a 77F for that. It just needs to be cheaper to operate than the current 767F. Which is still selling . . .

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 6:50 am
by Checklist787
All comments here make me laugh!

The pessimists know BETER than Boeing what they have to do!

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:00 am
by uta999
While Boeing are at it, can we please have a RR / GEnx powered 757 too. If only they had not thrown out all the tooling with the bathwater.

I'll see myself out.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:29 am
by Francoflier
RJMAZ wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
Those figures are quite audacious. I'd like to know where you get them from, or how you get them.

The 767F can only carry max payload to 3200nm. So after this the GenX engines would start to gain a significant advantage.

On a 5000nm flight for example the current 767F would carry 35t of payload with 65t of fuel carried. A GenX would burn 15% less fuel or roughly 9t less. If the OEW increased by 3t that still leaves 6t of extra room for payload before hitting MTOW.

So it would be 35t vs 41t of payload on a 5000nm flight. That is more than a 16% payload increase. If the OEW increased by 5t then it will still have 11% more payload.

On a 6000nm flight the advantage is huge. The current 767F can carry 28t of payload with 73t of fuel carried. The GenX's would burn 11t less fuel. With a 3t OEW increase that is 36t vs 28t payload or up to 28% increase.

No current freight operator would use the current 767F on a 6000nm flight but Amazon might not want to purchase a second aircraft type such as the 777F for such long routes. A single fleet of GenX 767's would allow them to stretch the aircraft for a handful of longer routes. This is why the A330-800 freighter would be very flexible for Amazon.

On flights below 3500nm the GenX offers no payload weight increase but it will still burn 10+% less fuel per kg of payload even on the shortest hop.

Even if you stack the deck against the GenX and assume OEW will increase by 5t and fuel burn will only be 10% less it will still burn less fuel per kg of payload on all flights greater than about 1000nm.


That's fair. I won't delve into the figures but I trust that it is a good ballpark.

As you said, I'm not sure the extra range capacity would be really needed, save for a few cases.
The burn would indeed be lower, but the extra weight (4 to 5T sounds reasonable) would rob some payload.

There's also the issue of which GenX to attach under there. As far as I know, there are ~60klbs variants available, but non are in commercial use. I'm unclear whether they'd be as efficient as the more powerful versions as the GenX seems to be designed around a larger core than the CF6. I'm guessing they're simple derates of the -1B, which begs the question of whether they can be modified for bleed air.
I'd love an engine guy to chime in on this (we all know who...).

All in all, I remain unconvinced that it would attract enough orders to make it worthwhile as it's still a lot of money to spend on development and then spread onto relatively few potential customers.

I suspect it would be good for Amazon however. They'd love the commonality and, unlike many freight operators, can afford it.

I do hope to see it happen, it would look great. I'm just skeptical.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:54 am
by flipdewaf
If the re-engine is for parcel carriers then it would make more sense to just apply it to the 764, its my understanding that parcel carrying causes a reduction in density over standard freight operation and so a higher volume jet may be the order of the day.

Freighters normally have lower utilisation than their self loading equivalents and so in the realms of costs the fuel burn plays a lower relative significance than capital expenditure. Something isn't computing right for me if a re-engine makes sense for a freighter and not for a pax equivalent.

The reasons I can think why Boeing might launch a re-engined 767 based freighter.
1. Parcel carriers want increased volume without the weight requirements
2. There's something stopping the 787 becoming a freighter (I feel like the 789 with 781 wings is screaming for this in the long term). Maybe the capital costs of the 787 don't pencil out or the construction of the frame somehow isn't suitable.
3. GE want an in to the future of the tanker program, if a 767 derivative looks like it will replace all 707, 757, DC10, 747 (some).

Fred

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:00 am
by aerdingus
New engines on an old a/c...that's worked out well for them before.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:21 am
by flyingclrs727
flipdewaf wrote:
If the re-engine is for parcel carriers then it would make more sense to just apply it to the 764, its my understanding that parcel carrying causes a reduction in density over standard freight operation and so a higher volume jet may be the order of the day.

Freighters normally have lower utilisation than their self loading equivalents and so in the realms of costs the fuel burn plays a lower relative significance than capital expenditure. Something isn't computing right for me if a re-engine makes sense for a freighter and not for a pax equivalent.

The reasons I can think why Boeing might launch a re-engined 767 based freighter.
1. Parcel carriers want increased volume without the weight requirements
2. There's something stopping the 787 becoming a freighter (I feel like the 789 with 781 wings is screaming for this in the long term). Maybe the capital costs of the 787 don't pencil out or the construction of the frame somehow isn't suitable.
3. GE want an in to the future of the tanker program, if a 767 derivative looks like it will replace all 707, 757, DC10, 747 (some).

Fred


The problem is availability of production slots for the 787. Boeing is already cranking out passenger 787's as fast as they can build them. A reengined 767-400 would be built on the 767 line that could easily be run at higher production rates. Then there is also the possibility of using the GEnX reengined 767's on future KC-46 orders. Perhaps even a 763 length plane with 764 landing gear and operating weights could be offered as a long range freighter or tanker.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:25 am
by Checklist787
aerdingus wrote:
New engines on an old a/c...that's worked out well for them before.


The A330neo is based on an old a/c too. Just like the 60's fuselage based on the A300.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:09 am
by JayinKitsap
Franciflier-
The 764 has a significant increase in MTOW and MLW compared to the 763, so using its gear and structure gets the needed increase needed. Engineering is then to shrink the length to what is desired. The structure is already certified, except the shrink and the new engines. The pylon from the 748 could possibly be used as it was set up to adapt from and to the same engines.

In all this reengine looks to be straightforward with low risk, the big question is would it add 200+ orders, sufficient to cover the development costs.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:26 am
by morrisond
JayinKitsap wrote:
Franciflier-
The 764 has a significant increase in MTOW and MLW compared to the 763, so using its gear and structure gets the needed increase needed. Engineering is then to shrink the length to what is desired. The structure is already certified, except the shrink and the new engines. The pylon from the 748 could possibly be used as it was set up to adapt from and to the same engines.

In all this reengine looks to be straightforward with low risk, the big question is would it add 200+ orders, sufficient to cover the development costs.


Development cost is one of the main reasons it would probably stay an 400 at it's existing MTOW - or a slight bump if the limitation to MTOW was runway performance before - which the extra 3,000 lbs of thrust per side from 2B's would help with (the 400 was offered with 63,500 engines).

As shown earlier in the thread RB211-524g's are within a few pounds of 2B's so the wing should be able to take them without reinforcement, and the thrust bump is the equivalent of taking a narrow body engine from 20,000 to 21,100 lbs of thrust.

As Jay rightly points out the interface for a 2B has probably already been pretty figured out (at least on the plumbing side) you would just have to adapt the shape/bolt pattern for the 767 wing.

Maybe new wingtip treatment and that would be about it. In terms of development cost this should be relatively inexpensive in the realm of programs.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 11:57 am
by Revelation
RJMAZ wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
Those figures are quite audacious. I'd like to know where you get them from, or how you get them.

The 767F can only carry max payload to 3200nm. So after this the GenX engines would start to gain a significant advantage.

On a 5000nm flight for example the current 767F would carry 35t of payload with 65t of fuel carried. A GenX would burn 15% less fuel or roughly 9t less. If the OEW increased by 3t that still leaves 6t of extra room for payload before hitting MTOW.

So it would be 35t vs 41t of payload on a 5000nm flight. That is more than a 16% payload increase. If the OEW increased by 5t then it will still have 11% more payload.

On a 6000nm flight the advantage is huge. The current 767F can carry 28t of payload with 73t of fuel carried. The GenX's would burn 11t less fuel. With a 3t OEW increase that is 36t vs 28t payload or up to 28% increase.

Thanks for the estimates, they are helpful.

No current freight operator would use the current 767F on a 6000nm flight but Amazon might not want to purchase a second aircraft type such as the 777F for such long routes. A single fleet of GenX 767's would allow them to stretch the aircraft for a handful of longer routes. This is why the A330-800 freighter would be very flexible for Amazon.

On flights below 3500nm the GenX offers no payload weight increase but it will still burn 10+% less fuel per kg of payload even on the shortest hop.

Even if you stack the deck against the GenX and assume OEW will increase by 5t and fuel burn will only be 10% less it will still burn less fuel per kg of payload on all flights greater than about 1000nm.

Is that kind of market good enough to justify the expense of the engineering, regulatory overhead, flight testing, etc?

I'm not sure you can claim a fuel advantage on short hops too, that's not how it worked out on many other NEOs/MAXes.

You are adding a heavier engine with more frontal drag, adding weight to reinforce the wing box, adding taller thus heavier gear, and even wingtip treatments usually detract for short hops.

To me the motivations are more likely to either GE doesn't want to keep making CF6 (yet they have been doing so happily for decades now!) or CF6 will not meet future regulations, or Boeing feels a competitive pressure from A332F.

Otherwise it'd be cheaper for Boeing to sell Amazon some 777F at cost just to keep them happy rather than building 767MAX for a small portion of their routes.

To me this ends up like the "UA wants to restart 763 production" thread: in the aviation dustbin.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:22 pm
by Polot
How much bigger is the GEnx-2B over the CF6-80C2 on the 767? Annoyingly GE doesn’t give max diameter for the GEnx (only fan diameter) and I’m not sure if the max diameter for the CF6-80C2 is the same for all its applications.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 12:39 pm
by morrisond
Polot wrote:
How much bigger is the GEnx-2B over the CF6-80C2 on the 767? Annoyingly GE doesn’t give max diameter for the GEnx (only fan diameter) and I’m not sure if the max diameter for the CF6-80C2 is the same for all its applications.


To compare the two Fan Diameter isn't a bad proxy. The CF6 is 93" and the 2B's are 104.7" so call it 12" more by the time you are done. The nacelle's shouldn't be that different in thickness.

Assuming that the engine centerline is mounted the same distance (probably the easiest as it should afffect handling the least) from the wing the GEnx would hang down 6" more. If you wanted to mount the engine so the top was the same distance from the Wing as the engine was interferring too much with your Aero a la MAX - you should still have an extra 6" clearance to the ground from the 300ER if you use 400 Gear.

It should be a relatively straight forward integration.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:25 pm
by mjoelnir
Revelation wrote:

I'm not sure you can claim a fuel advantage on short hops too, that's not how it worked out on many other NEOs/MAXes.



You should look at expected and worked out in those cases. The neo / MAX variants are doing better on shorter distances than expected, as the more modern engines show in most cases a serious advantage at climb performance. The neo / MAX usually being heavier still use less fuel in climb. So the expected advantage on shorter routes for the ceo versions due to lighter weight, did in most cases not materialize or were less than expected.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:00 pm
by airzona11
UPS, FX, Amazon. That alone is a lot of potential planes.

aerdingus wrote:
New engines on an old a/c...that's worked out well for them before.


The Operating economics of the Max are good for both Boeing and Airbus. MCAS doesn’t change that.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:23 pm
by jagraham
flipdewaf wrote:
If the re-engine is for parcel carriers then it would make more sense to just apply it to the 764, its my understanding that parcel carrying causes a reduction in density over standard freight operation and so a higher volume jet may be the order of the day.

Freighters normally have lower utilisation than their self loading equivalents and so in the realms of costs the fuel burn plays a lower relative significance than capital expenditure. Something isn't computing right for me if a re-engine makes sense for a freighter and not for a pax equivalent.

The reasons I can think why Boeing might launch a re-engined 767 based freighter.
1. Parcel carriers want increased volume without the weight requirements
2. There's something stopping the 787 becoming a freighter (I feel like the 789 with 781 wings is screaming for this in the long term). Maybe the capital costs of the 787 don't pencil out or the construction of the frame somehow isn't suitable.
3. GE want an in to the future of the tanker program, if a 767 derivative looks like it will replace all 707, 757, DC10, 747 (some).

Fred


2nd day air has led to two rounds of flights for the continental US. Plus I doubt the freight operators have forgotten $100 oil any more than the passenger airlines.
As for the 787, it would have to go through the process Bedek just took the 77W through. There had been tidbits on that for years, but mostly for a 77E conversion. And the 777 has a freighter version, so no need to start from scratch for a conversion of a different family member. The composite 787 fuselage will require a lot of engineering if it isn't Boeing making the conversion.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:12 pm
by Checklist787
Revelation wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
Those figures are quite audacious. I'd like to know where you get them from, or how you get them.

The 767F can only carry max payload to 3200nm. So after this the GenX engines would start to gain a significant advantage.

On a 5000nm flight for example the current 767F would carry 35t of payload with 65t of fuel carried. A GenX would burn 15% less fuel or roughly 9t less. If the OEW increased by 3t that still leaves 6t of extra room for payload before hitting MTOW.

So it would be 35t vs 41t of payload on a 5000nm flight. That is more than a 16% payload increase. If the OEW increased by 5t then it will still have 11% more payload.

On a 6000nm flight the advantage is huge. The current 767F can carry 28t of payload with 73t of fuel carried. The GenX's would burn 11t less fuel. With a 3t OEW increase that is 36t vs 28t payload or up to 28% increase.

Thanks for the estimates, they are helpful.

No current freight operator would use the current 767F on a 6000nm flight but Amazon might not want to purchase a second aircraft type such as the 777F for such long routes. A single fleet of GenX 767's would allow them to stretch the aircraft for a handful of longer routes. This is why the A330-800 freighter would be very flexible for Amazon.

On flights below 3500nm the GenX offers no payload weight increase but it will still burn 10+% less fuel per kg of payload even on the shortest hop.

Even if you stack the deck against the GenX and assume OEW will increase by 5t and fuel burn will only be 10% less it will still burn less fuel per kg of payload on all flights greater than about 1000nm.

Is that kind of market good enough to justify the expense of the engineering, regulatory overhead, flight testing, etc?

I'm not sure you can claim a fuel advantage on short hops too, that's not how it worked out on many other NEOs/MAXes.

You are adding a heavier engine with more frontal drag, adding weight to reinforce the wing box, adding taller thus heavier gear, and even wingtip treatments usually detract for short hops.

To me the motivations are more likely to either GE doesn't want to keep making CF6 (yet they have been doing so happily for decades now!) or CF6 will not meet future regulations, or Boeing feels a competitive pressure from A332F.

Otherwise it'd be cheaper for Boeing to sell Amazon some 777F at cost just to keep them happy rather than building 767MAX for a small portion of their routes.

To me this ends up like the "UA wants to restart 763 production" thread: in the aviation dustbin.


Who told you it's only for Amazon?

Reinforcements from all sides is NOT a problem for a re-engine jet

The longer landing gear would also indicate longer fuselage length (3-4 meters?) for a better CASM for the passenger version.

A notional "767-450" / 767-9X? in this case it is not necessarily the holy grail to have 6.000 NM design range for the Middle Of Market.

What would happen if this GenX 767-X would carry 2-class 270 passengers and 1-class 330 passengers?

It would meet the need of the MOM to carry 225 passengers and 270 passengers on a Strech version, this was the goal of Boeing from the start flying between 4.500-6.000 Nm

A version close to the base of the 767-400ER "767-350X" / 767-8X would carry 2-class 225 passengers.

It would be 3 meters shorter than the 767-400ER IMHO..

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 3:43 pm
by DenverTed
I hope they do make it because, 1) it is a sweet aircraft. 2) The commonality of pallets and other stuff with the large 767-300F fleet and code D gate size should help the case, other than the overriding factor 1).

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 4:14 pm
by planecane
aerdingus wrote:
New engines on an old a/c...that's worked out well for them before.

I assume you are talking about the 777-300ER? That worked out very well.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 7:22 pm
by ClipperYankee
Apols if this has already been added, here's a story quoting a Boeing exec saying this is not a substitute for NMA:

http://www.airlineratings.com/news/modi ... eing-exec/

or

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/mod ... eing-exec/

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2019 8:04 pm
by seabosdca
This seems very much a 767-300F replacement for high-utilization operators (which means UPS, FedEx, and the Amazon army).

It wouldn't be competitive with the A330neo, let alone the 787 or a narrowbody, as a passenger frame. But as a freighter it's pretty compelling.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:38 am
by patrickjp93
Francoflier wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
dampfnudel wrote:
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.

We have had many successful NEO programs, just because the 737MAX had problems does not mean they should never fit new engines to an old aircraft.

GenX 2B's on a standard 767F would work OK. The longer landing legs of the 767-400ER on the standard 767-300 freighter would be fairly simple. It would allow the aircraft to fly 10-15% further at the same maximum payload. Or it would allow 10-15% more payload weight on very long routes. The longer landing legs could also allow a slightly higher MTOW or Landing weight to the current 767-300F. That is if the landing gear was the limiting factor. That could see 25% more payload on the same route.

It makes no sense for Boeing to spend a couple billion fitting new engines if the customer would have just bought the current 767 freighter model anyway. This to me confirms that Amazon has threatened to buy an Airbus freighter.


Those figures are quite audacious. I'd like to know where you get them from, or how you get them.

Adding GenX engines and a longer gear will add quite a bit of weight to the frame. Without an increase in MZFW and maybe MTOW (which might not be that straightforward), that extra weight is only going to impact payload on shorter sectors. The benefits of this would only be felt on rather long sectors, and I'm not sure many operators would really gain from this, especially considering the higher purchase price.

This is the same reason the 330 Neo hasn't really found itself replacing what was essentially its biggest market pre-Neo: short to medium high capacity routes. The weight penalty of the Neo-fication is only worth it if you fly long enough for those sippy engines to compensate for the added girth and cost.

How many 76F operators use it on really long routes anyway? I'd say most operators nowadays are parcel carriers who prefer multiple shorter hops within their continent.

As for increasing the longer landing gear allowing for an increase in weight, I'm not so sure it would be that easy. There are many things that limit the certified weights, and the landing gear is not usually top of that list. I don't know if that's the case for the 76F, but I suspect it might take a bit more than that. Certifying an aircraft for a higher weight is also somewhat costly and would add to the development cost, which they're trying to keep in check as much as possible.

I'm really not sure the whole thing would be an interesting proposition. If anything, it might be better suited to passenger transport, if they can keep the cost and weight down and decide to not go ahead with the NMA.

Bear in mind that this additional GEnx demand would boost the business case for the CMC PIP. Given CMC parts weight as little as 1/3 what their steel counterparts do, it might not be all that much weight added to the 767, and that's a good 20 years of engine improvements, so TSFC will definitely be boosted by 15% without a problem. Boeing can also modify the alloy of the fuselage to be Al-Li, which would shave 8% of the structural weight of the fuselage. In the end the GEnx engines may only weigh a few hundred pounds more than their predecessors, and the wing strengthening would be trivial in that case.

We need to see the whole picture.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:48 am
by patrickjp93
seabosdca wrote:
This seems very much a 767-300F replacement for high-utilization operators (which means UPS, FedEx, and the Amazon army).

It wouldn't be competitive with the A330neo, let alone the 787 or a narrowbody, as a passenger frame. But as a freighter it's pretty compelling.

How wouldn't it be competitive? Bearing in mind a 15-20% range improvement, the 767-300 with the latest gen winglets would be able to fly nearly the ER distance without an ACT. The 300 ER would be able to fly the same distance as the 788 with just 72% the fuel.

http://www.modernairliners.com/boeing-767/

Sure, the PAX version is cargo-limited, so for Asia it's out, but for Euro and American carriers, and LCCs like Norwegian? Match made in Heaven.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:54 am
by CX747
As others have said, this is a cargo focused study. The 767-300F is in hot demand right now. New, used, it doesn't matter. It is the right sized bird for FEDEX, UPS and Amazon. Between the three of those airlines you are looking at 250+ airframes and blue chip status. Add on the USAF and we are looking at 350 767 airframes! To be discussing a potential growth/plug and play follow on makes good business sense.

We "could" have the best of both worlds. A new cargo 767 & a new Boeing NMA!

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 2:56 am
by patrickjp93
CX747 wrote:
As others have said, this is a cargo focused study. The 767-300F is in hot demand right now. New, used, it doesn't matter. It is the right sized bird for FEDEX, UPS and Amazon. Between the three of those airlines you are looking at 250+ airframes and blue chip status. Add on the USAF and we are looking at 350 767 airframes! To be discussing a potential growth/plug and play follow on makes good business sense.

We "could" have the best of both worlds. A new cargo 767 & a new Boeing NMA!

Real engineers are not optimists.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 3:19 am
by Francoflier
patrickjp93 wrote:
Francoflier wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
We have had many successful NEO programs, just because the 737MAX had problems does not mean they should never fit new engines to an old aircraft.

GenX 2B's on a standard 767F would work OK. The longer landing legs of the 767-400ER on the standard 767-300 freighter would be fairly simple. It would allow the aircraft to fly 10-15% further at the same maximum payload. Or it would allow 10-15% more payload weight on very long routes. The longer landing legs could also allow a slightly higher MTOW or Landing weight to the current 767-300F. That is if the landing gear was the limiting factor. That could see 25% more payload on the same route.

It makes no sense for Boeing to spend a couple billion fitting new engines if the customer would have just bought the current 767 freighter model anyway. This to me confirms that Amazon has threatened to buy an Airbus freighter.


Those figures are quite audacious. I'd like to know where you get them from, or how you get them.

Adding GenX engines and a longer gear will add quite a bit of weight to the frame. Without an increase in MZFW and maybe MTOW (which might not be that straightforward), that extra weight is only going to impact payload on shorter sectors. The benefits of this would only be felt on rather long sectors, and I'm not sure many operators would really gain from this, especially considering the higher purchase price.

This is the same reason the 330 Neo hasn't really found itself replacing what was essentially its biggest market pre-Neo: short to medium high capacity routes. The weight penalty of the Neo-fication is only worth it if you fly long enough for those sippy engines to compensate for the added girth and cost.

How many 76F operators use it on really long routes anyway? I'd say most operators nowadays are parcel carriers who prefer multiple shorter hops within their continent.

As for increasing the longer landing gear allowing for an increase in weight, I'm not so sure it would be that easy. There are many things that limit the certified weights, and the landing gear is not usually top of that list. I don't know if that's the case for the 76F, but I suspect it might take a bit more than that. Certifying an aircraft for a higher weight is also somewhat costly and would add to the development cost, which they're trying to keep in check as much as possible.

I'm really not sure the whole thing would be an interesting proposition. If anything, it might be better suited to passenger transport, if they can keep the cost and weight down and decide to not go ahead with the NMA.

Bear in mind that this additional GEnx demand would boost the business case for the CMC PIP. Given CMC parts weight as little as 1/3 what their steel counterparts do, it might not be all that much weight added to the 767, and that's a good 20 years of engine improvements, so TSFC will definitely be boosted by 15% without a problem. Boeing can also modify the alloy of the fuselage to be Al-Li, which would shave 8% of the structural weight of the fuselage. In the end the GEnx engines may only weigh a few hundred pounds more than their predecessors, and the wing strengthening would be trivial in that case.

We need to see the whole picture.



I doubt GE would bank on a re-engined 767 to develop CMC technology further. Even if this goes ahead, this would only be a small proportion of GenX production. If the business case to develop these technologies isn't there yet, this is unlikely to tip the balance.
As for AL-Li, that's a non-starter IMO. This would require major redesign of the fuselage. You can't just change the material it's built with and keep the components the same as different materials have different properties. Not to mention redesigning and building new tooling, re-training assembly line personnel, re-certifying the airframe, all at great cost... That's just not the spirit of this project. It's a cheap upgrade to newer engines or bust. I don't expect Boeing will look at improving anything else, other than maybe mashing up existing -400 and -300 components together. And even that is doubtful as it all means money.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:03 am
by JayinKitsap
morrisond wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
Franciflier-
The 764 has a significant increase in MTOW and MLW compared to the 763, so using its gear and structure gets the needed increase needed. Engineering is then to shrink the length to what is desired. The structure is already certified, except the shrink and the new engines. The pylon from the 748 could possibly be used as it was set up to adapt from and to the same engines.

In all this reengine looks to be straightforward with low risk, the big question is would it add 200+ orders, sufficient to cover the development costs.


Development cost is one of the main reasons it would probably stay an 400 at it's existing MTOW - or a slight bump if the limitation to MTOW was runway performance before - which the extra 3,000 lbs of thrust per side from 2B's would help with (the 400 was offered with 63,500 engines).

As shown earlier in the thread RB211-524g's are within a few pounds of 2B's so the wing should be able to take them without reinforcement, and the thrust bump is the equivalent of taking a narrow body engine from 20,000 to 21,100 lbs of thrust.

As Jay rightly points out the interface for a 2B has probably already been pretty figured out (at least on the plumbing side) you would just have to adapt the shape/bolt pattern for the 767 wing.

Maybe new wingtip treatment and that would be about it. In terms of development cost this should be relatively inexpensive in the realm of programs.



From your comments I can tell you realize the 764 already has a significant MTOW and MLW bump compared to the 763, but other posters do not seem to realize this.
A quick comparison: 763F 764 76XF guessed
Engines (2) CF6-80C2 (2) CF6-80C2 (2) GEnx-2B
Thrust each 61,500 lbf 61,500 lbf 66,500 lbf 8% more thrust
MTOW 412,000 450,000 lbf 450,000 lbf 9% increase
Max Payload 121,000 102,600 lbf 140,000 lbf 19% increase
MLW 326,000 350,000 350,000 lbf 7% increase

This seems to be a very balanced increase where this new freighter is 15% more capable than the current one, the added thrust of the -2Bs cures the prior diss of the 764 - undersized engines. As you noted elsewhere, this is a freighter project, I think it unlikely that a pax version will even be done, but it could. The $2B question, will it sell enough over 20 years to pay off the costs, it would need at least 200 orders to pan out.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 4:27 am
by seahawk
patrickjp93 wrote:
seabosdca wrote:
This seems very much a 767-300F replacement for high-utilization operators (which means UPS, FedEx, and the Amazon army).

It wouldn't be competitive with the A330neo, let alone the 787 or a narrowbody, as a passenger frame. But as a freighter it's pretty compelling.

How wouldn't it be competitive? Bearing in mind a 15-20% range improvement, the 767-300 with the latest gen winglets would be able to fly nearly the ER distance without an ACT. The 300 ER would be able to fly the same distance as the 788 with just 72% the fuel.

http://www.modernairliners.com/boeing-767/

Sure, the PAX version is cargo-limited, so for Asia it's out, but for Euro and American carriers, and LCCs like Norwegian? Match made in Heaven.


Cargo limited compared to what? A 788 or a 797 with LD3-45s?

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 6:41 am
by Checklist787
ClipperYankee wrote:
Apols if this has already been added, here's a story quoting a Boeing exec saying this is not a substitute for NMA:

http://www.airlineratings.com/news/modi ... eing-exec/


This does not mean that the NMA-797X will emerge.

It seems like it's a study platform in the research and development department.

Remember in 2002 when Boeing suddenly announced the 7E7 at the expense of the Sonic Cruiser.

From the NMA/797X study, Eco Demonstrator program etc...
the new 767-X will win and inherit a complete aerodynamic cleanup and some easy-to-integrate technologies to D-risk the new 767-X program (767-8X, 767-8XF, 767-9X)

Remember "no moonshots"!

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 7:30 am
by Max Q
JayinKitsap wrote:
morrisond wrote:
JayinKitsap wrote:
Franciflier-
The 764 has a significant increase in MTOW and MLW compared to the 763, so using its gear and structure gets the needed increase needed. Engineering is then to shrink the length to what is desired. The structure is already certified, except the shrink and the new engines. The pylon from the 748 could possibly be used as it was set up to adapt from and to the same engines.

In all this reengine looks to be straightforward with low risk, the big question is would it add 200+ orders, sufficient to cover the development costs.


Development cost is one of the main reasons it would probably stay an 400 at it's existing MTOW - or a slight bump if the limitation to MTOW was runway performance before - which the extra 3,000 lbs of thrust per side from 2B's would help with (the 400 was offered with 63,500 engines).

As shown earlier in the thread RB211-524g's are within a few pounds of 2B's so the wing should be able to take them without reinforcement, and the thrust bump is the equivalent of taking a narrow body engine from 20,000 to 21,100 lbs of thrust.

As Jay rightly points out the interface for a 2B has probably already been pretty figured out (at least on the plumbing side) you would just have to adapt the shape/bolt pattern for the 767 wing.

Maybe new wingtip treatment and that would be about it. In terms of development cost this should be relatively inexpensive in the realm of programs.



From your comments I can tell you realize the 764 already has a significant MTOW and MLW bump compared to the 763, but other posters do not seem to realize this.
A quick comparison: 763F 764 76XF guessed
Engines (2) CF6-80C2 (2) CF6-80C2 (2) GEnx-2B
Thrust each 61,500 lbf 61,500 lbf 66,500 lbf 8% more thrust
MTOW 412,000 450,000 lbf 450,000 lbf 9% increase
Max Payload 121,000 102,600 lbf 140,000 lbf 19% increase
MLW 326,000 350,000 350,000 lbf 7% increase

This seems to be a very balanced increase where this new freighter is 15% more capable than the current one, the added thrust of the -2Bs cures the prior diss of the 764 - undersized engines. As you noted elsewhere, this is a freighter project, I think it unlikely that a pax version will even be done, but it could. The $2B question, will it sell enough over 20 years to pay off the costs, it would need at least 200 orders to pan out.



764 CF6 80 installed thrust is 63,500

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 3:50 am
by JayinKitsap
I'm seeing Boeing doing the planning on Everett utilization with this proposed change to the 767. Here are the pieces in play in no particular order.

GE: Wanting to end the CF6 production as the 767F is basically the only user of the CF6 remaining. This only 30 /yr as the KC-46 is PW.

GE: Wanting to increase sales of the GEnx 2B beyond the 24 per year for the 748. Having the same on both might spur sales. Still it continues production of an engine that needs to stay around for decades.

Boeing: The common engine may help sales of both the 767 and 748, it might kick in that last 2 dozen frame top off for the 747.

Boeing: Extending the 747 until around 2025 is good, in 2026-27 that would open up 3 huge bays in Everett for other production.

Boeing: For both customers and B, is keeping the current 777F better, even if it means a 2nd 777 line vs doing the 778F with all its certification costs. The current 77F might be preferred as it has more payload, but a good bit less range than the 778F.

Boeing: Ensuring the 767 line stays busy for decades is good, as the line will be there for the KC-46 anyway. The 'as-is' 767 probably could not compete in 5-6 years, the update could add 15 years. Boeing's market analysis is for 15 to 20 per year for 20 years.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:02 am
by speedbird52
FrancisBegbie 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.


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.

(Hatchback>SUV>Sedan>Crossover don't @ me)

Pricing is one way I could see the two competing but then why not just make a 763 based aircraft and give carriers a design advantage over the 788 too?

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:27 am
by ADent
Lots of pressure on emissions too, esp international flights.
As mentioned in a post above CORSIA kicks in 2023 or 2028. Not sure if 767 is even in trouble with that, but if it is it must be fixed.
https://www.icao.int/environmental-prot ... dards.aspx

Personally I would guess is GE wants to shut down CF6 line and switch to an existing line (GEnx2B), that is in low production numbers and can use the boost.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:04 am
by flyingclrs727
ADent wrote:
Lots of pressure on emissions too, esp international flights.
As mentioned in a post above CORSIA kicks in 2023 or 2028. Not sure if 767 is even in trouble with that, but if it is it must be fixed.
https://www.icao.int/environmental-prot ... dards.aspx

Personally I would guess is GE wants to shut down CF6 line and switch to an existing line (GEnx2B), that is in low production numbers and can use the boost.


Also shouldn't that improve support for the GEnX2B on the 747-8 by having a twin engined sibling that shares the same engine? It should mean increased economies of scale for the type. Also the successor to the VC-25 will need support for its engines for probably three and a half decades after delivery. Having a sizable fleet of GEnX reengined 764 derivative aircraft should improve the cost of maintaining them.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:43 am
by JayinKitsap
ADent wrote:
Lots of pressure on emissions too, esp international flights.
As mentioned in a post above CORSIA kicks in 2023 or 2028. Not sure if 767 is even in trouble with that, but if it is it must be fixed.
https://www.icao.int/environmental-prot ... dards.aspx

Personally I would guess is GE wants to shut down CF6 line and switch to an existing line (GEnx2B), that is in low production numbers and can use the boost.


The 2028 date is not far off, this proposal can be inferred to mean the current 767 doesn't but with these new engines it would. What I like is that the 767 should be in production 15-20 more years.

It surprises me how little this is discussed in Aviation news, it will be a big deal like scrubbers on Commercial Marine engines.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:11 pm
by catdaddy63
I really think this plays towards the freighter market, both FX and 9X have large fleets of MD11F that will need replacing. In particular, the GEnX-2B plays more to 9X with the 748F fleet growing. I also think this plays to the KC10 replacement as the KC-Y aircraft with the 764 size. I don't think FX or 9X are as worries about the ultimate range as they both utilize ANC for Far East connections to the central US and have aircraft capable of non-stop flights if needed.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:17 pm
by ThePinnacleKid
Not sure if in the last 9 pages its been really pointed out or thought of.. but there is one huge advantage of the 764(neo/max) treatment when it comes to express parcel operators vs going to an A330p2f or 777F/P2F aircraft -- it allows a relatively large increase of volume capacity while wingspan conforming to current ramp layouts with tighter density. The 763 with blended winglets is right at 167' and the 764 with the raked wings is roughly 170' - by comparison the 777F is 212' and the A330P2F is 197'

To me, the 764 frame being the basis for a revamped "new" freighter and MOM stopgap pax aircraft would allow a cheaper aircraft to acquire, fleet commonality with large amounts of 763F's that'll be used for decades to come, and it would allow for exceptionally minimal change to Ramp footprints while being a substantial increase in volume lift over the 763.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:59 pm
by NameOmitted
JayinKitsap wrote:

The 2028 date is not far off, this proposal can be inferred to mean the current 767 doesn't but with these new engines it would.


In 2017, Boeing stated that the 737max, 777x, and 787 were compliant. The 767's omission back then gives credence to that inference.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:18 pm
by ILNFlyer
aerdingus wrote:
New engines on an old a/c...that's worked out well for them before.


It has actually. Try the 737-300, 400, 700, 800........

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:23 pm
by ILNFlyer
ADent wrote:

Personally I would guess is GE wants to shut down CF6 line and switch to an existing line (GEnx2B), that is in low production numbers and can use the boost.


I don't know how practical that is, given the number of 763's and 3ER's still operating in the freight world. We have 100 or so of them in operation currently ourselves alone with engines coming in and out of Evandale on a regular basis. Add Fedex, UPS, and other large operators into that and I think there is significant book of business there for the engine.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:06 pm
by Spacepope
ILNFlyer wrote:
ADent wrote:

Personally I would guess is GE wants to shut down CF6 line and switch to an existing line (GEnx2B), that is in low production numbers and can use the boost.


I don't know how practical that is, given the number of 763's and 3ER's still operating in the freight world. We have 100 or so of them in operation currently ourselves alone with engines coming in and out of Evandale on a regular basis. Add Fedex, UPS, and other large operators into that and I think there is significant book of business there for the engine.


And don't forget the LM2500 and LM6000 series of powerplants, each with well over 1000 in service. Spares will be made in volume for decades (we're not going to see a JT8D situation here) but winding down production of new motors...

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 12:53 am
by LGeneReese
eamondzhang wrote:
Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
jagraham wrote:

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

There is nothing wrong with the MCAS concept... other aircraft have had the equivalent software for years. Boeing’s choice to not thoroughly test and document the system when applied to the Max is what lead to deadly consequence.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 8:48 am
by keesje
PW (2000, GP7000),Rolls (2008, Tent 600), GE (2006, Genx) all offered new engines for the 767.

Boeing was overly focussed on the 787 though.

If they had EIS a GENX 767 by 2015 instead of fantasizing on MoM, NMA for years,
while buying back stock, fixing the MAX, they would be in better shape.

Re: Boeing examines GEnX powered 767

Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 11:42 am
by SteelChair
keesje wrote:
PW (2000, GP7000),Rolls (2008, Tent 600), GE (2006, Genx) all offered new engines for the 767.

Boeing was overly focussed on the 787 though.

If they had EIS a GENX 767 by 2015 instead of fantasizing on MoM, NMA for years,
while buying back stock, fixing the MAX, they would be in better shape.


People seem to forget the history. They apparently actually discussed this concept before and rejected it. An all new airplane seemed to be the way to go.

But then again, no one thought Boeing would lose institutional control.