Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Antaras
Topic Author
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:48 am

In my opinion, I think that it will be better for doing if they choose 787-3 for the NMA Project, instead of B767-400.
Boeing can installed better technologies on 783 as comparisons to the rumored 767X, including tinted windows, composite fuselage.
What do you think?

A rendered B787-3 with winglets installed:
Image
737MAXs' winglets would be ideal dor the 787-3.
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:56 am

What has changed that makes you think a new 787-3 iteration will be the better solution?
The 787 is still a long haul optimised plane with structural weight for 15h flying, not 3-7.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
Boeingphan
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 10:29 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:00 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
What has changed that makes you think a new 787-3 iteration will be the better solution?
The 787 is still a long haul optimised plane with structural weight for 15h flying, not 3-7.


Well it's not exactly like the 764 isn't saddled with similar bones? A quick search on flightaware shows most flights in the 9-10hr range.
 
User avatar
leleko747
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:16 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:00 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
The 787 is still a long haul optimised plane with structural weight for 15h flying, not 3-7.


Well, so was the 747, but Boeing could modify it for domestic flights (B747-100SR and 400D versions).
I wonder when people will understand:
Embraer 190 or simply E190, not ERJ-190. E-Jets are NOT ERJs!
Boeing 747-8, not Boeing 747-800. Same goes for 787.
Airbus A320, not Airbus 320.
Airbii does not exist.
 
IWMBH
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:11 pm

The 're-design' of the 764 is not actually a redesign, its just the replacement of an outdated engine with a more modern one. The reason the 767 program is still alive and the re-engine makes sense is the freighter-market. The 787 doesn't have that, the plane is designed with light-weight materials not suited for hauling cargo. So, the only market you could target for is the pax market. They did that some years ago with no success, what makes you think it would work this time?
 
TC957
Posts: 3816
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:15 pm

I think with hindsight Boeing should never have dropped the 787-3. Yes, I know the troubles they had with getting the 787 production up & running that caused the 787-3 version to get dropped, but surely it would have sold well in China especially. Lots of 787-8/9's now doing sub-3hr internal China flights, plus ANA using them on many domestics where the -3 was aimed at.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2573
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:28 pm

I think the option of 'lightweight' 787/3 de-saddled with all the extra ER-compliant machinery and mechanisms should indeed be looked at... I for one fail to see how a revived 764 would be better...unless of course the re-engine goes ahead anyway for the freighter variant, and thus the pax version comes cheaply as an easily available aside...
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13968
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:34 pm

It would be a 110t NMA, twice the weight of A321 XLR. With huge cargo capacity at the cost of a 787-8. Maybe it will cost a bit more (off standard) than a 787-8, but it will be be less capable/flexible. So IMO if purchase price, operating cost & fuel consumptions are not that important, this might fly.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
B764er
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:19 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:36 pm

The 783 can be built at anytime. It is a modern technology jetliner that will have a slightly reduced range at a lower price (airlines love that) so Boeing should approach the airlines and offer it again. The worst that can happen is a "not interested" reply from them, so no harm done to anyone. The 787 was originally intended as a 767 replacement, and as much as I love the 767, I think it's time to move forward. With the MAX mess that's happening now, It looks like the 737 may have gone as far as it could and may need to be replaced, so now it looks like the NMA is going to be something different than originally planned. It may now be the 783.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10337
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:47 pm

The NMA based on what we have heard is around the size of a 767-200, so if we look at the 787-3 from that perspective the a/c is just too large, it cannot be optimized down to size without a new wing and fuselage. Smaller engines could be put on the frame but the weight based on its size is the issue.
The production facilities and methods from the 787 and 777X do exist for a CFRP smaller wing and fuselage which is what I think is required to if the a/c is to be competitive with the A321 in certain segments of the market.
 
Amiga500
Posts: 2645
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 12:52 pm

Neither is a good option.

Boeing would be safer keeping their money and concentrating on a single aisle replacement for the 737. The cost of which is growing by the week, and Boeing haven't even got to the start line on that program!!
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2027
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:05 pm

I am a fan of the idea of a 787-6 and 787-7.

It would have to be done right. A unique fully optimised wing and a new fully optimised 55,000lb thrust engine. 767 sized landing gear.

787-6 length 50m oew 100t mtow 170t 5500nm
787-7 length 56m oew 105t mtow 170t 4500nm
787-8 length 56m oew 120t mtow 228t 7300nm
787-9 length 62m oew 129t mtow 254t 7600nm

The 787-6 is actually pretty small in terms of cabin area.
767-300 = 190m2
787-6 = 200m2
A300 = 215m2
767-400 = 221m2
787-7/8 = 232m2
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:36 pm

Boeingphan wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
What has changed that makes you think a new 787-3 iteration will be the better solution?
The 787 is still a long haul optimised plane with structural weight for 15h flying, not 3-7.


Well it's not exactly like the 764 isn't saddled with similar bones? A quick search on flightaware shows most flights in the 9-10hr range.


Exactly - not similar bones. 20 tons empty weight is quite a difference.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:37 pm

leleko747 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
The 787 is still a long haul optimised plane with structural weight for 15h flying, not 3-7.


Well, so was the 747, but Boeing could modify it for domestic flights (B747-100SR and 400D versions).


And what a widespread use and success it was!
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:37 pm

par13del wrote:
The NMA based on what we have heard is around the size of a 767-200, so if we look at the 787-3 from that perspective the a/c is just too large, it cannot be optimized down to size without a new wing and fuselage. Smaller engines could be put on the frame but the weight based on its size is the issue.
The production facilities and methods from the 787 and 777X do exist for a CFRP smaller wing and fuselage which is what I think is required to if the a/c is to be competitive with the A321 in certain segments of the market.


That's it exactly.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
VV
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 1:03 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:38 pm

No.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19126
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:42 pm

IT seems a lot of people have forgotten why the 787-3 was dropped.
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.
 
ThalesCoelho
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 1:02 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:47 pm

What the world really need is a real A300neo, a short to medium haul wide-body.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 602
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:27 pm

Hard to do shrinks. With that said the 767-400 is larger than I would had expected Boeing solution to MOM to be. I was expecting something like a 767-200ER. I dont think there is enough differentiation between the 767-400ER and 787-8.
 
Scotron12
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:39 pm

And what would be the cost to the airlines?? Can Boeing produce a 787-3 for 50-60M?
 
iberiadc852
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 8:23 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:41 pm

ThalesCoelho wrote:
What the world really need is a real A300neo, a short to medium haul wide-body.


I have been thinking about that for a long time.
But wouldn't it be the same if Boeing gets to make 8ab comfortable enough. in a 767-NEO?
Or even NMA focused on that?
variety is the spice of life; that's what made the "old times" so good
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 928
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:42 pm

I"m wondering how much cost has to do with this. A minimal change 767 will likely get to market much, much faster than a completely new 787 version. It will also likely require less certification time (I know, after the MAX debacle that isn't always a good thing) than a new 787 variant. I mean, if the reports are accurate we're mainly looking at strengthening the MLG, a mostly new cockpit and engines. With the penalties and lawsuits from the 737-MAX fiasco starting to pile up, cost might be more of a factor than we're realizing. Bang out a relatively quick variant, push some product out the door, earn some Benjamins. They might earn more cash in the long run with a 787-based product in this niche, but is Boeing thinking about the long term?
 
User avatar
leleko747
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:16 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:07 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:

And what a widespread use and success it was!


It was not meant to be a sale success, it just had to meet the demands of Japanese operators. Sure, if other airlines decided to buy them, Boeing would certainly sell.
I wonder when people will understand:
Embraer 190 or simply E190, not ERJ-190. E-Jets are NOT ERJs!
Boeing 747-8, not Boeing 747-800. Same goes for 787.
Airbus A320, not Airbus 320.
Airbii does not exist.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27173
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:23 pm

scbriml wrote:
IT seems a lot of people have forgotten why the 787-3 was dropped.


Exactly.

For those who have forgotten, the 52m wingspan of the 787-3 so impacted the aerodynamic efficiency that the 787-8 outperformed it on stage lengths over 500km. Since even Japan has few 500km stage length missions, they agreed to/decided to swap their orders for the type to the 787-8 and no other operator showed interest into it.

And no, folding wingtips are not an option: there is neither enough span outboard of the control surfaces to allow it nor were the wings designed to allow it.
 
User avatar
Momo1435
Posts: 1164
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:33 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:37 pm

The 787-8 already had a better performance then the 787-3 would have had on short hops. So good luck at making it compete with a plane that has a significantly lower weight.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:01 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
767-400 = 221m2
787-8 = 232m2


The Operating Empty Weight of the B767-400ER is 103.872 tonnes. United 39Polaris + 70Plus® + 131-33E (24,140 US gal / 5,625 nmi)
The Operating Empty Weight of the B787-8 is 119.950 tonnes. United 36Polaris + 70Plus® + 113E (33,340 US gal / 7,355 nmi )

Image
Image
 
F14TCT
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:48 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:48 pm

The 787-3 is too heavy. Boeing needs to start a brand new line of aircraft that will be the start of some upward commonality.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:48 pm

leleko747 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:

And what a widespread use and success it was!


It was not meant to be a sale success, it just had to meet the demands of Japanese operators. Sure, if other airlines decided to buy them, Boeing would certainly sell.


Yeah yeah yeah, I know. And the 767-400ER wasn't meant to be a sale success as well.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
User avatar
N776AU
Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:18 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:06 pm

ThalesCoelho wrote:
What the world really need is a real A300neo, a short to medium haul wide-body.

We do. It's called the A330-200.
Careful, doors are closing, and will not reopen. Please wait for the next train.
 
PhilMcCrackin
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:54 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:08 pm

scbriml wrote:
IT seems a lot of people have forgotten why the 787-3 was dropped.


It's revisionist history just like everyone who forgets why the 757 was cancelled.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:09 pm

IF Boeing were really considering the 767-400Max concept with GenX, then they'd also be evaluating a new composite wing for the bird. The problem with all this commentary hysteria is precisely that, if you need a new wing with folding tips to make the 767 work as a PAX aircraft again (within gate constraints), you might as well put said wing on the 787.

You'd be re-designing the wings, wing box, many interior bits, tail, supply chain, and avionics/systems for the 767 anyway; why bother? If you (or your customers) do want such a plane, for cargo or pax, PIP the engines for the 787 and throw the wing on it, for goodness sakes. Same cost without the 70's drawbacks.
 
IWMBH
Posts: 626
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:01 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:10 pm

N776AU wrote:
ThalesCoelho wrote:
What the world really need is a real A300neo, a short to medium haul wide-body.

We do. It's called the A330-200.


The A332 is the long-range version of the A330, not a wide-body designed for the short to medium haul.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27173
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:15 pm

ThalesCoelho wrote:
What the world really need is a real A300neo, a short to medium haul wide-body.

N776AU wrote:
We do. It's called the A330-200.


Yes, an A330-200 can do an A300-600's mission, but like the 787 vs. 767, she carries a significant amount of extra structural weight for the job (~35,000kg worth).
 
889091
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:56 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:58 pm

One can't help but wonder how much the 737-MAX debacle has affected Boeing's R&D budget.....
 
texl1649
Posts: 1363
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:20 pm

889091 wrote:
One can't help but wonder how much the 737-MAX debacle has affected Boeing's R&D budget.....


And also, that despite protestations circa 2016, the MAX has now cost the company something on the order of $8-10 billion, vastly less than the NSA alternative then pitched by Boeing leadership for EIS around 2020 (now).
 
Waterbomber2
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:42 pm

Nicoeddf wrote:
Boeingphan wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
What has changed that makes you think a new 787-3 iteration will be the better solution?
The 787 is still a long haul optimised plane with structural weight for 15h flying, not 3-7.


Well it's not exactly like the 764 isn't saddled with similar bones? A quick search on flightaware shows most flights in the 9-10hr range.


Exactly - not similar bones. 20 tons empty weight is quite a difference.


More like 14 tons, and by the time you are done adding 2 heavier GEnx's, closer to 10 tons, so essentially B764MAX = B788
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:41 pm

Waterbomber2 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
Boeingphan wrote:

Well it's not exactly like the 764 isn't saddled with similar bones? A quick search on flightaware shows most flights in the 9-10hr range.


Exactly - not similar bones. 20 tons empty weight is quite a difference.


More like 14 tons, and by the time you are done adding 2 heavier GEnx's, closer to 10 tons, so essentially B764MAX = B788


Yeah, what's even 8-10% heavier in OEW these days...absolutely the same.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
KFTG
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:51 pm

leleko747 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
The 787 is still a long haul optimised plane with structural weight for 15h flying, not 3-7.


Well, so was the 747, but Boeing could modify it for domestic flights (B747-100SR and 400D versions).

And how many of those were built?
 
Kinetic
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:01 pm

How about reevaluating subcontractors first of all?
 
Kinetic
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Mon Oct 14, 2019 11:07 pm

(To the question itself: Whatever serves short to middle distance routes better.)
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:11 am

The 783 can be reborn *if* folding wingtips can be done. The 788 is already a better 783 as it sits, so the only hope for a specialty model is to regain the ability to use smaller gates without crippling the economics.

I doubt either frame will be used for NMA as they are looking for production costs far closer to narrowbody than widebody.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2222
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:14 am

There really needs to be a good choice for a high capacity moderate range, high cycle airplane - but it was not the 783. All of the weight of the 788 but without the capability. Having a frame able to carry a 100T of extra fuel than the mission requires will not be the most economical planes out there.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:00 am

leleko747 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
The 787 is still a long haul optimised plane with structural weight for 15h flying, not 3-7.

Well, so was the 747, but Boeing could modify it for domestic flights (B747-100SR and 400D versions).

And those were bought by what, a grand total of two airlines?
...not exactly sure why anyone would use that as a successful example of anything.


Amiga500 wrote:
Neither is a good option.

:checkmark: :checkmark:



XT6Wagon wrote:
The 783 can be reborn *if* folding wingtips can be done. The 788 is already a better 783 as it sits, so the only hope for a specialty model is to regain the ability to use smaller gates without crippling the economics.

"Folding wingtips" doesn't do squat to address the issue that a full 783 would be twice the weight of even the heaviest A321, but would not carry twice the pax (in comparable configurations) nor offer longer range.

That's a lot of inflexibility to deal with, in exchange for .....well..... nothing.
Smaller gate access isn't going to change that. Which might explain why nobody wanted it.

And before anyone screams "cargo!" as a reflexive counterpoint:
what airline flies enough shorthaul cargo to address the aforementioned? Not the Japanese, who turned it down in the first place. So who?
Last edited by LAX772LR on Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:09 am, edited 4 times in total.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:34 am

LAX772LR wrote:
leleko747 wrote:
Nicoeddf wrote:
The 787 is still a long haul optimised plane with structural weight for 15h flying, not 3-7.

Well, so was the 747, but Boeing could modify it for domestic flights (B747-100SR and 400D versions).

And those were bought by what, a grand total of two airlines?
...not exactly sure why anyone would use that as a successful example of anything.


Amiga500 wrote:
Neither is a good option.

:checkmark: :checkmark:



XT6Wagon wrote:
The 783 can be reborn *if* folding wingtips can be done. The 788 is already a better 783 as it sits, so the only hope for a specialty model is to regain the ability to use smaller gates without crippling the economics.

"Folding wingtips" doesn't do squat to address the issue that a full 783 would be twice the weight of even the heaviest A321, but would not carry twice the pax (in comparable configurations) nor offer longer range.

That's a lot of inflexibility to deal with, in exchange for .....well..... nothing.
Smaller gate access isn't going to change that. Which might explain why nobody wanted it.

And before anyone screams "cargo!" as a reflexive counterpoint:
what airline flies enough shorthaul cargo to address the aforementioned? Not the Japanese, who turned it down in the first place. So who?


Absolutely agree with your post.

And the "Cargo" reflex is maybe the most overrated thing on a.net besides Airbus giving planes for free and should Boeing re-start the 757 line.

Ah, by the way, what about a 757Neo? :stirthepot:
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 8360
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:41 am

889091 wrote:
One can't help but wonder how much the 737-MAX debacle has affected Boeing's R&D budget.....


Assuming Boeing had allocated R&D dollars prior to the debacle. IMHO, most BCA R&D dollars are being wasted on 777X and other programs including 737MAX suffered.
All posts are just opinions.
 
User avatar
leleko747
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:16 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:29 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
And those were bought by what, a grand total of two airlines?
...not exactly sure why anyone would use that as a successful example of anything.



lol you probably missed this post of mine:

leleko747 wrote:
It was not meant to be a sale success, it just had to meet the demands of Japanese operators. Sure, if other airlines decided to buy them, Boeing would certainly sell.
I wonder when people will understand:
Embraer 190 or simply E190, not ERJ-190. E-Jets are NOT ERJs!
Boeing 747-8, not Boeing 747-800. Same goes for 787.
Airbus A320, not Airbus 320.
Airbii does not exist.
 
hz747300
Posts: 2417
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:37 pm

Probably makes sense for a freighter. Is it possible to strengthen a 787 fuselage to be a cargo aircraft? I have an ok view of the cargo ramp from my flat in HK, and I see 747s, 777s, and 767s with the odd A332F here and there--there is probably a spot in the market for an updated 767. How would the re-engined 767 work as a midair refueler?
Keep on truckin'...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27173
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:56 pm

hz747300 wrote:
Probably makes sense for a freighter. Is it possible to strengthen a 787 fuselage to be a cargo aircraft?


I have read the 787 was designed from the start to have an eventual freighter model (which makes sense) so that should not be an issue.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:36 am

leleko747 wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
And those were bought by what, a grand total of two airlines?
...not exactly sure why anyone would use that as a successful example of anything.

lol you probably missed this post of mine:

leleko747 wrote:
It was not meant to be a sale success, it just had to meet the demands of Japanese operators. Sure, if other airlines decided to buy them, Boeing would certainly sell.

Didn't miss it, just didn't find it applicable... seeing as the 783 *did* have orders, but Boeing see sufficient impetus to push forward and build it.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Should Boeing revive 787-3 for NMA project instead of re-desiging the 764?

Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:14 am

Reviving the 787-3 would work for the NMA program if Boeing is able to stick to the strict weight budget that they failed to achieve with the early-build 788's. Another hurdle would be deciding on the range for the 783. The Japanese airlines who wanted it were satisfied with 3,500nm. However, if the 783 is going to be a reliable, year-round TATL machine, that range probably would need to be kicked up to around 4,500nm, easily doable, but it would also add weight.

Also, the talk about reviving the 764 and reengining it probably went something like this: FedEx & UPS: "Hey Boeing! What do you have to replace the MD-11F and A306?" Boeing: "Er...How about buying (more) 777F's?" FedEx & UPS: "Nah! Too big & expensive. What else ya' got?" Boeing: "How about more 767F's?" FedEx & UPS: "Nope! We got enough of those." Boeing: "Well, what about a 764F with some new GE engines?" FedEx & UPS: "We'll get back to you. (Hey UPS, do you still have Airbuses' number handy?)"

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