Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 16
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri May 08, 2020 3:03 pm

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.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri May 08, 2020 3:15 pm

Revelation wrote:
Devilfish wrote:
Revelation wrote:
And yes it does say longer gear will be included:

Though it didn't say that the gear would be new...only 'modified'.

Fair enough. I think I read in some other article the -400 gear was taller.

Devilfish wrote:
Sokes wrote:
So we speak of a medium range freighter.
Memphis to San Francisco: 1570 nm
Memphis to New York: 837 nm

Both are a rather 'short' definition of "medium range" by today's standards. TCON at least would be more like it, i.e. SFO-JFK...with TATL as the 'sweet spot'.....

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-JFK-LHR&DU=nm

If we are talking about the FlightGlobal version of 767-X we would not end up with such short range, and such range would not be sufficient for a wide body freighter so it's a non-starter.

It's another challenge for the 767-NMA proposal people here have: the freighter wants the range, the pax model wants to sacrifice range to get economy, yet the freighter has the most promising market so it'll have the priority.

The freighter will be easy to do using things already in Boeing's and GE's parts bin, the pax model will need a lot of regression to stuff no longer made or redesign of existing stuff to address a less certain market so it's pretty doubtful we'll see it IMO.

Regardless of what the brochure said, early A330F were said to be challenged to do TATL runs in freighter operation and this was said to have held it back a lot.

Now that A330 has had several MTOW bumps and the center fuel tank is enabled this should no longer be the case, but the market opportunity seems to have been missed.

We were told on this forum that Airbus was protecting the A350's market position till it got itself established, but perhaps these days Airbus wishes they had enhanced the A330 earlier. Maybe they did not have the engineering resources to do it along side other tasks earlier in the 00s.


You are probably right on the prospects of the 767 NMA ( I like that acronym) as a passenger version. I'm mainly just pointing out what they would have to do if they want it to be successful and if they want to address that space probably anytime before the mid 2030's.

Although as I point out above a new wing freighter could probably get by with a wing that's good for for 165-170T with the same capability of the existing F.

Given the capabilities of the 2B (lots of thrust) this means that Boeing could do what they tended to in the past (excepting for 777X - but I think they sized that wing for a much longer future model) and have a relatively smallish wing.

They could totally get away with a relatively high AR 48m non-folding wing. It would work well with lighter passenger versions and if costs the F a little bit of fuel burn no big deal - as it needs to be re-engined for Emissions - not fuel burn.
 
User avatar
GEUltraFan9XGTF
Posts: 385
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:31 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri May 08, 2020 3:22 pm

So this is evolving into two frames, both with trickle-down 787/77X technologies:

767F-NG: -300 length, new wing, similar size as the original wing, new wingbox, de-rated 787 engines.
767P-NG: -200 length, new wing, smaller size than original wing, new wingbox, even more de-rated 87 engines.

I am not sure how the latter doesn't cannibalize a 757-NG-Plus idea.
© 2020. All statements are my own. The use of my statements, including by journalists, YouTube vloggers like "DJ's Aviation", etc. without my written consent is strictly prohibited.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2140
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri May 08, 2020 4:42 pm

morrisond wrote:
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..

B767-300ER:
MTOW: 186,9 t
OEW 90 t
Max payload: 43,8 t, -300F: 54 t
Fuel capacity: 73,4 t
I conclude MZFW is 133,8 t. To a MTOW of 170 t only 36,2 t fuel is left. I believe that's around 7 hours flight, but then one has to deduct reserves.
( fuel consumption table: viewtopic.php?t=1355819 )
Let's say with new engines it could fly seven hours. That's not enough to cross the atlantic, unless one doesn't fill the cargo hold. With 165 t MTOW it's six hours plus one hour reserve. A 7 abreast plane is pointless if one can't fill the cargo hold. Much better to make a B757.
Maybe there are some Asian routes with cargo demand that could use such a plane.
I don't think Boeing would shrink the wing. If landing gear has to be taller the plane may even have higher OEW. New engines are also heavier.

morrisond wrote:
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.

As I said: a midrange freighter. Does anybody use B767-300F over the Atlantic?

morrisond wrote:
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).

How to fit 8 abreast?
A330 cabin width: 5,26 m
B767 cabin width: 4,72 m, roughly 22 inches less.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri May 08, 2020 4:47 pm

morrisond wrote:
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.

The FG article even says the target will be a freighter based on the -400ER. Presumably this is because they know the GEnX will deliver more thrust than any other 767 engine and the best way to use that thrust is to use it to lift a longer/heavier freighter off the runway. De-rate doesn't help much if the problem you are trying to solve is the engines weigh 2T more than CF6s.

IMO GE will not be considering an all new engine to target this market in 2025. They just invested the family silver in GE9X and are now laying people off due to the pandemic. The last thing they want is to invest in a new market with fairly limited potential. On the other hand if NMA is being redirected towards a ~2028 introduction and towards the 737-10/A321/757 market they will fight to get on to that platform.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10871
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri May 08, 2020 4:47 pm

Sokes wrote:
morrisond wrote:
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.

As I said: a midrange freighter. Does anybody use B767-300F over the Atlantic?

DHL does (or has in past). Unsure about Fedex and UPS.
 
N649DL
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri May 08, 2020 5:06 pm

ssteve wrote:
It's a semantic way of saying it's a new plane in the 757 class. It's not a revival of the 757.


Agreed. It's impossible to bring back the 757. They killed off the production line and supply chain in 2005, so this would be an entirely new concept with naming convention only.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri May 08, 2020 5:19 pm

Sokes wrote:
morrisond wrote:
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..

B767-300ER:
MTOW: 186,9 t
OEW 90 t
Max payload: 43,8 t, -300F: 54 t
Fuel capacity: 73,4 t
I conclude MZFW is 133,8 t. To a MTOW of 170 t only 36,2 t fuel is left. I believe that's around 7 hours flight, but then one has to deduct reserves.
( fuel consumption table: viewtopic.php?t=1355819 )
Let's say with new engines it could fly seven hours. That's not enough to cross the atlantic, unless one doesn't fill the cargo hold. With 165 t MTOW it's six hours plus one hour reserve. A 7 abreast plane is pointless if one can't fill the cargo hold. Much better to make a B757.
Maybe there are some Asian routes with cargo demand that could use such a plane.
I don't think Boeing would shrink the wing. If landing gear has to be taller the plane may even have higher OEW. New engines are also heavier.

morrisond wrote:
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.

As I said: a midrange freighter. Does anybody use B767-300F over the Atlantic?

morrisond wrote:
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).

How to fit 8 abreast?
A330 cabin width: 5,26 m
B767 cabin width: 4,72 m, roughly 22 inches less.


A rewinged 767 NMA would be lighter as well and more efficient wing so even less burn. The 767f is listed at about 3,250NM range at MAX Cargo.

You can already order a 767 with an 8W Cabin albeit 16.5" seats - 777X sculpted sidewalls could give you another 4" taking you to 10W 77W Seats
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri May 08, 2020 5:22 pm

Revelation wrote:
morrisond wrote:
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.

The FG article even says the target will be a freighter based on the -400ER. Presumably this is because they know the GEnX will deliver more thrust than any other 767 engine and the best way to use that thrust is to use it to lift a longer/heavier freighter off the runway. De-rate doesn't help much if the problem you are trying to solve is the engines weigh 2T more than CF6s.

IMO GE will not be considering an all new engine to target this market in 2025. They just invested the family silver in GE9X and are now laying people off due to the pandemic. The last thing they want is to invest in a new market with fairly limited potential. On the other hand if NMA is being redirected towards a ~2028 introduction and towards the 737-10/A321/757 market they will fight to get on to that platform.


Yes the 767-400F is the most likely.

One other thing that might tip the scales to a X type rebuild is moving the 767 to the 787/777X FBW system to make it easier to accommodate Single Pilot Cargo Operations in the future. That may swing the scales on a comprehensive revision.

You could then use those Aviation improvements on a future 777xf - but that may still need 2 pilots do to the ranges and giving pilots a rest.
 
UPS757Pilot
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:22 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri May 08, 2020 7:14 pm

Polot wrote:
Sokes wrote:
morrisond wrote:
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.

As I said: a midrange freighter. Does anybody use B767-300F over the Atlantic?

DHL does (or has in past). Unsure about Fedex and UPS.

Yes UPS uses the 767-300F over the Atlantic and Pacific daily.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri May 08, 2020 7:18 pm

UPS757Pilot wrote:
Polot wrote:
Sokes wrote:

As I said: a midrange freighter. Does anybody use B767-300F over the Atlantic?

DHL does (or has in past). Unsure about Fedex and UPS.

Yes UPS uses the 767-300F over the Atlantic and Pacific daily.


Which means they probably max out on Volume well before max cargo weight so they can carry more fuel.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri May 08, 2020 9:15 pm

Looking at the Boeing 767 ACAP pages 21 and 22 it is clear that the 764 has taller main gear, same nose gear to the 763F. Used min values.
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/767.pdf

F- rear cargo to ground 763 7'-5" 764 9'-8" difference 2'-3"
K - engine to ground 763 1'-10" 764 3'-11" difference 2'-1"
L - wing tip to ground 763 16'-3" 764 19'-11" 3'-8"
M- hull at tail strike skid to ground 763 12'-3" 764 16'-4" 4'-1"

So it appears that the gear is about 2 feet taller, this was done to provide clearance for rotation. Same wheelbase.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Fri May 08, 2020 9:46 pm

Looking at the Boeing 767 ACAP pages 53 and 55 the 767-300F and the 767-400ER for the CF-6 engines.
https://www.boeing.com/resources/boeing ... ps/767.pdf

The 767-300F can carry its 309,000 lb MZFW out to about 3,400 nm and 250,000 lb out to 6,000 nm.
The 767-400ER can carry its 330,000 lb MZFW out to about 3,700 nm and 260,000 lb out to 6,000 nm.

This is before the engines are changed. OEW rose by 29,000 lb from the 300ER to 400ER. So payload decreased by about 10,000 lb with the current engines.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2140
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat May 09, 2020 2:46 am

morrisond wrote:
UPS757Pilot wrote:
Polot wrote:
DHL does (or has in past). Unsure about Fedex and UPS.

Yes UPS uses the 767-300F over the Atlantic and Pacific daily.


Which means they probably max out on Volume well before max cargo weight so they can carry more fuel.

I would have expected that longer winged aircrafts are used for such long distances. O.k. I'm wrong. It seems I put too much emphasis on wing length.
Was there a time of high oil price when these flights discontinued? If yes, when/ at what oil price?

The B767-300F has 187 t MTOW, not the 165 - 170 t you suggest.
Anyway I also suggested 170 t MTOW for a reengined B767-200 for transatlantic passenger and freight. The same engine is just fine for -300 length cargo transport within the US. If a new engine requires a new landing gear a 2 m stretch trading range for payload should be fine.
If one shortens the -200 for 1,5 meters and makes a MTOW of 165 t, would new engines fit with old -300ER landing gear?
Anyway we are assuming a new engine here. That's not what's going to happen.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat May 09, 2020 2:31 pm

Sokes wrote:
morrisond wrote:
UPS757Pilot wrote:
Yes UPS uses the 767-300F over the Atlantic and Pacific daily.


Which means they probably max out on Volume well before max cargo weight so they can carry more fuel.

I would have expected that longer winged aircrafts are used for such long distances. O.k. I'm wrong. It seems I put too much emphasis on wing length.
Was there a time of high oil price when these flights discontinued? If yes, when/ at what oil price?

The B767-300F has 187 t MTOW, not the 165 - 170 t you suggest.
Anyway I also suggested 170 t MTOW for a reengined B767-200 for transatlantic passenger and freight. The same engine is just fine for -300 length cargo transport within the US. If a new engine requires a new landing gear a 2 m stretch trading range for payload should be fine.
If one shortens the -200 for 1,5 meters and makes a MTOW of 165 t, would new engines fit with old -300ER landing gear?
Anyway we are assuming a new engine here. That's not what's going to happen.


I'm quite aware an 767-300f has a MTOW of 187T

You get down to an 165-170T MTOW if you rewing it adopt 777x systems (taking a bunch of weight out of it and optimize it. You need a lot less fuel so MTOW can be lower. If you optimize everything around lower MTOW you will have a more efficient aircraft at the same capability if that is what you are aiming for.

A rewinged 767 with a lot of weight taken out of it and 187T MTOW could be good for 8,000NM (I'm exaggerating to make my point) - definitely more than what is required.

You wouldn't need 170T for 200 length TATL. Even with the existing wing (with GEnx-2b's) you may only need about 150-155T. The base 767-200 could do 3,900 NM at 143T.
 
inkjet7
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:32 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sat May 09, 2020 4:12 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
While the 767X would have a similar advantage over the 787, A330NEO and A350 it would be fairly light per square metre of cabin area. Only the 787-10 would be lighter per square metre of cabin area, not bad for a simple NEO.

How would other widebodies fare in the 'weight per square meter cabin area' table? Interesting metric but you have to add range to the table as well as having a long range tends to make them heavier.
 
eightcone
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat May 09, 2020 11:18 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sun May 10, 2020 12:06 am

Interesting topic, after reading all 7 pages I created an account to post my thoughts.

I think a 2 model 767 update is the most likely. While a lot of dreaming an technical minutia has been discussed, I think the more broad questions are missions. Cargo carriers already have a bunch of 763F so the change would need to benefit them for low capital cost to offset the complexity of fleet diversity. Therefor, the elephant in the room is the Airforce/DoD. With the first batch of KC-46 coming off the line, the AF is committed to this type now. Even if all 179 frames are procured for the first run KC-46, there are 220 more -135s to replace plus 58 Kc-10. Add on to that the fact that the NEAT contract is most surely going to be a 767 since the -46 program already ate the cost of MIL'ing the airframe. Plus, There are a bunch of frames that aren't in NEAT that would end up following the path to 767, like the RC-135s.

So, the known AF/DoD needs are:

The 179 first batch KC-46 (if 767x mods are simple like a re-engine these could be brought up to new spec later)

-the 220 more KC-135 replacements
-58 KC-10
-4 E-4
-31 E-3
-17 E-8
-8 C-32
-34 RC-125
-16 E-6

That = 388 frames......... and while I know DoD contracting is schizophrenic, they will need to be replaced eventually, even if the E-10 program was shut down back in the day.

On the cargo side:
~110 A300 between brown and purple that might be up gauged to 767 when it comes time
~100 MD10/11 frames between brown and purple
~ 200 757 frames

So.... assumptions.

-DoD will go with all 767. They don't want to invest in MIL'ing the 777, plus with it having new technology in the 777x version, the AF will stick with known mature frames.
-DoD wants every drop of fuel it can get from a tanker in the second batch of -135 replacements and the -10 replacements
-cargo companies will probably 1 for 1 A300s with 767s
-half of the MD fleet might be down gauge replaced with 767 while the other half go up to 777 (747 in UPS case)
-half the 757 fleet when they eventually have to be replaced may up gauge to 767 the other half may go down to 737/321

So, potentially ~650 plane 767 market in cargo and DoD

Now, with the C-32 replacement, we do know that a handful of quazi-passenger versions are going to be built. Any work done there could help churn out a few passenger orders in the stopgap MoM market.

The biggest DoD requirements I see are; 1). as much fuel transfer as physics will allow for the Kc-10 replacement, 2) hot rod performance on the C-32 replacement. The C-32 want to move to more space in a widebody so even if a new 757x came its doubtful it would get Air Force 2 mission. The current C-32 operate easily out of 5k foot fields, and I think if they yank on them, they can do like 4,200 feet. Plus, the AF likes the C-32 being tall, "it's easy to secure and guard when you can see under and around it"

All of this comes to me thinking that a GEnX-2B is the likely re-engine with full KC-46/764 modernization {AF and UPS would have engine commonality to 748}, all versions could get the 764 gear and wing (maybe with folding 777x tips modified in) and then come in 200 length for DoD and 400 length for cargo.

I think personally the re-wing would be difficult based on different needs. DoD would want very high lift with no regard for length or fuel economy. Cargos need length restrictions. And passengers needs economy. So if the 767x program was a 2b engine and 764 improvements, new builds could get the full benefit and retrofits could still get the engine.

I'm ready for everything I've said to be picked apart........ and, go
 
User avatar
Antaras
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sun May 10, 2020 2:03 am

I saw a real potential of this re-engined 767 for the low-cost market, when the B787, A330neo and A350 are suddenly becoming too costly anh heavy those days. We could considered that the re-engined 762 and 763 would be not too big, but with acceptable range (LCCs are not often flying long-haul), with high effiency and most importantly, not so much more training cost as there are existing sources of 767-certified pilots and crews.
If you disagree with my statement, assume that it was just a joke :duck:
 
gloom
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2016 4:24 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sun May 10, 2020 7:37 am

You people seem to forget one thing.

The cost per unit is a king.

If you take 767 as such, and do re-engine and a couple of small changes (like the ones around neo buses), it's cheap and makes money soon enough. You'd need probably 200-300 units to make a profit. Small changes means new wing-end, frame or two out or in. No major redesign to wingbox/wings.

If you do major redesign, it's not a cheap job anymore. To make profit, you need to sell something close to 1000. And you don't get the profits of the new design. You end up still being heavier and less effective than new frame would be.

So, from my point of view, you either do re-engine and some wing changes (new wingtips, perhaps extension to increase wing area, since 767 was always limited by wing to go higher, not the thrust) for cheap and to sell for cheap, or you go to board desks to design new NMA. There's no way to go in between, as effectively you will end up having 20 or 30% of efficiency for 70-80% of the cost, comparing to new-from-the-scratch design. Considering general Boeing situation, first is probably preferrable.

Cheers,
Adam
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sun May 10, 2020 2:04 pm

gloom wrote:
You people seem to forget one thing.

The cost per unit is a king.

If you take 767 as such, and do re-engine and a couple of small changes (like the ones around neo buses), it's cheap and makes money soon enough. You'd need probably 200-300 units to make a profit. Small changes means new wing-end, frame or two out or in. No major redesign to wingbox/wings.

If you do major redesign, it's not a cheap job anymore. To make profit, you need to sell something close to 1000. And you don't get the profits of the new design. You end up still being heavier and less effective than new frame would be.

So, from my point of view, you either do re-engine and some wing changes (new wingtips, perhaps extension to increase wing area, since 767 was always limited by wing to go higher, not the thrust) for cheap and to sell for cheap, or you go to board desks to design new NMA. There's no way to go in between, as effectively you will end up having 20 or 30% of efficiency for 70-80% of the cost, comparing to new-from-the-scratch design. Considering general Boeing situation, first is probably preferrable.

Cheers,
Adam

I agree with this point of view as I have already written but I think I would give Boeing a little more scope for making mods at lower cost points since they have so many options in the parts bin already.

It's kind of funny that the tanker got the derogatory nickname 'Frankentanker' since it shows how much flexibility Boeing has to design something that can match the desired spec without spending a lot of money.

The post by eightcone shows that there may be a few different specs the military wants matched, and the military may end up footing the bill to get a pax model back on the market via a VIP transport requirement so the flexibility is a good thing.

I think the cost tipping point is a new wing, and like others I don't see a market big enough to justify the cost.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7162
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sun May 10, 2020 3:03 pm

eightcone wrote:
2) hot rod performance on the C-32 replacement. The C-32 want to move to more space in a widebody so even if a new 757x came its doubtful it would get Air Force 2 mission. The current C-32 operate easily out of 5k foot fields, and I think if they yank on them, they can do like 4,200 feet. Plus, the AF likes the C-32 being tall, "it's easy to secure and guard when you can see under and around it"

All of this comes to me thinking that a GEnX-2B is the likely re-engine with full KC-46/764 modernization {AF and UPS would have engine commonality to 748}, all versions could get the 764 gear and wing (maybe with folding 777x tips modified in) and then come in 200 length for DoD and 400 length for cargo.

I think personally the re-wing would be difficult based on different needs. DoD would want very high lift with no regard for length or fuel economy. Cargos need length restrictions. And passengers needs economy. So if the 767x program was a 2b engine and 764 improvements, new builds could get the full benefit and retrofits could still get the engine.

:thumbsup: Welcome...now we're talking. If a spacious C-32 replacement is what the DoD wants, they'd still get the -2B hotrod performance in -300 guise - maybe with spot reinforcements, plus a certified winglet for the same span. That should ease the way for some airlines who want that size (they tend to ask for more) if the price is right, of course. (I think the DoD wants to concentrate on the 738 frame for its other specialty missions).
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sun May 10, 2020 5:02 pm

eightcone wrote:
Interesting topic, after reading all 7 pages I created an account to post my thoughts.

I think a 2 model 767 update is the most likely. While a lot of dreaming an technical minutia has been discussed, I think the more broad questions are missions. Cargo carriers already have a bunch of 763F so the change would need to benefit them for low capital cost to offset the complexity of fleet diversity. Therefor, the elephant in the room is the Airforce/DoD. With the first batch of KC-46 coming off the line, the AF is committed to this type now. Even if all 179 frames are procured for the first run KC-46, there are 220 more -135s to replace plus 58 Kc-10. Add on to that the fact that the NEAT contract is most surely going to be a 767 since the -46 program already ate the cost of MIL'ing the airframe. Plus, There are a bunch of frames that aren't in NEAT that would end up following the path to 767, like the RC-135s.

So, the known AF/DoD needs are:

The 179 first batch KC-46 (if 767x mods are simple like a re-engine these could be brought up to new spec later)

-the 220 more KC-135 replacements
-58 KC-10
-4 E-4
-31 E-3
-17 E-8
-8 C-32
-34 RC-125
-16 E-6

That = 388 frames......... and while I know DoD contracting is schizophrenic, they will need to be replaced eventually, even if the E-10 program was shut down back in the day.

On the cargo side:
~110 A300 between brown and purple that might be up gauged to 767 when it comes time
~100 MD10/11 frames between brown and purple
~ 200 757 frames

So.... assumptions.

-DoD will go with all 767. They don't want to invest in MIL'ing the 777, plus with it having new technology in the 777x version, the AF will stick with known mature frames.
-DoD wants every drop of fuel it can get from a tanker in the second batch of -135 replacements and the -10 replacements
-cargo companies will probably 1 for 1 A300s with 767s
-half of the MD fleet might be down gauge replaced with 767 while the other half go up to 777 (747 in UPS case)
-half the 757 fleet when they eventually have to be replaced may up gauge to 767 the other half may go down to 737/321

So, potentially ~650 plane 767 market in cargo and DoD

Now, with the C-32 replacement, we do know that a handful of quazi-passenger versions are going to be built. Any work done there could help churn out a few passenger orders in the stopgap MoM market.

The biggest DoD requirements I see are; 1). as much fuel transfer as physics will allow for the Kc-10 replacement, 2) hot rod performance on the C-32 replacement. The C-32 want to move to more space in a widebody so even if a new 757x came its doubtful it would get Air Force 2 mission. The current C-32 operate easily out of 5k foot fields, and I think if they yank on them, they can do like 4,200 feet. Plus, the AF likes the C-32 being tall, "it's easy to secure and guard when you can see under and around it"

All of this comes to me thinking that a GEnX-2B is the likely re-engine with full KC-46/764 modernization {AF and UPS would have engine commonality to 748}, all versions could get the 764 gear and wing (maybe with folding 777x tips modified in) and then come in 200 length for DoD and 400 length for cargo.

I think personally the re-wing would be difficult based on different needs. DoD would want very high lift with no regard for length or fuel economy. Cargos need length restrictions. And passengers needs economy. So if the 767x program was a 2b engine and 764 improvements, new builds could get the full benefit and retrofits could still get the engine.

I'm ready for everything I've said to be picked apart........ and, go


Good post. I think Boeing should focus on future sustainability and low cost/ low risk for a 767 re- engine. Rewing could be harikiri for the project IMO. Airbus did a significant wing clean up and reshape. to the A330. That seems the best approach to keep leadtime, risk and ROI in check.

I think the 90t OEW for the 767-300ER payload-range puts is far enough below the 787 / A330 to capture a niche for passenger, cargo and defense.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Sokes
Posts: 2140
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Sun May 10, 2020 8:30 pm

@ eightcone: I'm looking forward for more posts of you.

Your post rubbishes my 170 t proposal.

The KC-46 has a MTOW of 188,2 t, very close to the 186,9 t of the B767-300ER. The PW4000-94 turbines have a 94 in/ 239 cm fan and deliver 62.000 lbf/ 289 kN. I believe Boeing is confused and means 62.000 lbf/ 276 kN.

Image
http://www.boeing.com/defense/kc-46a-pe ... ifications

With 64.500 lbs max thrust one can power a 212 t MTOW A330-300. 4 % more thrust for 13 % more MTOW.
source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160817004 ... 122015.pdf

B747-8's GEnx--2B67B is already a shrink from the B787 engine. It delivers 66,500 lbf (296 kN) and has a fan diameter of 104.7 in (266 cm).
I doubt that's the right engine for a B767 variant.

If you are right with your prediction of 650 planes for DoD and cargo it may actually be worth to design a new engine.
If two variants of 188 t and 177 t (=188 x 0,94) are desired, one engine can handle both thrust requirements.

Boeing could make
a) 188 t tanker
b) other military requirements
c) 177 t transatlantic passenger and cargo with length between -200 and -300. It may make a good transpacific plane without cargo.
d) 188 t mid-range cargo plane, -400 length

There is however a problem:
An A300-600F has an OEW of 81,7 t, the passenger version 88,6 t.
With a new 62,000 lbf engine Airbus can put a 52 m wing and new landing gear on a A330 diameter fuselage.
Airbus may moreover convince engine manufacturers to design the engine 4% stronger. Then Airbus can just use the old 60,3 m wing with 212 t MTOW.
An A330-300 with OEW 129,4 t + max. payload of 45,6 t would still be able to carry 37 t fuel to reach 212 t MTOW. I believe that's enough for transcontinental US.
The A330-200F has OEW of 109,4 t and max payload of 68,6 t. 34 t is left for fuel for 212 t MTOW.
I believe Amazon may love such a freighter. Even FedEx may consider to adjust their infrastructure.
The -200 passenger version could cross the Atlantic, however not with max payload. I believe o.k. for airlines that want to use cargo to adjust to fluctuating passenger demand.
That's why I argued that Boeing should aim for a MTOW of 170 t.


I admire Boeing's business skill.
"... all remaining operational USAF KC-135 aircraft are of the KC-135R, KC-135RT or KC-135T series. Acquired by SAC in the late 1950s, according to the Air Force, only a few KC-135s would reach these limits before 2040; but at that time, some of the aircraft would be about 80 years old. The Air Force estimates that their current fleet of KC-135s have between 12,000 and 14,000 flying hours on them...only 33 percent of the lifetime flying hour limit...and none will meet the limit until 2040. Therefore, the USAF has decided to replace the KC-135 fleet. However, since there were originally over 500 KC-135s with the since-retired KC-135E included, these aircraft will be replaced gradually, with the first batch of about 100 aircraft to be replaced in the current buy. The effort to replace the KC-135 has been marked by intense controversy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Mobil ... d#Aircraft
Obviously an outdated source. But it shows how much life is left.

"The Air Force’s current fleet of large tankers consists of 396 KC-135 Stratotankers.17 The first KC-135 entered the Air Force inventory in 1956, and the final one was delivered in 1964. "
p.4, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34398.pdf

Image
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC ... ratotanker

That's pretty old.
Depending on maintenance requirements the Air Force could have replaced them all or use the KC-135 longer and request a proposal around 2030 for 400 planes at a time. Or maybe fewer, but bigger planes? Other manufacturers beside Boeing would have had the opportunity to design a new plane with military as well as civil versions. Also engine manufacturers would have a better business case to design a new engine.
Not that the tanker is used so heavy as to justify a new engine, but then military projects are always good to try new stuff.
By ordering only 179 pieces with a prospect of delivering a total of 400 over 20 years the military made sure that there would be no US competitor.

"A May 2019 GAO report states that the procurement cost of 179 KC-46As could be about $31.5
billion, or an average of about $226 million per aircraft."
p.8, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34398.pdf

That's not exactly cheap, but I can't find proper sources for the A330 MRTT price.
Shouldn't a tanker have rather large wings?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
CX747
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 1:46 am

eightcone wrote:
Interesting topic, after reading all 7 pages I created an account to post my thoughts.

I think a 2 model 767 update is the most likely. While a lot of dreaming an technical minutia has been discussed, I think the more broad questions are missions. Cargo carriers already have a bunch of 763F so the change would need to benefit them for low capital cost to offset the complexity of fleet diversity. Therefor, the elephant in the room is the Airforce/DoD. With the first batch of KC-46 coming off the line, the AF is committed to this type now. Even if all 179 frames are procured for the first run KC-46, there are 220 more -135s to replace plus 58 Kc-10. Add on to that the fact that the NEAT contract is most surely going to be a 767 since the -46 program already ate the cost of MIL'ing the airframe. Plus, There are a bunch of frames that aren't in NEAT that would end up following the path to 767, like the RC-135s.

So, the known AF/DoD needs are:

The 179 first batch KC-46 (if 767x mods are simple like a re-engine these could be brought up to new spec later)

-the 220 more KC-135 replacements
-58 KC-10
-4 E-4
-31 E-3
-17 E-8
-8 C-32
-34 RC-125
-16 E-6

That = 388 frames......... and while I know DoD contracting is schizophrenic, they will need to be replaced eventually, even if the E-10 program was shut down back in the day.

On the cargo side:
~110 A300 between brown and purple that might be up gauged to 767 when it comes time
~100 MD10/11 frames between brown and purple
~ 200 757 frames

So.... assumptions.

-DoD will go with all 767. They don't want to invest in MIL'ing the 777, plus with it having new technology in the 777x version, the AF will stick with known mature frames.
-DoD wants every drop of fuel it can get from a tanker in the second batch of -135 replacements and the -10 replacements
-cargo companies will probably 1 for 1 A300s with 767s
-half of the MD fleet might be down gauge replaced with 767 while the other half go up to 777 (747 in UPS case)
-half the 757 fleet when they eventually have to be replaced may up gauge to 767 the other half may go down to 737/321

So, potentially ~650 plane 767 market in cargo and DoD

Now, with the C-32 replacement, we do know that a handful of quazi-passenger versions are going to be built. Any work done there could help churn out a few passenger orders in the stopgap MoM market.

The biggest DoD requirements I see are; 1). as much fuel transfer as physics will allow for the Kc-10 replacement, 2) hot rod performance on the C-32 replacement. The C-32 want to move to more space in a widebody so even if a new 757x came its doubtful it would get Air Force 2 mission. The current C-32 operate easily out of 5k foot fields, and I think if they yank on them, they can do like 4,200 feet. Plus, the AF likes the C-32 being tall, "it's easy to secure and guard when you can see under and around it"

All of this comes to me thinking that a GEnX-2B is the likely re-engine with full KC-46/764 modernization {AF and UPS would have engine commonality to 748}, all versions could get the 764 gear and wing (maybe with folding 777x tips modified in) and then come in 200 length for DoD and 400 length for cargo.

I think personally the re-wing would be difficult based on different needs. DoD would want very high lift with no regard for length or fuel economy. Cargos need length restrictions. And passengers needs economy. So if the 767x program was a 2b engine and 764 improvements, new builds could get the full benefit and retrofits could still get the engine.

I'm ready for everything I've said to be picked apart........ and, go


Outstanding post sir. Putting pen to paper so to speak, on thoughts/ideas I have pondered also. The USAF is the big 800lb gorilla in the room when it comes to the 767. If the 767 and certain upgrades are what they want, it will happen. The USAF is the only reason that plane is still being produced and garnering additional orders from FEDEX/UPS. Those three operators alone like mature technology, with slight upgrades, that allow for seamless operation. The 767 has that ability. YES, the tanker program has had issues BUT that is not uncommon and has little to do with the airframe.

From a simplicity point of view, replacing an overwhelming portion of the KC-135 and off shoot programs with one platform makes a ton of sense. Having 1 school house for KC-46 drivers, along with cargo,sigint, etc variants is plug and play. Having that "updated" platform, also fill the needs of UPS & FEDEX. That "potentially" dovetails nicely into a very possible upgrade program.

The 767 allows for incrementally needed growth for the USAF, UPS and FEDEX. All three of those "entities" are very, very blue chip customers and are listened very closely too when they sit down at the table.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 2:40 am

eightcone wrote:
So, potentially ~650 plane 767 market in cargo and DoD

All of this comes to me thinking that a GEnX-2B is the likely re-engine with full KC-46/764 modernization {AF and UPS would have engine commonality to 748}, all versions could get the 764 gear and wing (maybe with folding 777x tips modified in) and then come in 200 length for DoD and 400 length for cargo.

I think personally the re-wing would be difficult based on different needs. DoD would want very high lift with no regard for length or fuel economy. Cargos need length restrictions. And passengers needs economy. So if the 767x program was a 2b engine and 764 improvements, new builds could get the full benefit and retrofits could still get the engine.

I'm ready for everything I've said to be picked apart........ and, go

Excellent post.

With 650 frames estimated that can easily justify a clean sheet engine, not an out of date 2b. A cleansheet engine all of a sudden makes a passenger version competitive even with 7ab. A half generation engine improvement over the A330NEO will more than make up for the 7ab disadvantages.

The cargo operators don't really need extra volume of the longer 400 fuselage. The taller landing gear from the 400 was mainly for tail strike issues not to fit larger engines. I think a cleansheet engine could fit on the 767-300F without a longer main landing gear.

The lower fuel burn of a cleansheet engine would allow the max payload to be carried further. Or on long flights it can then carry up to 30% more payload than the current 767F. No MTOW increase would be needed.

New engines, maybe some wing tips. Done deal.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 6:59 am

A clean sheet engine, a decade? An enhanced GENX seems a so much better idea.
GE stock reached sobering levels and they would be mad to start new while having
the opportunity to improve the nearly iddle line GEnx-2B67.

Image
https://www.geaviation.com/

As eightcon indicated there seems to be significant opportunity on the DoD side,
which could pay for much of the development. The KC46 and newest caro versions
took care for lots of update on the system level. CFD and tunnel testing could improve
aerodynamics. New material could be used opportunistically where risk and ROI look good.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 8:58 am

keesje wrote:
A clean sheet engine, a decade? An enhanced GENX seems a so much better idea.

Is there a difference between the two? Would there be much difference in cost?

Putting in an enhanced core on the existing fan would still change the parts count by more than 80%. The Rolls Royce TrentTen is an example of this.

Either way the core will be a cleansheet. Even a fully scaled down GE9X core fitted onto the GENX fan would be a clean sheet.

The only reason to keep the existing fan and nacelle is to save on intergration costs and flight testing on the airframe. This is how the TrentTen arrived so quickly on the 787. But on the 767 the full flight testing would have to be done regardless if a GENX2B or a cleansheet is fitted. So GE could simply put on a correct diameter fan and nacelle to fit the 767 perfectly. Making a new engine is now easier today thanks to digital design. They can scale an engine up and down with much less effort.

Simply taking the GE9X design and shrinking it to a 100inch fan diameter would be all that needs to be done.
 
User avatar
DLHAM
Posts: 552
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 10:31 am

What the heck does DoD mean?
My Instagram Account: Instagram
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14103
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 11:18 am

RJMAZ wrote:
keesje wrote:
A clean sheet engine, a decade? An enhanced GENX seems a so much better idea.

Is there a difference between the two? Would there be much difference in cost?

Putting in an enhanced core on the existing fan would still change the parts count by more than 80%. The Rolls Royce TrentTen is an example of this.

Either way the core will be a cleansheet. Even a fully scaled down GE9X core fitted onto the GENX fan would be a clean sheet.

The only reason to keep the existing fan and nacelle is to save on intergration costs and flight testing on the airframe. This is how the TrentTen arrived so quickly on the 787. But on the 767 the full flight testing would have to be done regardless if a GENX2B or a cleansheet is fitted. So GE could simply put on a correct diameter fan and nacelle to fit the 767 perfectly. Making a new engine is now easier today thanks to digital design. They can scale an engine up and down with much less effort.

Simply taking the GE9X design and shrinking it to a 100inch fan diameter would be all that needs to be done.


Scaling up and down is easy in powerpoint, you pick a corner & move the mouse. For engines thermodynamics change, pressures, temperatures, flows. Non of them is linear and they are all interacting. Thousands of CFD runs, analyzes and calculations are done & still prototypes show significant differences. Do for a wide range of outside air temperatures/ pressures, incoming gooses and meet incredibly high reliability and containment requirements. The opposite of "Simply".

Image
https://www.ge.com/reports/post/122261129200/what-happens-inside-a-jet-engine-ge-lashed-2/

What about using the GENX-2B as much intact as possible? It it works, don't fix it. Make slight improvements based on operation feed back from for 747-8 operations. Maybe evolutionairy GE9X technology if commonality isn't compromised too much. There should be very good reasons not to do that. Specially because a 767-X would face little direct competition.

The AirForce & Cargo operators are ok with smoky, smelly 30-50 year old engines, take that as customer starting point.

20 Years ago Boeing was planning to use the GE/PW GP7172 or RR Trent 600 for 767-400ERX, 14 years ago they were contemplating the GENX, so technical feasibility should be clear.



.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Sjtstudios
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:31 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 12:15 pm

randomdude83 wrote:
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just launch the 787-8 frighter and then maybe focus on making the pax 788 lighter?

And then launch a new 737/757 replacement that will compete with the a320 size market?

I still do not get the 767 size obsession.


Right now the 787-9 is the sweet spot for design and production. With the capacity and MTOW, the 787-9 would be the best freighter.

Unfortunately the 787-8 is not optimized to be a True 767 replacement.

With the more recent American order for 787-8’s, I hope that Boeing can better align the 787-8 with the commonality shared with the -9 and -10. I would think there is some value proposition with the smaller plane, but maybe there isn’t. Could it ever be cheaper than the 787-9, especially with redevelopment costs. And is it even possible to optimize the design for that size? Kind of imperfect like the A350-800.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 12:58 pm

DLHAM wrote:
What the heck does DoD mean?

US Department of Defense, which seems to be looking at innovative ways to address future tanker needs:

Ref: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1409915

“We already use contract augmentation in regard to airlift,” said Lt. Gen. Jon Thomas, AMC deputy commander, referring to the Air Force’s use of contract airlift via the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. “For aerial refueling, we are approaching the concept of utilizing contract aircraft with aerial refueling capabilities to support operations outside of a contested environment.”

Ref: https://www.amc.af.mil/News/Article-Dis ... refueling/

The USAF apparently are starting to ask if they might want a stealth tanker going forward, one much bigger than the Navy one.

Ref: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... conference

Sokes wrote:
Depending on maintenance requirements the Air Force could have replaced them all or use the KC-135 longer and request a proposal around 2030 for 400 planes at a time. Or maybe fewer, but bigger planes? Other manufacturers beside Boeing would have had the opportunity to design a new plane with military as well as civil versions. Also engine manufacturers would have a better business case to design a new engine.
Not that the tanker is used so heavy as to justify a new engine, but then military projects are always good to try new stuff.

I was definitely asking the question here back in our tanker wars of a decade ago.

In particular it was clear the trend was going towards stealth.

Also the thing that limits the KC-135's life and makes heavy maintenance visits costly is metal fatigue and corrosion.

Yet we're buying metal, non-stealth tankers.

And going forward to the post-F35 word most front line aircraft are going to be drones with much lower fuel requirements, so it's not clear why we think we need so many tankers.

This mitigates against Boeing eventually getting 650 orders for 767s.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 1:07 pm

I think you are all missing the most likely reality that the DOD will probably want no change to the KC-46. They will just want more of them with the existing engines.

I doubt they have to follow the same emissions rules and any improvement in efficiency is immaterial to them (unless it is is huge). Extending KC-46 to a longer length, making it heavier and putting 2B's on it - probably means no real improvement in trip costs for them on 90%+ of their missions.

Quite often they never use the full capability anyways and the annual utilization is very low. They don't really need a more capable tanker.

In high risk situations the Air Force will probably bring in an autonomous solution anyways - something like an MQ-25. It would not be that hard for them to build a Super sized version of that as an Autonomous fully stealthed Strike version. Or an Autonomous version of the B-21 as a flying gas tank reusing that frame - with a lot of the really expensive tech removed. If you don't need it be stealthy - build it without the coatings - making it lighter and super efficient.

I doubt they would want anything changed on the KC-46 especially given all the issues they have been through. The existing line could make KC-46 only - especially if they really need 450 or whatever the number is - make it fully Millitarized and install everything on the line making it more efficient and lowering the cost which the DOD might like.

Most likely any changes to accommodate a new engine would have to be born by the freight companies only.

And if they want to sell it as a Passenger aircraft - the only way they sell more than a few frames is go full 777X on it and essentially redesign it from scratch.

Something in the 145-165T range and 8W could really make a new Market. A 300 Freighter could have the same capability as today and if built for single pilot operations it could be 30-40% cheaper to operate than the existing 300f - which would be a real game changer. It's whether or not they can sell enough (Freighters and Passenger versions) in this climate to justify it.

I think they only really think of going this route if 737 replacement is in the 2030's and they want to sell it as a passenger aircraft.

They have the space in the factory to set up a dedicated line for this.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 1:11 pm

Hi REV - two minds thinking alike about Stealth tankers. I was writing mine above while you were posting yours and didn't see it until now.

Yes - the next tanker will most likely be Stealthy. Reusing the B-21 frame might work really well as It think it is being built to be able to be autonomous anyways. Take out the crews and you can haul more gas. Besides who wants to fly a flying bomb anyways.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 1:54 pm

morrisond wrote:
Hi REV - two minds thinking alike about Stealth tankers. I was writing mine above while you were posting yours and didn't see it until now.

Yes - the next tanker will most likely be Stealthy. Reusing the B-21 frame might work really well as It think it is being built to be able to be autonomous anyways. Take out the crews and you can haul more gas. Besides who wants to fly a flying bomb anyways.

I agree with all of the above. Humans are great for making real time decisions, but they don't need to be up in the air to do so. Their presence makes the calculation about performing a mission include the need to allow for captured or killed airmen, something no one wants. They can't take high Gs and they need oxygen and pressurization to stay alive at high altitudes.

I think the tech to beat stealth is pretty well understood as stealth is an old concept by now. It seems over time the advantage is going to go towards the defenders and it'll be another case of asymmetric warfare where relatively cheap high energy weapons can defeat very expensive aircraft such as F22 and F35 and B21. I get the feeling we are fighting the last war instead of preparing for the next war.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 2:12 pm

Revelation wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Hi REV - two minds thinking alike about Stealth tankers. I was writing mine above while you were posting yours and didn't see it until now.

Yes - the next tanker will most likely be Stealthy. Reusing the B-21 frame might work really well as It think it is being built to be able to be autonomous anyways. Take out the crews and you can haul more gas. Besides who wants to fly a flying bomb anyways.

I agree with all of the above. Humans are great for making real time decisions, but they don't need to be up in the air to do so. Their presence makes the calculation about performing a mission include the need to allow for captured or killed airmen, something no one wants. They can't take high Gs and they need oxygen and pressurization to stay alive at high altitudes.

I think the tech to beat stealth is pretty well understood as stealth is an old concept by now. It seems over time the advantage is going to go towards the defenders and it'll be another case of asymmetric warfare where relatively cheap high energy weapons can defeat very expensive aircraft such as F22 and F35 and B21. I get the feeling we are fighting the last war instead of preparing for the next war.



Yes I agree it will go to the Defenders. Especially with Lasers and Hypersonics getting so good. It's going to have to be very long range strike using long range missiles.

I think you can harden against lasers - hypersonics will be more difficult especially if they are guided. But planes can maneuver and as you point out if Autonomous can maneuver a lot harder than piloted versions.

However - the only place they really will be able to "Penetrate" is places with very low defences - kind of like the last 20 years. Most of the missions in the last 20 years could have been flown by B-29's and were flown by not that much higher tech B-52's.

But the Air Force like their toys. They would probably be better off just building more conventional long range strike missiles launched from land or sea based platforms (Arsenal Ships or Sub based platforms). Probably a lot cheaper overall especially if built in Volume. Modern V-2's with significantly more range and accuracy.
 
Sokes
Posts: 2140
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 3:53 pm

keesje wrote:
Scaling up and down is easy in powerpoint, you pick a corner & move the mouse. For engines thermodynamics change, pressures, temperatures, flows. Non of them is linear and they are all interacting.

I read that if a river bed has to be deepened and sand is removed at the wrong place, one ends up with an even shallower river.
Here a video with flow of water through a culvert and how the inlet shape influences the flow rate. I was very surprised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15XJDmawbYU&t=285s

How does engine development work? Do results usually fit the calculations or is it more a case of trial and error?
I assume it's the second. If the theory of the matter had to be well understood and one could simply "calculate" engines, new engine developments should be cheap.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
CX747
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 6:27 pm

There is a portion of the KC-135 replacement requirement that could end up going to something other than a 767. I think at least 50-75% of the requirement will go to the KC-46. The USN was forced into the MQ-25 and will take their new tankers and try to make it work. USAF isn't going to want to hoe that road.

I just don't see at the end of the day a large scale of drone tankers or stealth tankers. For drones, bandwidth and limitations of not having an actual person in the air to make decisions is going to be an issue. For stealth, a large fleet just isn't going to be possible due to cost and upkeep needs. Tankers get sent everywhere, in all weather and position at airfields all over the world. Easy plug and play. Not so with a stealth asset. They are still working off the "Rapid Raptor" concept with the F-35. KC-135 replacements need to be able to fly to Kableakastan, sit in the sand, wind storms, freezing temps and then crank when needed. They are not coddled like a fighter.

So, with that in mind maybe a market of 540 767s between the USAF/FEDEX/UPS could be out there. Is that enough to have Boeing make a move...time will tell.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
morrisond
Posts: 2867
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Mon May 11, 2020 6:44 pm

CX747 wrote:
There is a portion of the KC-135 replacement requirement that could end up going to something other than a 767. I think at least 50-75% of the requirement will go to the KC-46. The USN was forced into the MQ-25 and will take their new tankers and try to make it work. USAF isn't going to want to hoe that road.

I just don't see at the end of the day a large scale of drone tankers or stealth tankers. For drones, bandwidth and limitations of not having an actual person in the air to make decisions is going to be an issue. For stealth, a large fleet just isn't going to be possible due to cost and upkeep needs. Tankers get sent everywhere, in all weather and position at airfields all over the world. Easy plug and play. Not so with a stealth asset. They are still working off the "Rapid Raptor" concept with the F-35. KC-135 replacements need to be able to fly to Kableakastan, sit in the sand, wind storms, freezing temps and then crank when needed. They are not coddled like a fighter.

So, with that in mind maybe a market of 540 767s between the USAF/FEDEX/UPS could be out there. Is that enough to have Boeing make a move...time will tell.


Almost all this is an argument for a no change KC-46 which I agree with. GEnx-2B might not be as sand friendly. The Air Force doesn't need any changes on the KC-46.

For Stealth - yes the number needed would be limited - Maybe 50? - the rest could be KC-46. That is why basing it off an existing design is simplest/cheapest. It may not need all the expensive and hard to maintain coatings as they would not get as close in so they don't need Stealth abilities to the nth degree - however the basic shape could be good enough to keep it relatively hard to track. Something tells me you won't want to mid-flight refuel in close range of any radar station anyways so you would need to be relatively far away. A KC-46 would probably be very easy to track at far range - whereas an B-21 less stealthy tanker tanking a Full B-21 Raider could be done a lot closer in.

The basic structure/engines/gear and Navigation avionics of the B-21 won't be a big number. Close off the Bomb Bay and reconfigure the insides for more fuel or just load the Bomb Bay with more tanks.

That all being said - I still you think you are better off with ground or sea launched missiles. A lot faster and accurate enough plus you are not putting your own people in harms way.
 
UPS757Pilot
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:22 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Tue May 12, 2020 4:41 am

RJMAZ wrote:
eightcone wrote:
The cargo operators don't really need extra volume of the longer 400 fuselage. The taller landing gear from the 400 was mainly for tail strike issues not to fit larger engines. I think a cleansheet engine could fit on the 767-300F without a longer main landing gear.

The lower fuel burn of a cleansheet engine would allow the max payload to be carried further. Or on long flights it can then carry up to 30% more payload than the current 767F. No MTOW increase would be needed.

New engines, maybe some wing tips. Done deal.
I see the 767X as a potential MD-11 replacement thus the longer -400 fuselage length would be required.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Tue May 12, 2020 9:12 am

UPS757Pilot wrote:
I see the 767X as a potential MD-11 replacement thus the longer -400 fuselage length would be required.

The MD-11 is around half way between the 777F and 767F. It is actually slightly closer to the 777F in size. There is no way the 767F-400 can reach that capacity. Freight operators can either upgauge their MD-11 routes to 777F or downgauge to 767F.

Boeing gets the sale either way. So Boeing would be best off making the 767NEO as attractive as possible to existing 767F operators and new passenger operators.
 
User avatar
Antaras
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Tue May 12, 2020 2:17 pm

Sjtstudios wrote:
randomdude83 wrote:
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just launch the 787-8 frighter and then maybe focus on making the pax 788 lighter?

And then launch a new 737/757 replacement that will compete with the a320 size market?

I still do not get the 767 size obsession.


Right now the 787-9 is the sweet spot for design and production. With the capacity and MTOW, the 787-9 would be the best freighter.

Unfortunately the 787-8 is not optimized to be a True 767 replacement.

With the more recent American order for 787-8’s, I hope that Boeing can better align the 787-8 with the commonality shared with the -9 and -10. I would think there is some value proposition with the smaller plane, but maybe there isn’t. Could it ever be cheaper than the 787-9, especially with redevelopment costs. And is it even possible to optimize the design for that size? Kind of imperfect like the A350-800.


Agree that the 789 would be a perfect Freighter.

Nice capacity, acceptable range and performance. Can't be better. Besides that, as 789 is the most popular member of the family, the 789F can lead to a large P2F conversion program, and sure that 789 operators love that.
If you disagree with my statement, assume that it was just a joke :duck:
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Tue May 12, 2020 3:07 pm

UPS757Pilot wrote:
I see the 767X as a potential MD-11 replacement thus the longer -400 fuselage length would be required.


A 767-300F offers about 73% of the volume of the MD-11F. A 767-400ERF would offer around 83%, so only about 10% more. And both would offer around two-thirds of the payload weight (though this might not be as important). As such, I can kind of see why FedEx looked at a 767-400ERF back in 2011 and passed on it for more 767-300F. Might as well just buy 3 763F for every 2 MD11F.

The true replacement for the MD11F is the 777F, offering up to 7% more volume and up to 15% more payload weight. The only drawback is it does not as easily fit in an MD11F ramp space due to the wider wingspan. But that doesn't seem to be a major issue for FedEx, who have 43 of them with 15 more on order.

UPS Airlines seems content with 747-8F doing the heavy-lifting so I don't really expect them to add the 777F, but Boeing could be offering them very good terms to try and secure two or three dozen to replace their two score of MD11F.
 
User avatar
Boeing757100
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Tue May 12, 2020 5:37 pm

Guys, stop saying that the 757plus is clean sheet 100%. Boeing already said that they are indefinetely cancelling FSA and NMA thoughts. With upgrading the airframes of 757/767, they are ready. If people say that Boeing has stopped thinking about upgrading old designs, you are WRONG. Take a look at the 777. Close to 30 years old, and still going strong, with 777X on the horizon. The 757 and 767 are older, yes, but the 737 IS OLDER THAN ALL OF THEM FOR GOSH SAKE!!!!! And again, don't say that a 757 isn't possible. The airframe is an airframe; it never goes away. They can redo the airframe design with more modern material. Thank You. (please be nice, I'm only 13.)
The 757-MAX is happening tomorrow.
 
CX747
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Tue May 12, 2020 7:03 pm

Stitch wrote:
UPS757Pilot wrote:
I see the 767X as a potential MD-11 replacement thus the longer -400 fuselage length would be required.


A 767-300F offers about 73% of the volume of the MD-11F. A 767-400ERF would offer around 83%, so only about 10% more. And both would offer around two-thirds of the payload weight (though this might not be as important). As such, I can kind of see why FedEx looked at a 767-400ERF back in 2011 and passed on it for more 767-300F. Might as well just buy 3 763F for every 2 MD11F.

The true replacement for the MD11F is the 777F, offering up to 7% more volume and up to 15% more payload weight. The only drawback is it does not as easily fit in an MD11F ramp space due to the wider wingspan. But that doesn't seem to be a major issue for FedEx, who have 43 of them with 15 more on order.

UPS Airlines seems content with 747-8F doing the heavy-lifting so I don't really expect them to add the 777F, but Boeing could be offering them very good terms to try and secure two or three dozen to replace their two score of MD11F.


In regards to UPS, do you have an idea or guess on long term fleet requirements? MD-11s won't last forever, nor will the 744 fleet. Do you figure they make the jump to the 777? If not, is there a scenario where Boeing & UPS do another order for 30+ 747-8Fs? Would that volume cover the cost of Boeing bringing Triumph's old 747 work inhouse?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
CX747
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Tue May 12, 2020 7:17 pm

Boeing757100 wrote:
Guys, stop saying that the 757plus is clean sheet 100%. Boeing already said that they are indefinetely cancelling FSA and NMA thoughts. With upgrading the airframes of 757/767, they are ready. If people say that Boeing has stopped thinking about upgrading old designs, you are WRONG. Take a look at the 777. Close to 30 years old, and still going strong, with 777X on the horizon. The 757 and 767 are older, yes, but the 737 IS OLDER THAN ALL OF THEM FOR GOSH SAKE!!!!! And again, don't say that a 757 isn't possible. The airframe is an airframe; it never goes away. They can redo the airframe design with more modern material. Thank You. (please be nice, I'm only 13.)


13 was long ago for me but it is excellent for you to be asking the questions you are.

The 757 is an outstanding aircraft. It is very robust and in certain terms, ahead of it's time. Overall though, by the early 2000s orders had dried up. There are many reasons but in the end Boeing shut down the 757 line and focused on the 737. We are almost 20 years from when the 757 was last manufactured. Boeing could go back and make the exact same plane again but from a cost & sales perspective that is very unlikely. The 737 and A320 family grew since the 1980s and can now do what only a 757 could do in the past. The costs for operating the 757 are also higher than the 737 and A320, which hurts when the financial guys make their decisions.

So, we may eventually see a new 757 sized aircraft from Boeing but it will be a seperate/new design. I think the best a 757 fan could hope for would be Boeing engineers looking at certain 757 design fundamentals for use or baseline on an new product.

Overall though, the 757 is a wonderful aircraft and it is a shame that its design is still not being produced.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27308
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Tue May 12, 2020 7:53 pm

CX747 wrote:
In regards to UPS, do you have an idea or guess on long term fleet requirements? MD-11s won't last forever, nor will the 744 fleet. Do you figure they make the jump to the 777? If not, is there a scenario where Boeing & UPS do another order for 30+ 747-8Fs? Would that volume cover the cost of Boeing bringing Triumph's old 747 work inhouse?


I am not sure of how UPS currently deploys their MD-11F fleet. I heard rumors a decade ago they were going to be all-domestic, but I do not know if that ever happened.

As I understand it, the current 747 fleet is predominately operated between Asia and the US, though they did launch a 747-8F around-the-world service between Louisville-Dubai-Shenzen-Anchorage-Louisville in 2018.

Their 747-8F fleet is planned to be 28 frames, which is a heck of a lot of lift on it's own, plus they have (per Wiki) 11 747-400F and 2 747-400BCF. So that might soak up some of the MD-11F services between, say, ONT/ANC and SDF as a tag-on from their Asia flights. They could also add more 767-300Fs (they're close to completing their existing order-book). UPS is also upgrading the avionics on their A300-600RF fleet so those frames will be sticking around for some time and they might be used for domestic MD-11F replacement.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4418
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Tue May 12, 2020 8:17 pm

A few years back it was agreed by just about everyone that a 767 could not be lightened and updated. I don't think CORVID-19 is powerful enough for that kind of new reality. Were we wrong back then? Also, wouldn't an optimized 787-8 be a lot better than the 767X?
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
2175301
Posts: 1909
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 11:19 am

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Tue May 12, 2020 8:51 pm

Hmmm... I had a talk with my friend who was heavily involved in the NMA project. They had some interesting things to say about various possibilities being discussed in this thread.

1) A revamped 767F with new engines and modified wings is considered almost a certainty. Boeing is critically aware of the wingbox restrictions of the major current users of the 767F. There is an active project group within Boeing working on this. Boeing is always open to the possibilities of newer passenger variants of the 767 if Airlines express enough interest, and they had not heard of any serious interest by Airlines at this time for a passenger variant through the grapevine (they are not within the 767X project group which would know).

2) While the NMA program itself was shutdown; the concepts are not entirely dead. Boeing always has people looking at options for the future - and that group has pulled the concept and study documents for the top 2 choices - with the previously discarded option for noticeable cargo capability as they see a more critical need for belly cargo in future aircraft as there is likely to be fewer passenger aircraft for many years and cargo seems steady or increasing. I was told that the future studies group wants to be ready to propose the NMA with cargo capability concepts in 1-3 years when things start to recover from Covid-19.

This validates some of the items on the 767 discussed in this forum and also answers the speculation that what will be needed in the future is some kind of NMA; and the 2nd point might be the source behind the article about Boeing looking for a 757-767 size replacement in the future.

Have a great day,
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing considering 757-Plus and 767-X

Tue May 12, 2020 9:05 pm

2175301 wrote:
Hmmm... I had a talk with my friend who was heavily involved in the NMA project. They had some interesting things to say about various possibilities being discussed in this thread.

1) A revamped 767F with new engines and modified wings is considered almost a certainty. Boeing is critically aware of the wingbox restrictions of the major current users of the 767F. There is an active project group within Boeing working on this. Boeing is always open to the possibilities of newer passenger variants of the 767 if Airlines express enough interest, and they had not heard of any serious interest by Airlines at this time for a passenger variant through the grapevine (they are not within the 767X project group which would know).

2) While the NMA program itself was shutdown; the concepts are not entirely dead. Boeing always has people looking at options for the future - and that group has pulled the concept and study documents for the top 2 choices - with the previously discarded option for noticeable cargo capability as they see a more critical need for belly cargo in future aircraft as there is likely to be fewer passenger aircraft for many years and cargo seems steady or increasing. I was told that the future studies group wants to be ready to propose the NMA with cargo capability concepts in 1-3 years when things start to recover from Covid-19.

This validates some of the items on the 767 discussed in this forum and also answers the speculation that what will be needed in the future is some kind of NMA; and the 2nd point might be the source behind the article about Boeing looking for a 757-767 size replacement in the future.

Have a great day,

Thanks for the updates. Both efforts seem to be reasonable targets for engineering resources, along with finishing up the current queue of projects (77X, MAX RTS, MAX-10, MAX-7, etc).
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5091
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Reuters: Boeing consiering 757-Plus and 767-X

Tue May 12, 2020 10:33 pm

IWM BH wrote:
I can see the 767-upgrade happening. The plane is still selling well and a relatively small investment could make it the go-to freighter for the coming decade(s).

But, I don't get why they want to release a 757-like plane to compete with the A321.
Wouldn't it be much easer to create a 737-replacement and lengthen it just like Airbus did?

a 757 replacement could replace the 737 #1.? with a taller gear stance they could mount a variety of engines were they not limited to the CFM-56. and an even larger fan might be fitted to the CFM-56 and NOT sacrifice ground clearance. #2? It's a narrow body already. What fits in a 737? Will surely fit in a 757 airframe.
#3? Boeing could build and fit an all composite wing to the airplane with all new FBW tech, and "Smoke" the A320/A321 in performance.
#4? the airplane could be fitted with the Pratt GTF as well as the CFM-56 and possible a Rolls -Royce offering as well as they would have the ground clearance to do so. they could scale the aircraft and the wing to do Transatlantic, the US West coast to Hawaii, and well into South America, Including Anchorage to Asia if one would so choose. Boeing has gone as far as they can go with the 737, you know it? And? I know it. the 737 format is "OLD news"! Time to move on, and they have a design already that will work WELL into the future.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 16

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