RJMAZ wrote:morrisond wrote:If you read through the GE information you will see the GEnx is good for 15% itself on the same wing. A rewinged lightened 767 could be 20-25% more efficient.
That being said if it's for Cargo only they won't rewing it.
They need to change the engines on the 767f due to new emissions rules coming in 2028.
It's just whether or not they go full X and make it attractive for the passenger market - which admittedly is low probability - but is what they would have to do to make it viable.
As you say the freighter needs new engines and it needs to keep the original big wing to carry max cargo.
So only the passenger version would prefer a lighter wing. If you drop MTOW down to the levels you are talking about this version will need an entirely new engine to the freighter. You are looking at 25% less MTOW for the passenger version. The A350-1000 needed an entirely new engine core to support only a 12.5% MTOW increase.
On the 767 assembly line you are proposing it has the big original wing and small new wing. It must then have a heavy original wingbox/gear and a new light wingbox/gear. Then you want two new engines to fit onto 767 assembly line. Or you go with one engine for both and derate the passenger engine so far that SFC drops considerably. Even with one engine, integration with two wings will still cost much more.
This seems very unlikely and very costly.
Yes - that is the problem on the passenger version - it needs to get a lot lighter to be sellable and if doesn't it will remain Freight only.
Rough numbers tell me that an 767-300XF (with full 777X tech transfer) would only need a MTOW of about 165-170T vs 187T to get about the same capability and range as the existing 300F with a new wing and lower fuel burn. That means lighter gear, etc..
Most potential 767F customers may be okay with less range or less lift as I think they are mainly package carriers that don't need the full capabilities of an 300F although the volume is nice - if they can accept less then MTOW could be less.
A wing that works from 140-160T is not that big of a compromise. You may need higher MTOW with 8W seating anyways and longer range in the smaller derivative. An 6,000NM 200 Length 8W could be very interesting with the 300 at say 5,000-5,200 ( or whatever range you need for true TATL).
The 77W and 777X are built on the same line with two very different WIng's /Wingboxes - so not that big of stretch and if they do need a dedicated line - lots of room in that building with 747 winding down and 787 potentially shifting fully to Charleston.
A new line could keep the workers/unions happy and be part of the compromise.