Since it has only been a few years since the 787-3 was canceled due to having exactly zero orders, it wouldn't be a great strategic decision to launch it again now.

Nicoeddf 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 what a widespread use and success it was!

It did not have to be a widespread susccess. It was done specifically for JAL & ANA. Customized for them. It was not developed for the mass 747 market. Never would have went over in the US. 747 was to big for the domestic US market.

FLALEFTY wrote:

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?)"

Story of Boeing's life of late.

While I thought the MAX was entirely the wrong thing to do a 767 NEO with the modern avionics available would be cheap and make enough she's to pay for itself, much like the A330 NEO. If the market test works Boeing can put up the money for a real NMA.

A new engine and wing for the 787 is a lot of money when it still won't be an optimised solution.

I swear I have repeated the 787-3 history a dozen times and the same members keep posting incorrect facts.

The 787-3 did have a third of the launch orders. It would have had better trip cost up to around 2000nm. Engine maintenance was also significantly less due to the derated engines. The perfect solution to the MOM gap we have today.

A brief history lesson. 4 years after launch the 787 was well behind schedule. The 787-3 was originally planned to be built before the 787-9. Boeing was forced with two options. Delay the 787-9 3 years or develop it before the 787-3. At that point the 787-9 had 3 times the orders of the 787-3. So they decided to built the 787-9 next.

ANA was pissed as they would not get their 787-3's for many years. The model was actually a very big develop with a totally unique landing gear, centre wingbox, lightened inner wing and a brand new outer wing to keep in code D gates. This model was to be over 10,000kg lighter.

Boeing then offered them a fast solution of a standard 787-8 with just the outer wing tips chopped off. No weight reduction at all of any of the structure. The wing tips saved around 3,000kg. This was deemed unacceptable. This revised 787-3 is what members here incorrectly think is what the aircraft always was. This revised 787-3 would have burnt more fuel every trip but the it would have had lower airport fees due to the code D gates. This meant it had lower trip costs on flights below 200nm. ANA then decided it may as well just buy normal 787-8's and just fly them well below MTOW.

Any 787-3 built today would be the same as the original proposal with many unique lightweight parts. It would probably have an OEW of around 105t as they would know exactly where to remove weight.

Ideally Boeing would actually give the 787-3 a unique version of the genX not a simple derate. The A350-1000 XWB-97 for instance got a larger core than the A350-900 XWB-84 which increased thrust and decreased bypass ratio. GE would do something similar but the other way. Maybe use the smaller 2B core with the 1B fan. Pushing bypass ratio up to say 11:1 in the same nacelle so it would save on certification. This would give the 55,000-60,000lb of thrust required with slightly better SFC.

Such an 787-3 would easily sell in the hundreds. It might have around 4000nm range. If I was Boeing to get the most out of the investment in weight reduction and new engines I would then make a version 6m shorter which would then have 5000nm range. This would be a good 767 replacement.

Or you put that engine on a 767 and take all low hanging fruit to improve it in the process.

seahawk wrote:

Or you put that engine on a 767 and take all low hanging fruit to improve it in the process.

It would never beat the 787-3 for passenger use.

You'll end up with two aircraft with nearly the same OEW of 105t. The 787-3 would have 5% more cabin area but would fit 10+% more passengers when using acceptable seats (7ab vs 9ab). Both would have code D wings, similar span. Both would burn the same fuel on a trip but the 787-3 with 10% more passengers would then have better fuel burn per passenger.

The 787-3 might cost more to develop but will it cost more to build? Adding a couple hundred more 787 orders could allow it to go up to rate 16 further reducing unit cost on all models. Pilot ratings and maintenance would be simplified with the 787-3. The 787 would now cover the full spectrum.

Obviously the 767 option is best for the freighter, but really the current 767F could soldier on with just a PIP jointly funded. Aftermarket blended winglets are already available if freighter companies really wanted better fuel burn.

That depends if customers want the extra capacity and the range of your 787-3 would be lower than the range of up-dated 767. 4000nm range would make this 787-3 unsuitable as a direct 767 replacement and it would also not close the capacity gap between the 737 and 787.

RJMAZ wrote:

I swear I have repeated the 787-3 history a dozen times and the same members keep posting incorrect facts.

The 787-3 did have a third of the launch orders. It would have had better trip cost up to around 2000nm. Engine maintenance was also significantly less due to the derated engines. The perfect solution to the MOM gap we have today.

A brief history lesson. 4 years after launch the 787 was well behind schedule. The 787-3 was originally planned to be built before the 787-9. Boeing was forced with two options. Delay the 787-9 3 years or develop it before the 787-3. At that point the 787-9 had 3 times the orders of the 787-3. So they decided to built the 787-9 next.

ANA was pissed as they would not get their 787-3's for many years. The model was actually a very big develop with a totally unique landing gear, centre wingbox, lightened inner wing and a brand new outer wing to keep in code D gates. This model was to be over 10,000kg lighter.

Boeing then offered them a fast solution of a standard 787-8 with just the outer wing tips chopped off. No weight reduction at all of any of the structure. The wing tips saved around 3,000kg. This was deemed unacceptable. This revised 787-3 is what members here incorrectly think is what the aircraft always was. This revised 787-3 would have burnt more fuel every trip but the it would have had lower airport fees due to the code D gates. This meant it had lower trip costs on flights below 200nm. ANA then decided it may as well just buy normal 787-8's and just fly them well below MTOW.

Any 787-3 built today would be the same as the original proposal with many unique lightweight parts. It would probably have an OEW of around 105t as they would know exactly where to remove weight.

Ideally Boeing would actually give the 787-3 a unique version of the genX not a simple derate. The A350-1000 XWB-97 for instance got a larger core than the A350-900 XWB-84 which increased thrust and decreased bypass ratio. GE would do something similar but the other way. Maybe use the smaller 2B core with the 1B fan. Pushing bypass ratio up to say 11:1 in the same nacelle so it would save on certification. This would give the 55,000-60,000lb of thrust required with slightly better SFC.

Such an 787-3 would easily sell in the hundreds. It might have around 4000nm range. If I was Boeing to get the most out of the investment in weight reduction and new engines I would then make a version 6m shorter which would then have 5000nm range. This would be a good 767 replacement.

Alright, I don’t what to say but to quote Boeing’s VP who said in 2010 that 787-3 simply failed because 788 was simply more efficient on any mission that is longer than 200 nm.

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -3-337996/


So much for a product that can sell in the hundreds as you put it.

Yeah, other stories of 787-3’s history that really share nothing in common with your long story;

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeings-lo ... ood-news/#

https://www.google.com/amp/s/simpleflyi ... 787-3/amp/


It had literally two customers even 6 years after launch, and those two airlines cancelled because 788 was a better product even on short trips (more than 200nm). Even Boeing’s VP gave the vibe that it was really a bad product. It shared the same fate of any other widebody that was designed for short range flight.

And don’t blame the 3 year delay, 787-3 wasn’t the only project that got delayed. If the plane could perform, some customers would stick to it.

RJMAZ wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Or you put that engine on a 767 and take all low hanging fruit to improve it in the process.

It would never beat the 787-3 for passenger use.

You'll end up with two aircraft with nearly the same OEW of 105t. The 787-3 would have 5% more cabin area but would fit 10+% more passengers when using acceptable seats (7ab vs 9ab). Both would have code D wings, similar span. Both would burn the same fuel on a trip but the 787-3 with 10% more passengers would then have better fuel burn per passenger.

The 787-3 might cost more to develop but will it cost more to build? Adding a couple hundred more 787 orders could allow it to go up to rate 16 further reducing unit cost on all models. Pilot ratings and maintenance would be simplified with the 787-3. The 787 would now cover the full spectrum.

Obviously the 767 option is best for the freighter, but really the current 767F could soldier on with just a PIP jointly funded. Aftermarket blended winglets are already available if freighter companies really wanted better fuel burn.

It doesn't have to beat a plane that doesn't exist. A 767 NEO only has to be good enough to get an acceptable ROI.

Eyad89 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

This meant it had lower trip costs on flights below 200nm. ANA then decided it may as well just buy normal 787-8's and just fly them well below MTOW. .

Alright, I don’t what to say but to quote Boeing’s VP who said in 2010 that 787-3 simply failed because 788 was simply more efficient on any mission that is longer than 200 nm.

You just found a source that confirms exactly what I wrote. The revised 787-3 was only more efficient up to 200nm.

Please do a search. Many people over the years have answered 787-3 questions in detail on this very forum. Some members even work at Boeing had inside knowledge.

The 787-3 would never have been launched if it was only going to be efficient on routes below 200nm. It is not like Boeing suddenly worked this out 5 years after launch. The delays and lack of weight reduction due to those delays caused it to be cancelled.

It is very simple. If you put a smaller wing you must reduce empty weight to maintain lift to drag. Fuel burn improves and airport fees reduce.

However if you reduce wing size but maintain nearly all of the weight the lift to drag and fuel burn becomes worse. As the MTOW is fixed any OEW gain reduces available fuel and range drops significantly.

RJMAZ wrote:

Eyad89 wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

This meant it had lower trip costs on flights below 200nm. ANA then decided it may as well just buy normal 787-8's and just fly them well below MTOW. .

Alright, I don’t what to say but to quote Boeing’s VP who said in 2010 that 787-3 simply failed because 788 was simply more efficient on any mission that is longer than 200 nm.

You just found a source that confirms exactly what I wrote. The revised 787-3 was only more efficient up to 200nm.

Please do a search. Many people over the years have answered 787-3 questions in detail on this very forum. Some members even work at Boeing had inside knowledge.

The 787-3 would never have been launched if it was only going to be efficient on routes below 200nm. It is not like Boeing suddenly worked this out 5 years after launch. The delays and lack of weight reduction due to those delays caused it to be cancelled.

It is very simple. If you put a smaller wing you must reduce empty weight to maintain lift to drag. Fuel burn improves and airport fees reduce.

However if you reduce wing size but maintain nearly all of the weight the lift to drag and fuel burn becomes worse. As the MTOW is fixed any OEW gain reduces available fuel and range drops significantly.

Your "unrevised" 787-3 did never exist. Perhaps somebody in Boeing had the idea it would be possible, but when it came to designing the 787-3 it became the frame that was beaten by the 787-8 on any distance. It happens, that salesman dream up specs, the engineers later can not deliver.
Using components of the 787-8 for the 787-3 was the only way to keep the price for the 787-3 at reasonable levels. Today the 787-8 is expensive to produce, as it does not share enough parts with the 787-9 and 787-10.

Nicoeddf wrote:

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.

Overrated? General terms, I tend to agree. But there's always "but".

AY1331/AY1332 case anyone?

Cheers,
Adam

mjoelnir wrote:

Your "unrevised" 787-3 did never exist. Perhaps somebody in Boeing had the idea it would be possible, but when it came to designing the 787-3 it became the frame that was beaten by the 787-8 on any distance.

That is totally wrong. You honestly think the sales people launched the 787-3 without the engineers going over the empty weight and lift to drag ratios?

Hell even flipdewafs spreadsheet would say that a certain amount of empty weight has to be removed to make the smaller wing work.

Budget and time restraints simply did not allow Boeing to remove the weight and achieve the original performance target. The target was and still is achievable.

Building the 787-9 before the 787-3 allowed the higher selling model to remain close to schedule and avoid massive penalties. You will probably ask me why Boeing didn't produce the 787-3 after the 787-9 if it was that good. The answer is the 737MAX. The A320NEO launched without warning in 2010 before the 787-8 had even entered service. Boeing had to divert massive resources away from the 787 program to the 737MAX. The 787-3 simply became a lower priority. Engineering would have been flat out with the 737MAX, 787-10 and 777X until now. So they can finally do the original 787-3 or even the cleansheet 797 is the next couple years.

RJMAZ wrote:

You just found a source that confirms exactly what I wrote. The revised 787-3 was only more efficient up to 200nm.

The article explicitly states this is due to the 52m span of the 787-3 compared to the 60m span of the 787-8.

"Tinseth says that compared with the 787-3, the 787-8 is more efficient on stages of more than 370km (200nm), which is attributable to the -8's longer wingspan, which was not designed to fit in a 767 footprint, unlike the -3."

RJMAZ wrote:

However if you reduce wing size but maintain nearly all of the weight the lift to drag and fuel burn becomes worse. As the MTOW is fixed any OEW gain reduces available fuel and range drops significantly.

And this is what happened with the 787-3. As the operating weights of the 787-8 and 787-9 grew due to customer input (a desire for greater payload-range) the aerodynamics played a greater role and the truncated wings of the 787-3 worked more and more against it. As the 787-8's OEW grew to allow more seats and greater range (as well as support the 787-9's growth), that directly impacted the 787-3 because it was based on the 787-8 frame so it absorbed those increases, as well. Yes, Boeing planned to lighten the frame overall by using less CFRP winding in the fuselage and the shorter wingspan would have saved weight, but they still shared a lot of underlying structure so Boeing could only lighten so much. The A350-800 ran into the same issue as the A350-900 evolved (and was made worse when Airbus decided to abandon the additional weight-reduction plans and just cut out frames).

Alright, I don’t what to say but to quote Boeing’s VP who said in 2010 that 787-3 simply failed because 788 was simply more efficient on any mission that is longer than 200 nm.

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -3-337996/

Randy is the "Baghdad Bob" of Boeing. His mission is to put a homey, but positive spin to cover up program issues at Boeing. When Randy made this quote the 787 development program was way behind schedule, widely-missing its weight budgets, struggling to meet its performance targets and was trying to convince the launch airlines to accept what became known as the 787-"Terrible Teens". And this is before the battery fires that prompted the entire active fleet to be grounded shortly after the 787 entered service.

Boeing's inability to give JAL what it originally wanted (the 783), combined with the battery issues, contributed to JAL's decision to order the A359 as the B777 replacement.

And yet if the 787-3 was so desirable and wonderful for it's stated market segment, Randy would not have had to spin the PR wheel and one would think not only would JAL and ANA wait for it, but other airlines would have shown strong interest in it, as well.

Instead, we had reports of other airlines that Boeing spoke with were not interested and JAL and ANA eventually went with the 787-8...and perhaps coincidentally, they have precious few routes that were within 200nm / 500km.

I'm sorry if i sound like a grumpy old man, but I really hate it when people decide to "split" one thread in to 2. It happen so often on this forum.

Why not keep the discussion in the original thread where this was discussed? Now we have to keep track of 2 threads.

Sorry. I'm just an "onlooker" with little experience, but the trend of starting new threads in topics already covered in original thread is getting ridiculous. This is not Social Media where you scream for attention! Or maybe it is.....

Example:

Man takes dump on A320. Discussion follows.

Ah, someone starts a spin-off thread titled:ARE THE A320 LAVS TO SMALL?

I'll probably get reported for this, but I thi k there must be some rules/mod against spin-off threads.

Greetings from CPH, the hub of Scandinavia (bring in the flamebait)

Stitch wrote:

Yes, Boeing planned to lighten the frame overall by using less CFRP winding in the fuselage and the shorter wingspan would have saved weight, but they still shared a lot of underlying structure so Boeing could only lighten so much. The A350-800 ran into the same issue as the A350-900 evolved (and was made worse when Airbus decided to abandon the additional weight-reduction plans and just cut out frames).

The original 787-3 would have had much more weight reduction. People here still deny that. The more weight that is removed from the 787-3 the further up the crossover point would be with the 787-8. It was only at 200nm in the end because there was no longer any weight removed other than clipped wing tips.

"ANA's primary business reason for adjusting their 787 model selection is focused around aircraft availability to support their fleet plan - the 787-8 is available sooner for delivery than the 787-3 would be," says Boeing."

"Boeing initially planned to have the 787-3 follow the 787-8 into service during 2010, but after more than two years of delays and shifting resources to focus on the stretched 787-9, the -3 variant was not given a specified service entry date."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -3-336950/

As you can see the performance was not the reason but other members here will still keep pushing that the 787-3 can not work as originally marketed.

These members should get it right and say a "A 787-3 with no weight reduction and just shortened wing tips could never work, but a 787-3 with 10+% of the empty weight removed with optimised lightened gear, fuselage and wingbox would offer better trip costs on most domestic flights."

RJMAZ wrote:

Stitch wrote:

Yes, Boeing planned to lighten the frame overall by using less CFRP winding in the fuselage and the shorter wingspan would have saved weight, but they still shared a lot of underlying structure so Boeing could only lighten so much. The A350-800 ran into the same issue as the A350-900 evolved (and was made worse when Airbus decided to abandon the additional weight-reduction plans and just cut out frames).

The original 787-3 would have had much more weight reduction. People here still deny that. The more weight that is removed from the 787-3 the further up the crossover point would be with the 787-8. It was only at 200nm in the end because there was no longer any weight removed other than clipped wing tips.

"ANA's primary business reason for adjusting their 787 model selection is focused around aircraft availability to support their fleet plan - the 787-8 is available sooner for delivery than the 787-3 would be," says Boeing."

"Boeing initially planned to have the 787-3 follow the 787-8 into service during 2010, but after more than two years of delays and shifting resources to focus on the stretched 787-9, the -3 variant was not given a specified service entry date."

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -3-336950/

As you can see the performance was not the reason but other members here will still keep pushing that the 787-3 can not work as originally marketed.

These members should get it right and say a "A 787-3 with no weight reduction and just shortened wing tips could never work, but a 787-3 with 10+% of the empty weight removed with optimised lightened gear, fuselage and wingbox would offer better trip costs on most domestic flights."

I recall the big change from the -3 having its own wing to it being a cropped -8 wing. I think this came to pass a couple of months after the 7-Late-7 rollout where it was just a hollow shell. It would have had excellent performance on < 1,500 nm routes, with the cropped wing it dropped to the <200 and became not worth it.

Just curious, if Boeing really wants to make a 767XF variant, why not do the same upgrade on the 767-200 at the same time to make it an NMA candidate? Since -200 is sort of still in production (KC-46), and the 2-3-2 config is great for long haul flight from a passenger's perspective. 200ER already has a fairly good range when compared to 321XLR. Meanwhile, this won't kill the 788 (762 is smaller) or MAX 10 (762 has a better range) as well. I think this is a lot easier than restarting the 757 or start a whole new 797 program.

The only problem I can think of is the size. 762 is a lot bigger than 321.

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.

the 787-3 was designed for medium haul and High density Trunk and international theatre routes. Inter-Europe and inter Asia routes. it's not any larger than the 767-400 but it's designed all digital in operation and will787-3 be optimized for the latest engine and systems technologies The 767-400 was designed with technology very close to the 777. so it could still use some updating and would benefit from the latest 777 and 787 updates, The original 787-3 wasn't designed with intercontinental range But the systems were there for commonality with the -8,9, and now the -. I can't see how it would miss.

Antaras wrote:

Boeing can install better technologies on 783 as comparisons to the rumored 767X, including tinted windows, composite fuselage.
What do you think?

Tinted windows in its current form and use do not fall in the category "better technologies" and should be banned from the construction of airliners.

AC02 wrote:

Just curious, if Boeing really wants to make a 767XF variant, why not do the same upgrade on the 767-200 at the same time to make it an NMA candidate? Since -200 is sort of still in production (KC-46)

That would result in a 8000nm aircraft.

The KC-46 has a MTOW 9t greater than the 200ER. That is an hour and a half of fuel putting range from 6,590nm to approx 7200nm. Then you add the genX 2B engines that would reduce fuel burn by 15%.

The per seat economics would be very poor. A 300 length fuselage would carry 15% more passengers with less than 10% more fuel burn. That is a big fuel burn advantage per seat. This is partly why 5 times as many 767-300ER's sold compared to the 767-200ER.

Despite the 767-400MAX being very close to the 787-8 in size it would still have better fuel burn per seat than the 767-300MAX. The new genX engines put both aircraft above the sweetspot.

An A300 with GenX engines would be far more suitable in todays market. It is hard to optimise the longer range 767 for short/medium haul.

RJMAZ wrote:

The original 787-3 would have had much more weight reduction. People here still deny that. The more weight that is removed from the 787-3 the further up the crossover point would be with the 787-8. It was only at 200nm in the end because there was no longer any weight removed other than clipped wing tips.

Yes, the original plan was to have an OEW some 10,000kg lower than the 787-8. But Boeing could only pull so much out (at the time, at least) and as the 787-8's OEW rose due to customer requirements, that increased the 787-3's OEW, as well (even if it remained 10,000kg lower, which it probably didn't).

I've yet to see any evidence presented that Boeing decided against any weight-saving for the 787-3. The articles linked to just mention that the 787-3 has a shorter wingspan than the 787-8. There was no reason to just clip the wings of a 787-8 as the resulting frame would have been horrible and Boeing would have fully-known that such a frame would have no market interest whatsoever and that ANA and JAL would never accept it.

I remain of the opinion that even with the weight savings (regardless of how much or little they were), the shorter wingspan aerodynamically hampered the frame so much that it became uneconomical vis-a-vis a de-rated 787-8. We've seen what losing just 4m did to the aerodynamics of the 787-9 and we're talking twice that on the 787-3.

This made the frame undesirable for any other customer outside of JAL and ANA, who had specific needs (replace domestic 767s with a higher-capacity frame). Add in the extended EIS delay as Boeing focused on getting the 787-8 into production and a desire to dedicate resources to the 787-9 (as it was a vastly more popular model) and Boeing likely worked a deal with JAL and ANA to just take de-rated 787-8s and new-build 767s.

JayinKitsap wrote:

I recall the big change from the -3 having its own wing to it being a cropped -8 wing. I think this came to pass a couple of months after the 7-Late-7 rollout where it was just a hollow shell. It would have had excellent performance on < 1,500 nm routes, with the cropped wing it dropped to the <200 and became not worth it.

I am pretty sure that Boeing designed a "common" wing across the family, with the main difference being the wingtip extensions: winglets for the 787-3 and scimitar of varying lengths for the 787-8 and 787-9 (originally). Having a custom wing for the 787-3 would be far too expensive for a model that would have always been the lowest-selling member of the family.

RJMAZ wrote:

I swear I have repeated the 787-3 history a dozen times and the same members keep posting incorrect facts.

The 787-3 did have a third of the launch orders. It would have had better trip cost up to around 2000nm. Engine maintenance was also significantly less due to the derated engines. The perfect solution to the MOM gap we have today.

A brief history lesson. 4 years after launch the 787 was well behind schedule. The 787-3 was originally planned to be built before the 787-9. Boeing was forced with two options. Delay the 787-9 3 years or develop it before the 787-3. At that point the 787-9 had 3 times the orders of the 787-3. So they decided to built the 787-9 next.

ANA was pissed as they would not get their 787-3's for many years. The model was actually a very big develop with a totally unique landing gear, centre wingbox, lightened inner wing and a brand new outer wing to keep in code D gates. This model was to be over 10,000kg lighter.

Boeing then offered them a fast solution of a standard 787-8 with just the outer wing tips chopped off. No weight reduction at all of any of the structure. The wing tips saved around 3,000kg. This was deemed unacceptable. This revised 787-3 is what members here incorrectly think is what the aircraft always was. This revised 787-3 would have burnt more fuel every trip but the it would have had lower airport fees due to the code D gates. This meant it had lower trip costs on flights below 200nm. ANA then decided it may as well just buy normal 787-8's and just fly them well below MTOW.

Any 787-3 built today would be the same as the original proposal with many unique lightweight parts. It would probably have an OEW of around 105t as they would know exactly where to remove weight.

Ideally Boeing would actually give the 787-3 a unique version of the genX not a simple derate. The A350-1000 XWB-97 for instance got a larger core than the A350-900 XWB-84 which increased thrust and decreased bypass ratio. GE would do something similar but the other way. Maybe use the smaller 2B core with the 1B fan. Pushing bypass ratio up to say 11:1 in the same nacelle so it would save on certification. This would give the 55,000-60,000lb of thrust required with slightly better SFC.

Such an 787-3 would easily sell in the hundreds. It might have around 4000nm range. If I was Boeing to get the most out of the investment in weight reduction and new engines I would then make a version 6m shorter which would then have 5000nm range. This would be a good 767 replacement.

i really do think the markets worldwide would support wide body short to medium haul plane. one thing i don't quite understand are the weights fort a hypothetical 783. as far as i understand, 788s have an OEW of about 117to. to put it in other words considering your post above, a 783 would be at around 107to. let's put this into relation with an IL-86 at around 111to (latest models). The A300 is around 80-85to empty weight, with A330s at around 120to. so what i don't understand: how can a 787 be optomized for an A300 mission (baring in mind that the A300 was built for missions of up to 2500NM), with that much weight in it?

strfyr51 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.

the 787-3 was designed for medium haul and High density Trunk and international theatre routes. Inter-Europe and inter Asia routes. it's not any larger than the 767-400 but it's designed all digital in operation and will787-3 be optimized for the latest engine and systems technologies The 767-400 was designed with technology very close to the 777. so it could still use some updating and would benefit from the latest 777 and 787 updates, The original 787-3 wasn't designed with intercontinental range But the systems were there for commonality with the -8,9, and now the -. I can't see how it would miss.

You can't see how it would miss? After seeing it miss spectacularly?

Spiderguy252 wrote:

FLALEFTY wrote:

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?)"

Story of Boeing's life of late.

And what exactly would Airbus offer them? The A330F? That's not exactly flying off the shelves. I don't understand why having many of 1 model make you not want to buy more unless you don't like the performance which neither of the airlines have indicated.

FLALEFTY wrote:

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?)"

Spiderguy252 wrote:

Story of Boeing's life of late.

In 2011, FedEx approached Boeing about creating a freighter version of the 767-400ER as an MD-10F family replacement. Such a frame would also have served to bridge 767 production until the KC-46A entered production (at the time, unfilled 767 production was split 50/50 between passenger and freighter models). FedEx was also pushing Boeing on a 777-200 passenger to freighter conversion program as another possible MD-10F replacement.

At the end of the year, FedEx instead decided to order another 27 767-300F, which is not surprising since while the MD-10 can lift about 50% more payload weight, when it comes to usable volume, the 767-300F is actually fairly close. And FedEx was moving to a common ULD/pallet designed around the 757 and 767 so the extra volume of the MD-10 would be superfluous using the smaller ULDs and pallets. FedEx would subsequently order another 46 767-300F in mid-2015

And as an A306F and A310F replacement, the 767-300F offers significantly more payload volume and weight than either model.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1432797 has a statement from a Boeing exec confirming the 767 study is not aimed at replacing NMA, so the premise of this thread is false.

In 2011, FedEx approached Boeing about creating a freighter version of the 767-400ER as an MD-10F family replacement. Such a frame would also have served to bridge 767 production until the KC-46A entered production (at the time, unfilled 767 production was split 50/50 between passenger and freighter models). FedEx was also pushing Boeing on a 777-200 passenger to freighter conversion program as another possible MD-10F replacement.

At the end of the year, FedEx instead decided to order another 27 767-300F, which is not surprising since while the MD-10 can lift about 50% more payload weight, when it comes to usable volume, the 767-300F is actually fairly close. And FedEx was moving to a common ULD/pallet designed around the 757 and 767 so the extra volume of the MD-10 would be superfluous using the smaller ULDs and pallets. FedEx would subsequently order another 46 767-300F in mid-2015

You write the truth. And this is backed up by FedEx's 2018 Annual Report that stated they were in the process of rationalizing the widebody fleet to predominantly Boeing 763F's and 777F's. By 2023 they expect to have 130 763F's and 55 777F's in the fleet. This should allow for the retirement of all of the remaining MD-10F's, all of the A310F's, some of the A306F's and some of the MD11F's. There is no mention if they are upgrading the A306F's avionics similar to what UPS Airlines is currently doing, but given that FedEx has some of the last new-build planes (the final one delivered in 2007), perhaps they are doing this with less fanfare.

My way of putting the recent 764XF interest (or lack thereof) may have been too silly. The 764XF is probably not a serious option by Boeing to modify to fill the NMA passenger jet requirement. I imagine is that both big cargo airlines have approached Boeing looking for a replacement for the MD11F, which has to be getting much more expensive to maintain as the parts supply chain dries up. The MD11F has been the backbone of both airlines' wide bodied fleets & they have built their global hubs around its range and lift capability. For FedEx the 777F and UPS, the 744F & 748F covers some of this requirement, but they are expensive and overkill for some missions. Is the 764XF the answer? Only these airlines know for certain.

Revelation wrote:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1432797 has a statement from a Boeing exec confirming the 767 study is not aimed at replacing NMA, so the premise of this thread is false.

I've said in the GenX 767 thread.

RJMAZ wrote:

Absolute fake news..

The 767-400ER can't easily be turned into a freighter. ..

Turning it into a passenger version is equally stupid.
..

People suggesting they will widen inside the cabin like the 777X to fit 8ab seating is really crazy.

I think these home run news websites are created fake news clickbait to get exposure to their website.

Aftermarket blended winglets have been available for 10 years and many passenger airlines have fitted them to their 767-300ER's. No freighter company has bothered as clearly fuel burn is clearly not a problem on the short hops. So if they aren't willing to spend a couple million on winglets they sure as hell aren't going to spend $10+ million on a GenX model just for a fuel saving.

I feel the 767 series is only suited to United States airlines... I am sure 90% of the 767 series sales are in the US. If you want a mid range widebody aircraft the picture that come to my mind is the A330-300 and 787....the 767 series falls in between that it is neither big enough and small enough.....
The 787-3 would gain a significant amount of weight just by reducing rigidity of the wheel structure because it would not be hauling so much petrol...
Airlines usually uses the 737 or a320 on a domestic regular flight and slipped a A330-300 or even 777 on the busiest time slot of the day to carry more passengers thus increasing revenue....

Aftermarket blended winglets have been available for 10 years and many passenger airlines have fitted them to their 767-300ER's. No freighter company has bothered as clearly fuel burn is clearly not a problem on the short hops. So if they aren't willing to spend a couple million on winglets they sure as hell aren't going to spend $10+ million on a GenX model just for a fuel saving.

[/quote]

You might want to check this out...

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Amazon- ... fath3hey/U

I imagine that the main reason FedEx and UPS shy away from 767 winglets is for easier ground handling and gate space at their hubs. But there are some 763F's with winglets as the attached photo of the Amazon Prime Air/ATI B763BDSF illustrates.

Nicoeddf wrote:

strfyr51 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.

the 787-3 was designed for medium haul and High density Trunk and international theatre routes. Inter-Europe and inter Asia routes. it's not any larger than the 767-400 but it's designed all digital in operation and will787-3 be optimized for the latest engine and systems technologies The 767-400 was designed with technology very close to the 777. so it could still use some updating and would benefit from the latest 777 and 787 updates, The original 787-3 wasn't designed with intercontinental range But the systems were there for commonality with the -8,9, and now the -. I can't see how it would miss.

You can't see how it would miss? After seeing it miss spectacularly?

We NEVER saw it built! You're speculating as if it's FACT! And it's NOT! Like I said? Even if they used the 767-400 airframe? They could update the 767-400 with all the neat stuff they designed and built for the 787 and the 777-8/-9 and build in the updates and FBW to remove all the cables for a truly digital flight control system as they have the technology.

Dave05 wrote:

I feel the 767 series is only suited to United States airlines... I am sure 90% of the 767 series sales are in the US.

Deliveries per Region:

North America - 52%
Asia - 20%
Europe - 15%

strfyr51 wrote:

They could update the 767-400 with all the neat stuff they designed and built for the 787 and the 777-8/-9 and build in the updates and FBW to remove all the cables for a truly digital flight control system as they have the technology.

That would result in a very expensive airplane to design, certify and then train customers on. Granted, it would be significantly less expensive that designing, certifying and training customers on an all-new airframe, but having an all-new airframe does give one the freedom to tailor it directly to customer needs and desires which should improve customer interest and reception.

Stitch wrote:

Dave05 wrote:

I feel the 767 series is only suited to United States airlines... I am sure 90% of the 767 series sales are in the US.

Deliveries per Region:

North America - 52%
Asia - 20%
Europe - 15%

strfyr51 wrote:

They could update the 767-400 with all the neat stuff they designed and built for the 787 and the 777-8/-9 and build in the updates and FBW to remove all the cables for a truly digital flight control system as they have the technology.

That would result in a very expensive airplane to design, certify and then train customers on. Granted, it would be significantly less expensive that designing, certifying and training customers on an all-new airframe, but having an all-new airframe does give one the freedom to tailor it directly to customer needs and desires which should improve customer interest and reception.

Which leads to the question who would buy such a plane now. Out of major carriers, only United and Delta spring to mind.

There is literally no market for a 767MAX/NEO. A lot of carriers have replaced there 767’s with 787’s. It’s too late.

If they develop a re-engined freight version and make it viable to develop a passenger version too for a few hundred orders then fine.

If much of the problem facing the 787-3 was the truncated wing, is a 777x style folding wing enough to revive the concept, or does it still inherit too much weight from the rest of the family?

NameOmitted wrote:

If much of the problem facing the 787-3 was the truncated wing, is a 777x style folding wing enough to revive the concept, or does it still inherit too much weight from the rest of the family?

The issue is the 787 wing was not designed to incorporate folding elements and I believe that the control surfaces are located within the 52m to 60m section which would make the folding mechanism much more complicated and heavy (this was an issue with the plans to offer folding wingtips on the original 777-200 family to allow it to fit into 767 gates).

AC02 wrote:

Just curious, if Boeing really wants to make a 767XF variant, why not do the same upgrade on the 767-200 at the same time to make it an NMA candidate? Since -200 is sort of still in production (KC-46), and the 2-3-2 config is great for long haul flight from a passenger's perspective. 200ER already has a fairly good range when compared to 321XLR. Meanwhile, this won't kill the 788 (762 is smaller) or MAX 10 (762 has a better range) as well. I think this is a lot easier than restarting the 757 or start a whole new 797 program.

The only problem I can think of is the size. 762 is a lot bigger than 321.

Solution: Boeing 727MAX, or better yet, the MD11NEO

889091 wrote:

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

Yes, you might wonder if there's any real appetite for a 'MoM' right now. Especially given the constant assertions in here and at large about how 'niche' a market it is ? Sort out the current problems then move on I'd have thought ? But what the heck do I know ?