Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 16
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 10:25 am

Forget the GEnx2B engines Boeing would go with a cleansheet engine. The GEnx2B are already half a generation out of date with their 8:1 bypass ratio. By the time a 767NEO arrives the engine would be a full generation out of date.

With a cleansheet engine Boeing will then be able to leapfrog the A330NEO which should make up for the 7ab disadvantage for passenger use. As a freighter a 767NEO would allow the same max payload to fly approximately 15% further.

The GEnx2B at 66,500lb has 5,000lb more thrust than the most powerful 767 engine. The engine also weighs 30% more. A cleansheet engine would fix this issue. GE could pick the best parts of the LEAP and Ge9X engines to make a something with these rough specs. 11:1 bypass ratio, 55,000lb thrust, 4500kg weight, 100inch fan diameter.

The biggest problem is the new engines will change the role of the 767. The A330NEO turned the A330 from a medium/long haul aircraft to a true long haul aircraft that began to compete with their larger A350. Boeing has discontinued all the lighter non-ER parts so the parts would be rated for the full 188t MTOW. 767NEO would then see the 767-200 and 767-300 fuselage lengths have a range of 8000nm and 7000nm respectively.

This instantly rules out the 200 fuselage length as it would be over capable like the A330-800. The 300 length is what the freighters use so that makes it easy to take a stock 767F and add a brand new engine. Maybe some 737MAX style winglets that do not increase wingspan.

I would go as far as saying Boeing could even do a simple stretch of this 767NEO to create a lightweight 767-400NEO. The 767-400ER gained 17t in MTOW and 13t in empty weight. By keeping the lower 188t MTOW the empty weight would only go up by half of that increase to probably less than 6t. With an empty weight clearly under 100t this would create an aircraft that would fill the role of a lightweight 787-8 or a revived 787-3.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 11:20 am

ikramerica wrote:
UPS757Pilot wrote:
the 767-400 wingspan is 14 ft longer than the 767-300 so there might some issues for the integrators with parking. That might have been why FedEx nor UPS didn't order them in 2011. A folding wing 767X might be the answer.

The 767-400 has a raked wingtip extension.

There may be a way to get a more efficient split scimitar design that closer to the 763 wingspan.


The 764 just fits within Code D at 51.92m D is - 36m (118.1') - <52m (170.6'); 9m (29.5') - <14m (45.9')
It will barely fit the existing Code D parking boxes, but it will be tighter.

The flightglobal article about the 767X last fall had Boeing indicate that the 764 gear and wing is both larger and a bit higher to handle the longer hull with rotation.

Guys - the program probably needs to cover the certification cost with 100-150 sold. It needs to a simple, with the same level of tech the 767-2C or 767-300F have. A $ 2B program would add $20M of cost to the first 100. But it is in market(s) that at least there are buyers right now.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9666
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 12:06 pm

How often does Boeing want to leapfrog the A330? Did the 787 not already achieve this? Or in other words, if it leapfrogs the A330NEO, it leapfrogs the 787 as well.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 1:10 pm

seahawk wrote:
How often does Boeing want to leapfrog the A330? Did the 787 not already achieve this? Or in other words, if it leapfrogs the A330NEO, it leapfrogs the 787 as well.

Leapfrog in efficiency not capacity. The 767-300 is much smaller than a A330-900, 188m2 vs 265m2. If the 767 had equal CASM it will far outsell the A330-900.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9666
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 1:20 pm

And the 787. Smaller plane with similar CASM -> winner.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10350
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Sun May 03, 2020 1:41 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
With a cleansheet engine Boeing will then be able to leapfrog the A330NEO which should make up for the 7ab disadvantage for passenger use. As a freighter a 767NEO would allow the same max payload to fly approximately 15% further.

RJMAZ wrote:
This instantly rules out the 200 fuselage length as it would be over capable like the A330-800.

I keep looking at the Boeing MOM / NMA as being an a/c that sits between the largest MAX and the smallest 787, as such anything to do with the A330 goes out the door.
However, as Boeing appears to be guided by the personal opinions of the CEO, who knows what will happen. The previous CEO had almost firm airline and engine OEM commitments for at least 2 concept revolving around range and payload, then boom, new CEO and project restarts from clean sheet again. What that says to me is that all the talk from experts be they pilots, engineers, designers, marketing, etc. is just talk if a new CEO can just abandon the "science" on a whim.
Time will tell, we will just have to see how many airlines do not order the A321-XXXXX because Boeing PR says they will have a better product, when, no one knows but its coming....
 
User avatar
Antaras
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 1:56 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Forget the GEnx2B engines Boeing would go with a cleansheet engine. The GEnx2B are already half a generation out of date with their 8:1 bypass ratio. By the time a 767NEO arrives the engine would be a full generation out of date.

With a cleansheet engine Boeing will then be able to leapfrog the A330NEO which should make up for the 7ab disadvantage for passenger use. As a freighter a 767NEO would allow the same max payload to fly approximately 15% further.

The GEnx2B at 66,500lb has 5,000lb more thrust than the most powerful 767 engine. The engine also weighs 30% more. A cleansheet engine would fix this issue. GE could pick the best parts of the LEAP and Ge9X engines to make a something with these rough specs. 11:1 bypass ratio, 55,000lb thrust, 4500kg weight, 100inch fan diameter.


A "mixture" between the LEAP and the GE9X would be perfect.
Not to forget the PW GTF. I remembered that PW is proposing a 40,000lb GTF with Airbus. I don't know if PW and BOE can push the GTF's thrust up to ~60,000lb.
RR can also provide a derated version of the Trent 7000.
Last edited by Antaras on Sun May 03, 2020 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 1:57 pm

seahawk wrote:
And the 787. Smaller plane with similar CASM -> winner.

That depends on the 787 model. The 787-10 has the best CASM and the 787-8 has the worst CASM in the family. The 767-300NEO would only need to have similar CASM to the 787-8 for it to sell really well.

Recent 787-8 orders means the demand for a smaller widebody must be pretty high if an airline was willing to accept worse CASM compared to the 787-9. A 767-300NEO would be even more suitable for these airlines that want to start long thin routes.

For the 767-300NEO to sell 300 passenger aircraft would be extremely easy. The CASM wouldn't even have to match the 787-9 as the 767-300NEO would have much lower trip cost. It would not need a new wing, some winglets and new engines are more the enough.

Interesting fact if the 767 interior sidewalls are sculpted by only 2inchs then it allows for 2-4-2 using the same seats width that Airbus uses on their 9ab A330's. The majority of A330NEO aircraft will be 9ab so if Boeing can squeeze in a right 8ab into the 767 then it will get even more sales. It then allows 2-4-2 for low cost carriers doing regional work and 2-3-2 for premium airlines doing long thin routes.
 
User avatar
Antaras
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 2:04 pm

seahawk wrote:
How often does Boeing want to leapfrog the A330? Did the 787 not already achieve this? Or in other words, if it leapfrogs the A330NEO, it leapfrogs the 787 as well.

The 787 can't be leapfrogged by the next 767. Remember that 787 is an extremely good long-haul player, and it has kicked the A330neo in the long-haul market
Or Boeing just making this redesigned 767 so good that it leapfrog the 787 :duck:
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24568
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Sun May 03, 2020 2:44 pm

planecane wrote:
Why would Boeing take on the expense of crazy modifications like a new wing for such a limited market? Wouldn't it make more sense just to make whatever changes are necessary to support new engines so the cargo version can keep being sold and then shop it with a low purchase price (relatively) to passenger airlines? I would think the biggest benefit to an airline of a 767NG would be low acquisition cost and also a short program so it is available sooner.

Maybe sculpting the sidewalls would make sense if it allows 17" seats at 8ab because that would significantly reduce CASM and make it more marketable. But the expense of a brand new wing seems like it would make the aircraft too expensive for a limited market.

We know wing span is an issue. 787-3 tried to stay at 767 span to fit 767 gates by truncating the 787-8 wing with winglets but it was a failure. 767 is preferred by UPS and FX and USAF in part due to the need to fit existing gates/docks/hangars.

I agree the expense of a new wing and/or expense of updating systems to make 767 compatible with 787/777x would be too much for any project in the near term. Also the new engine isn't needed till 2028. It means we'll see nothing in this space for several years.

Above Calhoun said what they are spending their money on, which is manufacturing and engineering tech so they're ready for the next clean sheet.

RJMAZ wrote:
Forget the GEnx2B engines Boeing would go with a cleansheet engine. The GEnx2B are already half a generation out of date with their 8:1 bypass ratio. By the time a 767NEO arrives the engine would be a full generation out of date.

With a cleansheet engine Boeing will then be able to leapfrog the A330NEO which should make up for the 7ab disadvantage for passenger use. As a freighter a 767NEO would allow the same max payload to fly approximately 15% further.

The GEnx2B at 66,500lb has 5,000lb more thrust than the most powerful 767 engine. The engine also weighs 30% more. A cleansheet engine would fix this issue. GE could pick the best parts of the LEAP and Ge9X engines to make a something with these rough specs. 11:1 bypass ratio, 55,000lb thrust, 4500kg weight, 100inch fan diameter.

The biggest problem is the new engines will change the role of the 767. The A330NEO turned the A330 from a medium/long haul aircraft to a true long haul aircraft that began to compete with their larger A350. Boeing has discontinued all the lighter non-ER parts so the parts would be rated for the full 188t MTOW. 767NEO would then see the 767-200 and 767-300 fuselage lengths have a range of 8000nm and 7000nm respectively.

This instantly rules out the 200 fuselage length as it would be over capable like the A330-800. The 300 length is what the freighters use so that makes it easy to take a stock 767F and add a brand new engine. Maybe some 737MAX style winglets that do not increase wingspan.

I would go as far as saying Boeing could even do a simple stretch of this 767NEO to create a lightweight 767-400NEO. The 767-400ER gained 17t in MTOW and 13t in empty weight. By keeping the lower 188t MTOW the empty weight would only go up by half of that increase to probably less than 6t. With an empty weight clearly under 100t this would create an aircraft that would fill the role of a lightweight 787-8 or a revived 787-3.

Yes, as you say the weight needed to carry the ER is baked in to the 767 now.

The trend for new engines to be heavier is hard to dismiss. You are generating higher temperatures and pressures to get the desired economy. The fan blades are bigger so they have more energy so the containment needs to be heavier. Their size also means the nacelles are heavier. There is no simple way around this.

So the ER itself is heavier than desired and the new engine is also heavier than desired. The efficiency gain of the new engine is great but it means you end up with huge and relatively empty tanks so the wings are bigger than needed, the gear is heavier than needed, etc.

This is why Boeing was heading down the NMA path. A simple band-aid fix isn't going to work.
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: 7116
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 3:46 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Forget the GEnx2B engines Boeing would go with a cleansheet engine. The GEnx2B are already half a generation out of date with their 8:1 bypass ratio.

Yeah, right. Boeing and the other OEM would squander a leading edge engine on a 40-year old airframe design. Here's something to chew on in case you haven't read it yet.....

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/02/ge-avia ... eighs.html

RJMAZ wrote:
The GEnx2B at 66,500lb has 5,000lb more thrust than the most powerful 767 engine. The engine also weighs 30% more. A cleansheet engine would fix this issue. GE could pick the best parts of the LEAP and Ge9X engines to make a something with these rough specs. 11:1 bypass ratio, 55,000lb thrust, 4500kg weight, 100inch fan diameter.

Aren't those what you're going for in a hotrod? I'm positive that GE could derate the 2B67 to equal the highest thrust one on type, though am not sure a 4.7" difference in fan diameter is worth all the effort and expense of a reduction.

RJMAZ wrote:
I would go as far as saying Boeing could even do a simple stretch of this 767NEO to create a lightweight 767-400NEO.

Except that nothing in aircraft design is ever simple -- do that and it instantly becomes a clean-sheet design and you're back where the NMA is currently - in limbo.


JayinKitsap wrote:
Guys - the program probably needs to cover the certification cost with 100-150 sold. It needs to a simple, with the same level of tech the 767-2C or 767-300F have. A $ 2B program would add $20M of cost to the first 100.

Perhaps Boeing could persuade the current king to go ahead with the one-off modification even with oil selling low. That should help underwrite the 764 re-engining effort for the envisioned fleet. :cheerful:
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8234
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

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

Sun May 03, 2020 4:11 pm

seahawk wrote:
How often does Boeing want to leapfrog the A330? Did the 787 not already achieve this? Or in other words, if it leapfrogs the A330NEO, it leapfrogs the 787 as well.


For that to be true it would require the A330NEO to have leapfrogged the 787 - and it very clearly did not. See backlog (real backlog - operators with an airline and money), deliveries, and operator list.

There are risks to big, long-term capital programs that 'Are a little better but not out best.' One can see this with 330Neos competing with A350s, depriving both of scale and having Airbus competing with itself on price. This isn't a Coca-Cola Freestyle Machine where infinite variants are cranked out with small variations of ingredients and effectively zero validation or tooling costs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Freestyle

I have to wonder what they could get (passenger/payload capacity, CASM) with a budget of $x,xxx million and timeline of x years for a 767-x that they couldn't get with a new variation starting with a 787-8.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 5:44 pm

Revelation wrote:
planecane wrote:
Why would Boeing take on the expense of crazy modifications like a new wing for such a limited market? Wouldn't it make more sense just to make whatever changes are necessary to support new engines so the cargo version can keep being sold and then shop it with a low purchase price (relatively) to passenger airlines? I would think the biggest benefit to an airline of a 767NG would be low acquisition cost and also a short program so it is available sooner.

Maybe sculpting the sidewalls would make sense if it allows 17" seats at 8ab because that would significantly reduce CASM and make it more marketable. But the expense of a brand new wing seems like it would make the aircraft too expensive for a limited market.

We know wing span is an issue. 787-3 tried to stay at 767 span to fit 767 gates by truncating the 787-8 wing with winglets but it was a failure. 767 is preferred by UPS and FX and USAF in part due to the need to fit existing gates/docks/hangars.

I agree the expense of a new wing and/or expense of updating systems to make 767 compatible with 787/777x would be too much for any project in the near term. Also the new engine isn't needed till 2028. It means we'll see nothing in this space for several years.

Above Calhoun said what they are spending their money on, which is manufacturing and engineering tech so they're ready for the next clean sheet.

RJMAZ wrote:
Forget the GEnx2B engines Boeing would go with a cleansheet engine. The GEnx2B are already half a generation out of date with their 8:1 bypass ratio. By the time a 767NEO arrives the engine would be a full generation out of date.

With a cleansheet engine Boeing will then be able to leapfrog the A330NEO which should make up for the 7ab disadvantage for passenger use. As a freighter a 767NEO would allow the same max payload to fly approximately 15% further.

The GEnx2B at 66,500lb has 5,000lb more thrust than the most powerful 767 engine. The engine also weighs 30% more. A cleansheet engine would fix this issue. GE could pick the best parts of the LEAP and Ge9X engines to make a something with these rough specs. 11:1 bypass ratio, 55,000lb thrust, 4500kg weight, 100inch fan diameter.

The biggest problem is the new engines will change the role of the 767. The A330NEO turned the A330 from a medium/long haul aircraft to a true long haul aircraft that began to compete with their larger A350. Boeing has discontinued all the lighter non-ER parts so the parts would be rated for the full 188t MTOW. 767NEO would then see the 767-200 and 767-300 fuselage lengths have a range of 8000nm and 7000nm respectively.

This instantly rules out the 200 fuselage length as it would be over capable like the A330-800. The 300 length is what the freighters use so that makes it easy to take a stock 767F and add a brand new engine. Maybe some 737MAX style winglets that do not increase wingspan.

I would go as far as saying Boeing could even do a simple stretch of this 767NEO to create a lightweight 767-400NEO. The 767-400ER gained 17t in MTOW and 13t in empty weight. By keeping the lower 188t MTOW the empty weight would only go up by half of that increase to probably less than 6t. With an empty weight clearly under 100t this would create an aircraft that would fill the role of a lightweight 787-8 or a revived 787-3.

Yes, as you say the weight needed to carry the ER is baked in to the 767 now.

The trend for new engines to be heavier is hard to dismiss. You are generating higher temperatures and pressures to get the desired economy. The fan blades are bigger so they have more energy so the containment needs to be heavier. Their size also means the nacelles are heavier. There is no simple way around this.

So the ER itself is heavier than desired and the new engine is also heavier than desired. The efficiency gain of the new engine is great but it means you end up with huge and relatively empty tanks so the wings are bigger than needed, the gear is heavier than needed, etc.

This is why Boeing was heading down the NMA path. A simple band-aid fix isn't going to work.


Nope it's not that is why they need to start with the 143T 762. Most of the parts would be new (wing/wingbox/tail/ probably gear) so they can be right sized.

If you literally stayed with that size you should be able to make it lighter and with new more efficient engines potentially get to 5,500NM at less than 143T - that is where it could be interesting - especially with sculpted sidewalls to allow 8W.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9666
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 7:27 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
How often does Boeing want to leapfrog the A330? Did the 787 not already achieve this? Or in other words, if it leapfrogs the A330NEO, it leapfrogs the 787 as well.


For that to be true it would require the A330NEO to have leapfrogged the 787 - and it very clearly did not. See backlog (real backlog - operators with an airline and money), deliveries, and operator list.

There are risks to big, long-term capital programs that 'Are a little better but not out best.' One can see this with 330Neos competing with A350s, depriving both of scale and having Airbus competing with itself on price. This isn't a Coca-Cola Freestyle Machine where infinite variants are cranked out with small variations of ingredients and effectively zero validation or tooling costs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_Freestyle

I have to wonder what they could get (passenger/payload capacity, CASM) with a budget of $x,xxx million and timeline of x years for a 767-x that they couldn't get with a new variation starting with a 787-8.


The A330 is about as big in capacity as 787-8/9 and a little bit worse in performance and therefore it is not selling. But a 767 that would be better than a A330NEO in CASM would be equal to the 787-8/9 in CASM, while being the smaller plane. And once the smaller and cheaper plane has the same CASM it is the better choice. (especially as a 763ER with 15% less fuel burn will have plenty of range for most airline needs)
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5027
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

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

Sun May 03, 2020 7:35 pm

Antaras wrote:
Opus99 wrote:
i kinda like the name '757+'


I want to naming three new version of 757: 757X, 757XS and 757XS Max :duck:
Those literally make sense.

B757-5, 767-6
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 10:06 pm

Devilfish wrote:
Yeah, right. Boeing and the other OEM would squander a leading edge engine on a 40-year old airframe design.

They would. A few years later GE can turn the core up on this cleansheet engine, fit a larger fan and they then have the 787NEO engine.

As an engine core matures and gains reliability we usually see improved thrust versions. Take the GE90 for example. It gained 20% extra thrust with a 5inch bigger fan for the 777W. Going from the 777-200 to the 777-200LR was a 40% increase in MTOW. Going from the 767 to 787 is only a 35% increase in MTOW. So a cleansheet 767NEO engine in 2025 can then evolve into a 787NEO engine in 2030.

Many successful engines evolved from a smaller engine. Going the other way, derated engines or engines that are based off a bigger engines core never work well. The Trent 500 and GenX2B all have worse SFC than their larger cousins.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Sun May 03, 2020 10:25 pm

morrisond wrote:
Nope it's not that is why they need to start with the 143T 762. Most of the parts would be new (wing/wingbox/tail/ probably gear) so they can be right sized.

This would now be a passenger only version. A freighter version would not be able to share development costs. Compared to a simple NEO the development cost would be close to $10 billion and half that of a cleansheet.

Both the A330NEO and A320NEO cost under $2 billion and they also included small MTOW increases and aero tweaks. The current 767 freighter might fade away after 50 extra aircraft. A NEO might see 200 additional freighters thanks to a 15% payload/range improvement allowing it to replace MD-11's. Boeing would only need to sell 200 passenger versions for it to be a sales success. 400 767NEO aircraft sold means only $5 million per aircraft is needed to cover development cost.

The USAF would love a KC-46 that had 15% greater range that means more fuel offload. There is another round of tanker purchases to come.

Now a $10billion 767 rewing if we assume the same $5 million per aircraft to pay for development Boeing now needs to sell 2000 aircraft to cover development.

This is why the simple 767NEO is less risk. GE would fund the engine development to get solesource. I am sure Boeing could put in the contract that GE also gets sole source on the 787NEO with an uprated version. That is a very big incentive and protects GE if the 767NEO only sells a small number of aircraft.

A simple 767NEO does result in an aircraft with much greater range than the original 797 cleansheet. It does fill the upper end of the MOM gap under the 787-8.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 12:17 am

RJMAZ wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Nope it's not that is why they need to start with the 143T 762. Most of the parts would be new (wing/wingbox/tail/ probably gear) so they can be right sized.

This would now be a passenger only version. A freighter version would not be able to share development costs. Compared to a simple NEO the development cost would be close to $10 billion and half that of a cleansheet.

Both the A330NEO and A320NEO cost under $2 billion and they also included small MTOW increases and aero tweaks. The current 767 freighter might fade away after 50 extra aircraft. A NEO might see 200 additional freighters thanks to a 15% payload/range improvement allowing it to replace MD-11's. Boeing would only need to sell 200 passenger versions for it to be a sales success. 400 767NEO aircraft sold means only $5 million per aircraft is needed to cover development cost.

The USAF would love a KC-46 that had 15% greater range that means more fuel offload. There is another round of tanker purchases to come.

Now a $10billion 767 rewing if we assume the same $5 million per aircraft to pay for development Boeing now needs to sell 2000 aircraft to cover development.

This is why the simple 767NEO is less risk. GE would fund the engine development to get solesource. I am sure Boeing could put in the contract that GE also gets sole source on the 787NEO with an uprated version. That is a very big incentive and protects GE if the 767NEO only sells a small number of aircraft.

A simple 767NEO does result in an aircraft with much greater range than the original 797 cleansheet. It does fill the upper end of the MOM gap under the 787-8.


You have to careful to not make an aircraft too capable or it carries around way too much structure.

You also have to think that if they do do an 767X it would have a midlife update where it got more efficient - you don't need it to go 7,000NM and you don't need a reengined 763 or 764 to go 7,000NM. It will not be that efficient as a passenger aircraft.

What is making the A321 XLR so attractive is that it will be quite efficient at middle distances as it is so light. As it engines have gotten more and more efficient it just goes a lot farther - the Aero changes have been minimal.

A simple reengine is indeed the simplest - however according to some sources the whole 777X program which I assume includes the wing factory is $8-10Billion.

Yes you are right on the 143T would not be enough for a freighter the 763F has an MTOW of 187T. However with the scope of possible changes you could cary the same payload with a lot less fuel so much less MTOW is needed.

It could burn 10-20T less fuel if fully optimized with new Wing/ systems as an 767X meaning a MTOW of maybe 170T is needed - which means lighter gear/ less thrust, lighter wing box etc. It may not need more range as a freighter.

I'm sure there would be more than 1 model - so multiple MTOW are definitely possible.

Also sculpting the sidewalls to get to 8W in Y means for a given capacity it can be shorter - which means lighter. Who knows what lengths they would pick but they don't need to be 200 and 300 lengths given all they really would be using is the nose and outer mold line of the cross section and maybe the lower lobe - they could do an 150 and 250 (45M and 50M) further saving weight - maybe not great for the freighter but who knows.

I said it many times in the NMA debates - I thought people were thinking NMA would be a lot larger than reality. In reality you want it bigger than an A321 or potential A322 - but not that much bigger.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 1:25 am

morrisond wrote:
You have to careful to not make an aircraft too capable or it carries around way too much structure.

You also have to think that if they do do an 767X it would have a midlife update where it got more efficient - you don't need it to go 7,000NM and you don't need a reengined 763 or 764 to go 7,000NM. It will not be that efficient as a passenger aircraft.

The freighter and tanker versions would love that extra capability. As a passenger version it would be highly capable and would be too capable to sit in the middle of the MOM space. It would still sit in the top end if the MOM space and sit clearly under the 787-8.

767-300 188m2
787-8 232m2
787-9 265m2
787-10 300m2

The 767-300 is smaller than a potential 6m shrink of the 787-8. At an estimated 90t OEW for the 767X it would be 75% of the weight of the 787-8 but have 81% of the cabin area. That is the cabin to weight ratio that Boeing dreamed the 787-3 could reach. This is still keeping all the heavy bits shared with the freighter.

History shows 6,500nm to 7,000nm is the transpacific sweet spot. The 767-300ER has 5980nm with only 218 passengers in a 3 class cabin. With state of the art engines this would push this to 7000nm at most. At higher density cabins say 7ab full econony 30inch pitch the 767X would seat 300 passengers and it would lose 1000nm and be back below 6000nm. It would be well below what is determined as over capable.

morrisond wrote:
What is making the A321 XLR so attractive is that it will be quite efficient at middle distances as it is so light. As it engines have gotten more and more efficient it just goes a lot farther - the Aero changes have been minimal.
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 and keeping the freighter commonality.


morrisond wrote:
Also sculpting the sidewalls to get to 8W in Y means for a given capacity it can be shorter - which means lighter.
I like the sculping idea but it depends on the cost. 7ab with slim seats and reduced pitch can still improve density. The 9ab A330's have to run 32/33inch pitch to compensate. Airlines could run 29inch pitch with 7ab for similar results. Again this depends on the scuplting cost. Boeing would know with the 777X program.

Keeping the 767-300 fuselage length with 8ab puts it up to 350 passengers all economy. The extra passenger weight would put range down below 5000nm and this is still keeping commonality with the freighter version. You are now at A300NEO capacity and performance and even closer to 787-3 performance. I still see this as well below the existing widebody models.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 2:25 am

We know that Boeing was quite far along with the cleansheet 797 design. Engines even went out for tender. Maybe 50% of the design work was complete. Boeing would not scrap this develooment to then make a lightweight or rewinged 767.

The design work to do this to a 767 might cost more than the remaining design work on the 797. This is why I expect any 767X to be a quick and simple NEO.

I would also expect the engines proposed and selected for the 797 to be suitble for the 767X. These cleansheet engines might only need a 10% thrust bump to reach the required thrust level for the 767X. Airbus did this with the XWB-94 quite successfully while maintaining the existing fan.

GE was the front runner for the 797 engine. Rumours mentioned "up to 48,000lb" of thrust which is already at the level used on the original 767-200. It is highly likely this cleansheet engine would get used on the 767X instead of an out of date and overweight GEnx2B.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 7:59 am

A re-enginining of the 767 has been looked for more then 15 years.

Boeing IMO should using the modifications developed and certified for the tankers and latest 767F's.

New wings would be nice if lead time & funding weren't an issue. They are.

The 767-200 as a basis seems short / heav0y. the 400 fully overlapping with the 787.

The -300 seems a nice spot. The 763's 90t empty weight is 30t (!) less than 787 and A330.

That should trickle down in lower operating costs in all areas.

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Sokes
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Mon May 04, 2020 8:05 am

morrisond wrote:
A simple reengine is indeed the simplest - however according to some sources the whole 777X program which I assume includes the wing factory is $8-10Billion.

That's a very interesting point. B787 and A350 were very expensive to develop. But they also included a lot of new tech. That's all developed now. So I think it's wrong to assume that the next clean-sheet will be anywhere close to those development costs. Maybe closer to A220 development cost?

morrisond wrote:
Yes you are right on the 143T would not be enough for a freighter the 763F has an MTOW of 187T. However with the scope of possible changes you could cary the same payload with a lot less fuel so much less MTOW is needed.
...
Who knows what lengths they would pick but they don't need to be 200 and 300 lengths given all they really would be using is the nose and outer mold line of the cross section and maybe the lower lobe - they could do an 150 and 250 (45M and 50M) further saving weight - maybe not great for the freighter but who knows.


I agree. For it's wing the MTOW of the A321 is too high. As you said, it can fly long, but is best in medium distances. I guess 130 t (6 abreast)- 170 t (7 abreast) would make a good NMA. The 6 abreast plane would be rather long, the 7 abreast plane rather short. There is no point in making a long 7 abreast plane.

I don't know if one can compare CASM of A321 with CASM of B767. For transcontinental US 7 abreast may not be able to compete on CASM.
There may be international city pairs for whom A330 is too big, but who need little cargo capacity. And a B767 can offer a better business class.
To compete with B757 Airbus can just put a new wing on A321. How can Airbus compete with a short 7 abreast plane?
I therefore believe a new 7 abreast plane should be rather shorter than B767-300ER and have low MTOW.

morrisond wrote:
Also sculpting the sidewalls to get to 8W in Y means for a given capacity it can be shorter - which means lighter.

I was already wondering that we agree on everything. However: The B767 has the advantage over the A321 that it can carry some cargo. A few inch broader fuselage doesn't matter. The plane is 38 cm higher than wide. There isn't massive wasted crown space as in B777. So I doubt sculpting sidewalls is a good idea.
If 8 abreast, why not A330?

Image
source: p.30, https://www.slideshare.net/Silver1982/767-2960717

I was under the impression that engine makers didn't want to commit. But somebody mentioned that engine makers were ready and Boeing withdrew. Anybody has any links?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
aerohottie
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:52 pm

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

Mon May 04, 2020 8:07 am

keesje wrote:
A re-enginining of the 767 has been looked for more then 15 years.

Boeing IMO should using the modifications developed and certified for the tankers and latest 767F's.

New wings would be nice if lead time & funding weren't an issue. They are.

The 767-200 as a basis seems short / heav0y. the 400 fully overlapping with the 787.

The -300 seems a nice spot. The 763's 90t empty weight is 30t (!) less than 787 and A330.

That should trickle down in lower operating costs in all areas.

Image

I've been thinking about this too, but think a B767-3.5, sized between the 767-300 and 767-400 would be in a perfect sweet-spot
 
Checklist787
Posts: 566
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2019 2:37 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 9:02 am

aerohottie wrote:
keesje wrote:
A re-enginining of the 767 has been looked for more then 15 years.

Boeing IMO should using the modifications developed and certified for the tankers and latest 767F's.

New wings would be nice if lead time & funding weren't an issue. They are.

The 767-200 as a basis seems short / heav0y. the 400 fully overlapping with the 787.

The -300 seems a nice spot. The 763's 90t empty weight is 30t (!) less than 787 and A330.

That should trickle down in lower operating costs in all areas.

Image

I've been thinking about this too, but think a B767-3.5, sized between the 767-300 and 767-400 would be in a perfect sweet-spot


I totally agree.

A half size between the 767-300 and -400 seems perfect in addition to an ALL NEW CFRP wing, wing box, NEW systems...

New curved big bins à la 777-X for even more space cabin..

A scaled down GE9X engines, more advanced engine than the GEnx IMHO
"No limit to my poooWer!!!
Do it! "...
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 9:58 am

Carbon wing, new wingbox, new system, new engines, unique fuselage length. That sounds close to a clean sheet and very expensive.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 10:19 am

RJMAZ wrote:
Carbon wing, new wingbox, new system, new engines, unique fuselage length. That sounds close to a clean sheet and very expensive.


It is and it would be a certification nightmare especially after MAX. I do not think Boeing will throw money at something like this. Chances are really high that Boeing will not throw money at anything except gradual increases of the MAX and 787s. There are still huge Bills to pay and the 25B$ just organised will only be enough to pay the MAX fiasco and keep the company on the road. If they would have taken 50B$ we might see a new aircraft, with 25B$ it is just for survival.

How much did Airbus have? Also somewhere around 25-30B$ in credit lines? That is also just enough to pay the bills, if even. So Boeing is in the same situation, a bit more money from the military side but also more costs coming from MAX especially when the real settlements need to be paid.

What announcements we will see from 2025 onwards? I guess plans for a new single aisle in the 140-220 seat range to compete against the A220 and the A320 and replace the MAX. The MOM-Gap? Will probably lay bare for another 15 years for Boeing. It is the worst time to take a risk right now in the aviation industry, and will be for a good 3-5 more years. Any new launch will just mean easy deferrals to a new model for customers and the death of current lines (787, I am looking at you). Anything remotely close to the 787 will costs sales right now. Boeing has to shield that money maker from everything even from its own products (777-8 will therefore never happen, they will rather improve the range on the 787-9).
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 9666
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 12:01 pm

Most people see a crisis, visionaries see a chance. A MoM is probably the perfect aircraft from the air travel needs under the new normal. It has the potential to sell by the thousands and that in a situation in which the competition lacks the financial means to counter it. It is now or never for Boeing to deliver.
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 12:38 pm

Lets look at the MOM gap.
A321: 127m2 cabin 51t OEW
787-8: 232m2 cabin 119t OEW

Half way between the two would be 179m2 cabin and 85t OEW. The 767-300ER is 188m2 and 90t OEW and is just over the halfway point in both metrics. It is not too heavy.

If Boeing wants to end 787-8 production and the 787-9 is now the top end of the MOM gap then the 767-300ER is actually smaller and lighter than the halfway point. A simple NEO is the best solution.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10350
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

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

Mon May 04, 2020 12:49 pm

seahawk wrote:
Most people see a crisis, visionaries see a chance. A MoM is probably the perfect aircraft from the air travel needs under the new normal. It has the potential to sell by the thousands and that in a situation in which the competition lacks the financial means to counter it. It is now or never for Boeing to deliver.

In the current environment one also has to consider what changes to the existing 767 base infrastructure the regulators will require for the a/c to be approved, one can be sure that all will be safety related.
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 723
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 12:59 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Lets look at the MOM gap.
A321: 127m2 cabin 51t OEW
787-8: 232m2 cabin 119t OEW

Half way between the two would be 179m2 cabin and 85t OEW. The 767-300ER is 188m2 and 90t OEW and is just over the halfway point in both metrics. It is not too heavy.

If Boeing wants to end 787-8 production and the 787-9 is now the top end of the MOM gap then the 767-300ER is actually smaller and lighter than the halfway point. A simple NEO is the best solution.


I say so, same as an A300Neo. Both would fit perfect into the gap and have the tools somewhat ready in the still running 767F/Tanker line and for Airbus in the A330line that could be updated to produce both parallel I guess. Investment would be low for Boeing and low to medium for Airbus.

The problem is, how viable is such a product and how will it influence long term strategy. For Boeing it will definitely cannibalize In my opinion up to 30% of 787 demand and will block a new MoM aircraft until 2040 at least (if it sells well). If Boeing is willing to do that, they could launch it tomorrow.

If Airbus reacts with the A300Neo it would at least keep the A330 line running and might even enhance chances of A330 sales if the A300/330 will have full comonality. It might depress sales of A350 and probably reduce margins on the XLR. Costs would be also relatively cheap but more than Boeing because the A300 is practically gone and lives only as an strengthened A330. If both would go that way, it will be interesting and a straight head on in a market that is relatively small and already challenged by the XLR. Who would win? Will both lose?

Still I agree with RJMAZ, if something gets launched by Boeing its a 767NG (doubt Neo would work). Everything else is just not a smart business solution at all, as boring as it is for aviation enthusiasts.
 
User avatar
Antaras
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 1:15 pm

keesje wrote:
Image

Anything but not the "Max" naming.
However, nice illustration.
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 1:44 pm

Sokes wrote:
morrisond wrote:
A simple reengine is indeed the simplest - however according to some sources the whole 777X program which I assume includes the wing factory is $8-10Billion.

That's a very interesting point. B787 and A350 were very expensive to develop. But they also included a lot of new tech. That's all developed now. So I think it's wrong to assume that the next clean-sheet will be anywhere close to those development costs. Maybe closer to A220 development cost?

morrisond wrote:
Yes you are right on the 143T would not be enough for a freighter the 763F has an MTOW of 187T. However with the scope of possible changes you could cary the same payload with a lot less fuel so much less MTOW is needed.
...
Who knows what lengths they would pick but they don't need to be 200 and 300 lengths given all they really would be using is the nose and outer mold line of the cross section and maybe the lower lobe - they could do an 150 and 250 (45M and 50M) further saving weight - maybe not great for the freighter but who knows.


I agree. For it's wing the MTOW of the A321 is too high. As you said, it can fly long, but is best in medium distances. I guess 130 t (6 abreast)- 170 t (7 abreast) would make a good NMA. The 6 abreast plane would be rather long, the 7 abreast plane rather short. There is no point in making a long 7 abreast plane.

I don't know if one can compare CASM of A321 with CASM of B767. For transcontinental US 7 abreast may not be able to compete on CASM.
There may be international city pairs for whom A330 is too big, but who need little cargo capacity. And a B767 can offer a better business class.
To compete with B757 Airbus can just put a new wing on A321. How can Airbus compete with a short 7 abreast plane?
I therefore believe a new 7 abreast plane should be rather shorter than B767-300ER and have low MTOW.

morrisond wrote:
Also sculpting the sidewalls to get to 8W in Y means for a given capacity it can be shorter - which means lighter.

I was already wondering that we agree on everything. However: The B767 has the advantage over the A321 that it can carry some cargo. A few inch broader fuselage doesn't matter. The plane is 38 cm higher than wide. There isn't massive wasted crown space as in B777. So I doubt sculpting sidewalls is a good idea.
If 8 abreast, why not A330?

Image
source: p.30, https://www.slideshare.net/Silver1982/767-2960717

I was under the impression that engine makers didn't want to commit. But somebody mentioned that engine makers were ready and Boeing withdrew. Anybody has any links?


That's where the 767x makes sense - it's probably a lot cheaper to develop. You would be using all proven parts and a downsize of the 777x wing. Very low capital costs as well as you have the brand spanking new wing factory and you already have a 767 line.

They did the whole A220 for $7B including capital costs. You literally start with a 777X wing shape - hit reduce on the photo copier and then figure out the internal structure/skin thickness. I know not that simple - but you don't to do years of aero research.

They should be able to have models flying in the tunnel in a very short time.

Use a complete 777X control system and cockpit with appropriately sized actuators. No need to develop much if anything.

The fuselage would not be any broader. It would be 4" Wider inside just like the 777x which has tapered (they produce less into the passenger cabin) at seat/head height so the out board seats can be pushed out 2" further on each side.
 
744SPX
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 6:20 pm

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

Mon May 04, 2020 1:59 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Forget the GEnx2B engines Boeing would go with a cleansheet engine. The GEnx2B are already half a generation out of date with their 8:1 bypass ratio. By the time a 767NEO arrives the engine would be a full generation out of date.

With a cleansheet engine Boeing will then be able to leapfrog the A330NEO which should make up for the 7ab disadvantage for passenger use. As a freighter a 767NEO would allow the same max payload to fly approximately 15% further.

The GEnx2B at 66,500lb has 5,000lb more thrust than the most powerful 767 engine. The engine also weighs 30% more. A cleansheet engine would fix this issue. GE could pick the best parts of the LEAP and Ge9X engines to make a something with these rough specs. 11:1 bypass ratio, 55,000lb thrust, 4500kg weight, 100inch fan diameter.

The biggest problem is the new engines will change the role of the 767. The A330NEO turned the A330 from a medium/long haul aircraft to a true long haul aircraft that began to compete with their larger A350. Boeing has discontinued all the lighter non-ER parts so the parts would be rated for the full 188t MTOW. 767NEO would then see the 767-200 and 767-300 fuselage lengths have a range of 8000nm and 7000nm respectively.

This instantly rules out the 200 fuselage length as it would be over capable like the A330-800. The 300 length is what the freighters use so that makes it easy to take a stock 767F and add a brand new engine. Maybe some 737MAX style winglets that do not increase wingspan.

I would go as far as saying Boeing could even do a simple stretch of this 767NEO to create a lightweight 767-400NEO. The 767-400ER gained 17t in MTOW and 13t in empty weight. By keeping the lower 188t MTOW the empty weight would only go up by half of that increase to probably less than 6t. With an empty weight clearly under 100t this would create an aircraft that would fill the role of a lightweight 787-8 or a revived 787-3.


The -2B's bypass ratio does not make it out of date. It is just as new as any GEnx. You could make the same argument about the Trent XWB-97, which instead of a larger fan runs a hotter core and faster fan speed. A new engine would add years to EIS for this aircraft.

Also the CF6-80 C2B8F is rated per Boeing at 63,500 lbs. That is only 3000lbs more than the -2B and the 2B is heavier by almost that amount so no de-rating needed.
 
User avatar
Antaras
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 2:06 pm

744SPX wrote:
Also the CF6-80 C2B8F is rated per Boeing at 63,500 lbs. That is only 3000lbs more than the -2B and the 2B is heavier by almost that amount so no de-rating needed.

Thrust/weight ratio:
CF6-80C2 family: 5.51 to 6.28
GEnx-2B67B: 5.36

As the GEnx-2B's thrust/weight ratio is even worse that the CF6-80C2, I believe that GE (and Boeing) needs to find a way to lighten the GEnx-2B.
Or "at least", a clean-sheet engine.
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
User avatar
Antaras
Posts: 892
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 2:09 pm

Thinking about a derated version of the Trent 7000 on the A330neo.
Or in other words, a derated version of the Trent 1000 on the 787.

Wait a minute, here we go:
Image
@Wikipedia
Edit signature
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 2:29 pm

FluidFlow wrote:
RJMAZ wrote:
Lets look at the MOM gap.
A321: 127m2 cabin 51t OEW
787-8: 232m2 cabin 119t OEW

Half way between the two would be 179m2 cabin and 85t OEW. The 767-300ER is 188m2 and 90t OEW and is just over the halfway point in both metrics. It is not too heavy.

If Boeing wants to end 787-8 production and the 787-9 is now the top end of the MOM gap then the 767-300ER is actually smaller and lighter than the halfway point. A simple NEO is the best solution.


I say so, same as an A300Neo. Both would fit perfect into the gap and have the tools somewhat ready in the still running 767F/Tanker line and for Airbus in the A330line that could be updated to produce both parallel I guess. Investment would be low for Boeing and low to medium for Airbus.

The problem is, how viable is such a product and how will it influence long term strategy. For Boeing it will definitely cannibalize In my opinion up to 30% of 787 demand and will block a new MoM aircraft until 2040 at least (if it sells well). If Boeing is willing to do that, they could launch it tomorrow.

If Airbus reacts with the A300Neo it would at least keep the A330 line running and might even enhance chances of A330 sales if the A300/330 will have full comonality. It might depress sales of A350 and probably reduce margins on the XLR. Costs would be also relatively cheap but more than Boeing because the A300 is practically gone and lives only as an strengthened A330. If both would go that way, it will be interesting and a straight head on in a market that is relatively small and already challenged by the XLR. Who would win? Will both lose?

Still I agree with RJMAZ, if something gets launched by Boeing its a 767NG (doubt Neo would work). Everything else is just not a smart business solution at all, as boring as it is for aviation enthusiasts.


Okay then I get the -300 size - that makes it easier as a freighter.

Then I would propose a -200 as the LR Passenger version at 5,500NM Max and -300 at 4,800 NM as the Large Version/freighter.

Using NMA engines. 48M non-folding wing to fit inside 767 Gates. NMA engines should be lighter than GENX 2B - lower thrust - GENX 2B about the same weight as 763ER RR engines.

However the following changes which should allow the OEW to fall.

777X Fly by wire Controls/Cockpit - 1-2T weight reduction
777 Composite Floor Beams for the passenger Version
New 40 Year newer Composite Wing/wingbox that has to carry a lot less fuel to only get to 5,500NM
New Composite tail
New 777/787 style lighter interior

You should be able to lower OEW weight significantly - maybe down to 70-75T for the shorter one and 80-85T for the longer one - combine that with lower fuel needed means the MTOW can fall a lot or capability improve hugely - not needed for passenger version/ Freighter probably doesn't need it either- but it could be nice for the tanker

MAX MTOW probably doesn't need to be much more than 170T. Which could still allow 96T Fuel on tanker like KC-46
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24568
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon May 04, 2020 2:55 pm

keesje wrote:
A re-enginining of the 767 has been looked for more then 15 years.

Boeing IMO should using the modifications developed and certified for the tankers and latest 767F's.

New wings would be nice if lead time & funding weren't an issue. They are.

The 767-200 as a basis seems short / heav0y. the 400 fully overlapping with the 787.

The -300 seems a nice spot. The 763's 90t empty weight is 30t (!) less than 787 and A330.

That should trickle down in lower operating costs in all areas.

Yes, reuse of tech saves money, 767MAX, 77X, etc.

Somehow you advocate it for 767 but strongly oppose it for 77X.

Strange world we live in.

RJMAZ wrote:
Now a $10billion 767 rewing if we assume the same $5 million per aircraft to pay for development Boeing now needs to sell 2000 aircraft to cover development.

We could say the same for 77X which is getting a new wing but no one thinks will ever sell 2000 units.

We should keep in mind that EK was offering to buy 50 A380s i.e. 400 engines plus spares to get a NEO done, but the business case did not close. Now both RR and GE are laying people off and won't have any interest in a new engine for a niche market.

I think we'd need to see launch commitments for >100 aircraft / >200 engines plus a market projection beyond that of NMA (market size 2000-4000 units with NMA capturing ~1000 units) to get an engine maker to commit, and that isn't going to be happening for a long time to come.

I think GE would do a little bit of work to get GEnX-2B onto 767 but I can't see a new engine happening.

seahawk wrote:
Most people see a crisis, visionaries see a chance. A MoM is probably the perfect aircraft from the air travel needs under the new normal. It has the potential to sell by the thousands and that in a situation in which the competition lacks the financial means to counter it. It is now or never for Boeing to deliver.

The new normal is going to be less international travel due to border restrictions and weak economic circumstances. Unfortunately for Boeing that still says something like A321XLR is the way to go. Given how light it will be when the pax are "socially distanced" its range will be crazy long. Any more range requirement puts you into widebody territory.

I think the MOM's day is gone for another decade or so. It was a creation of the boom of the 00s and 10s. Even then it fell short of getting a clean sheet investment. It will take a full traffic and economic rebound till we need something for this market segment. Till then the market will "abuse" A321/MAX10 and 787/A330. We see now that AA and AC have announced 767 retirement. The time to sell into that market has passed.

morrisond wrote:
Use a complete 777X control system and cockpit with appropriately sized actuators.

If you do this, it stops becoming a 767 from the certification, training and maintenance points of view.

It becomes its own type, with unique training and certification requirements, i.e. you lose a lot of the cost advantages of being a '767'.

This is the place Boeing really did not want to go to on the MAX program.

77X is taking in selected 787 systems upgrades but it's starting from a FBW base so it is largely a like kind substitution.

767 is a digital cockpit but flies by cable not by wire. All the control tech is different.
Last edited by Revelation on Mon May 04, 2020 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
 
hiflyeras
Posts: 2263
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:48 pm

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

Mon May 04, 2020 3:35 pm

Antaras wrote:
keesje wrote:
Image

Anything but not the "Max" naming.
However, nice illustration.


With no L2 door forward of the wing it just looks like a fat 37M
Last edited by hiflyeras on Mon May 04, 2020 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
GEUltraFan9XGTF
Posts: 385
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2018 3:31 pm

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

Mon May 04, 2020 7:20 pm

I think Keesje should redo his rendering with the >< type winglets instead...
© 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: 1785
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

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

Mon May 04, 2020 7:27 pm

RJMAZ wrote:
Lets look at the MOM gap.
A321: 127m2 cabin 51t OEW
787-8: 232m2 cabin 119t OEW

Half way between the two would be 179m2 cabin and 85t OEW. The 767-300ER is 188m2 and 90t OEW and is just over the halfway point in both metrics. It is not too heavy.

If Boeing wants to end 787-8 production and the 787-9 is now the top end of the MOM gap then the 767-300ER is actually smaller and lighter than the halfway point. A simple NEO is the best solution.

I use your numbers.
If capacity between models is supposed to increase percentage wise the calculation is like this:
119t OEW / 51 t OEW = 2,33 = 1,53 x 1,53
51 t x 1,53 = 78 t
78 t x 1,53 = 119,3 t

232sqmt / 127 sqmt = 1.83 = 1,35 x 1,35

Seen another way 53% more OEW and 35% more cabin area is in the middle. But this ignores a change in aisle percentage.

127 sqmt x 6/7 = 109 sqmt seat area A321
232 sqmt x 9/11 = 190 sqmt seat area B787-8
190 sqmt/ 109 sqmt = 1,74 = 1,32 x 1,32
109 sqmt x 1,32 = 144 sqmt seat area
144 sqmt seat area x 9/7 = 185 sqmt cabin area

With 188 sqmt cabin area the B767-300ER sits quite exact between A321 and B787-8 concerning economy passenger seats area. However considering OEW the middle would be at 78 t. The B767-200 has 80 t OEW.
Compared to A321 the B767-300ER has (90 t / 51 t = 1,76) 76% more OEW for 32% more economy seat area.

I don't think a 7 abreast plane can compete with a six abreast plane when it comes to seats. One has to focus on weight. It's meant for transatlantic or for flights with cargo which an A321 isn't capable of. It's not meant for transcontinental US.

The -200 (not ER) already had the 47,6 m wing, but a MTOW of only 143 t. The -200ER has a MTOW of 179 t.
48,5 m (= -200) length and 170 t MTOW sounds about right. The -300ER is 55m long and has 187 t MTOW. I believe too heavy and too long. But if a freighter is desired and if it's only reengined, why not?

I assume a 130 t MTOW 6 abreast plane would be good for transcontinental US. I believe one has to choose the purpose before deciding for 6 or 7 abreast.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
LightningZ71
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:59 pm

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

Mon May 04, 2020 8:00 pm

I find it hard to believe that it won't just be a lengthened 767-2c, stretched out a few frames past 763 length, with the GenX2B engines and any needed 764 parts to deal with the extra MTOW and bigger engines. Changing anything else, aside from a diet, makes it needlessly capable and adds a whole bunch of costs.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 8:02 pm

Revelation wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Use a complete 777X control system and cockpit with appropriately sized actuators.

If you do this, it stops becoming a 767 from the certification, training and maintenance points of view.

It becomes its own type, with unique training and certification requirements, i.e. you lose a lot of the cost advantages of being a '767'.

This is the place Boeing really did not want to go to on the MAX program.

77X is taking in selected 787 systems upgrades but it's starting from a FBW base so it is largely a like kind substitution.

767 is a digital cockpit but flies by cable not by wire. All the control tech is different.


I won't be surprised by a new type certificate and expect it as this really would be a new airplane but at least a lot of the tech should be grandfathered.

By the time it entered service there would not be many pilots certified to fly an 767 anyways - so a common type rating with 787/777X could be better. I would have to guess the 787/777x cockpit/control system would save a bunch of weight as well and make it a lot more adaptable for future tech. All Boeing wide bodies would then be on the same tech.

You are probably right on the engine as well - unless there was some secret NMA engine project that is quite advanced already.

If they do reuse 748 engines (maybe with a PIP) then they could have it flying by 2025/2026. They do have an GEnx-1B54/P2 listed as an option with 57T of thrust - I know that is the 787 Engine with bleed less design - no reason they couldn't derate the 2B as well. It could be better for time on wing for shorter Asian and freighter stage lengths.

How much better would CMC components make it? It could be a great first engine to use that tech as it would be rated so low and not stressed too much.

Covid will pass and traffic will recover(eventually) - the 777X will probably feel it the most with orders shifting to smaller 767X/787.

A 767x is not a lot of capital cost for Boeing and if you have the Engineers sitting around anyways you might as well have them do something.

The bulk of the capital they would have to spend wouldn't be for at least 2 years.

Lots of good stuff on the GENX in here https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... 191213.pdf
Last edited by morrisond on Mon May 04, 2020 8:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 8:05 pm

LightningZ71 wrote:
I find it hard to believe that it won't just be a lengthened 767-2c, stretched out a few frames past 763 length, with the GenX2B engines and any needed 764 parts to deal with the extra MTOW and bigger engines. Changing anything else, aside from a diet, makes it needlessly capable and adds a whole bunch of costs.


Without a new wing - the whole thing is just too heavy and Capable and would easily be over 7,000NM range just with the new engines, and interior and not that efficient. Not really a MOM aircraft.

But who knows - whatever the customer will buy.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1905
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 8:06 pm

seahawk wrote:
Most people see a crisis, visionaries see a chance. A MoM is probably the perfect aircraft from the air travel needs under the new normal. It has the potential to sell by the thousands and that in a situation in which the competition lacks the financial means to counter it. It is now or never for Boeing to deliver.


Money and time. Does Boeing have either at this stage to launch the MOM? I would say no to either right now. They will be short of money until the 737 MAX is back and delivering at close to the levels before the grounding and the 787 and 777X gets a boost in production. It seems more likely you will see more cutbacks on deliveries in the short term on these models than increases.

As for time, let's say it takes 3 years for a return to these conditions, can Boeing launch a new model with new production facilities in 3 years to take advantage of this "new normal"?
 
marcelh
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 12:43 pm

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

Mon May 04, 2020 8:25 pm

Checklist787 wrote:
A half size between the 767-300 and -400 seems perfect in addition to a..... scaled down GE9X engines


That should do the trick. A nice plane to fly 8 hrs, perfectly between the NB and the bigger, more capable WB. Only Boeing is a decade too late to announce it...
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 8:55 pm

Revelation wrote:
keesje wrote:
A re-enginining of the 767 has been looked for more then 15 years.

Boeing IMO should using the modifications developed and certified for the tankers and latest 767F's.

New wings would be nice if lead time & funding weren't an issue. They are.

The 767-200 as a basis seems short / heav0y. the 400 fully overlapping with the 787.

The -300 seems a nice spot. The 763's 90t empty weight is 30t (!) less than 787 and A330.

That should trickle down in lower operating costs in all areas.

Yes, reuse of tech saves money, 767MAX, 77X, etc.

Somehow you advocate it for 767 but strongly oppose it for 77X.

Strange world we live in.


Yes, indeed. But unlike a 767 re engining, the 777x doesn’t Reuse much tech. It used the 777 certification base to grandfather in new wings engines, tail, fuselage. Many insiders, Boeing employees, for years stumbling over each other to tell me I saw it wrong. Suggesting deletion, mis-qouting, generalizating, renaming threads. Man, was I miss guided, doubting Boeing - FAA certification.. who did I think I was.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 87.article
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
morrisond
Posts: 2771
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

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

Mon May 04, 2020 10:33 pm

enzo011 wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Most people see a crisis, visionaries see a chance. A MoM is probably the perfect aircraft from the air travel needs under the new normal. It has the potential to sell by the thousands and that in a situation in which the competition lacks the financial means to counter it. It is now or never for Boeing to deliver.


Money and time. Does Boeing have either at this stage to launch the MOM? I would say no to either right now. They will be short of money until the 737 MAX is back and delivering at close to the levels before the grounding and the 787 and 777X gets a boost in production. It seems more likely you will see more cutbacks on deliveries in the short term on these models than increases.

As for time, let's say it takes 3 years for a return to these conditions, can Boeing launch a new model with new production facilities in 3 years to take advantage of this "new normal"?


Umm - Once they start delivering MAX again - the first 400 frames will provide a lot of cash flow - even if they break even on the rest it's not so bad as the rest of Boeing generates over $5B in cash flow.

787 should be positive even at lower rates, 767 will be positive and even 747.

You also have to realize that if they do an 767X - they shouldn't need any new facilities - they have a brand new wing factory that could also make the tail and the 767 line is already existing.

This not about taking advantage of the New Normal - this is the MOM/NMA aircraft, - which if they don't do something like 767X it will probably be mid 2030's before they can fill this space with a derivative of whatever the 737 replacement will be.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24568
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

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

Mon May 04, 2020 10:58 pm

keesje wrote:
Yes, indeed. But unlike a 767 re engining, the 777x doesn’t Reuse much tech. It used the 777 certification base to grandfather in new wings engines, tail, fuselage. Many insiders, Boeing employees, for years stumbling over each other to tell me I saw it wrong. Suggesting deletion, mis-qouting, generalizating, renaming threads. Man, was I miss guided, doubting Boeing - FAA certification.. who did I think I was.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airframers ... 87.article

Don't bury the lede: you are advocating putting a new engine on a 70's non-FBW aircraft that would give it life till the 2050s or so and complaining about 77X getting upgraded with *newer* wings and engines derived from the 00s 787 tech. Your article suggests that it is a bit early to be doing a victory lap on a "possible" change:

Dickson adds that there are too many variables currently to be specific on how it might affect individual aircraft such as the 777X.
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: 7116
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

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

Tue May 05, 2020 1:40 am

morrisond wrote:
If they do reuse 748 engines (maybe with a PIP) then they could have it flying by 2025/2026. They do have an GEnx-1B54/P2 listed as an option with 57T of thrust - I know that is the 787 Engine with bleed less design - no reason they couldn't derate the 2B as well.

GE Aviation no longer lists the -1B54/P2 among its offered engines for the 787 - and I think it also had the 111.1" diameter fan.....

https://www.geaviation.com/commercial/e ... enx-engine


Unless they would do an updated, de-scaled, bleed version for this mooted 767X.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

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

Tue May 05, 2020 1:40 am

FluidFlow wrote:
Still I agree with RJMAZ, if something gets launched by Boeing its a 767NG (doubt Neo would work). Everything else is just not a smart business solution at all, as boring as it is for aviation enthusiasts.

I agree that NG would most likely be the official Boeing name. When I call it the 767NEO I use that name as it best describes the upgrade of only fitting new engines. The A330NEO and A320NEO were pretty much engine only upgrades. They were basic and cost less than $2 billion.

The 737NG and 777X both have a brand new wing that was significantly bigger, a fuselage stretch and new engines. Using 767NG and 767X on here people might think of an extensively upgraded 767 model.

Uprated engines that were proposed for the 797 would be far better than using derated engines off the 747-8. The proposed 797 engine would be lighter and have better fuel burn but that comes at a higher development cost. That extra cost would easily cocer the extra sales it would generate.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 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