Mentioned in the 777XF Specification thread by Morrisond;
Boeings forecast predicts 500-600 planes to be sold in the 767F segment in the next 20 years.

That is quite a lot of metal for a derivative and the question is will either A or B develop a MoM with a freighter derivative. And what should an ideal 767F replacement look like?

Seeing the latest comments from Calhoun, the tech is not there yet to warrant EIS this decade…

JonesNL wrote:

Mentioned in the 777XF Specification thread by Morrisond;
Boeings forecast predicts 500-600 planes to be sold in the 767F segment in the next 20 years.

That is quite a lot of metal for a derivative and the question is will either A or B develop a MoM with a freighter derivative. And what should an ideal 767F replacement look like?

Seeing the latest comments from Calhoun, the tech is not there yet to warrant EIS this decade…

Considering the 767 shares an assembly line with the KC-46, there are benefits to continuing to build 767F variants. If Boeing were to build a 767-400F reengined with the GEnx-2B67B used on the 747-8, the 767 could continue to be used as a freighter platform as it would meet the updated environmental regulations that will be in place at the end of the decade.

More 767s. Boeing will lobby for relief from impending engine restrictions and may buy some time for a future engine option that is approved.

When the final 767F is delivered in 2027 there won't be any direct replacement available, is my guess. Some might not know, but it is the engines on the 767 (and the 777) that is so outdated that these aircraft will not be allowed for further sale. This has been know for quite some time.

It is only 5 years to 2027. Since neither OEM have announced any intention for a new freighter in this class, we can assume there won't be any direct replacement available when 767 production has ended. Production of the military tanker that is based on the 767-2C, the KC-46, might continue, but that is pending on Boeing winning the KC-Y competition against the Lockheed Martin LXMT (Airbus A330).

The only new built freighter that have been rumored is an A321F. A freighter derivative of the A321 might be available for sale in 2027, but it will be smaller and carry less than the 767F.

I think pax to freighter conversions, especially of the A330 and 777 will be what replaces the 767. Of these two, the A330 is closest in size to the 767, but still significantly larger. And of course there will be lots of A321 pax to freighter conversions.

I don't think Boeing will consider an 787-8F nor will Airbus consider an A330-800F.

reidar76 wrote:

When the final 767F is delivered in 2027 there won't be any direct replacement available, is my guess. Some might not know, but it is the engines on the 767 (and the 777) that is so outdated that these aircraft will not be allowed for further sale. This has been know for quite some time.

It is only 5 years to 2027. Since neither OEM have announced any intention for a new freighter in this class, we can assume there won't be any direct replacement available when 767 production has ended. Production of the military tanker that is based on the 767-2C, the KC-46, might continue, but that is pending on Boeing winning the KC-Y competition against the Lockheed Martin LXMT (Airbus A330).

The only new built freighter that have been rumored is an A321F. A freighter derivative of the A321 might be available for sale in 2027, but it will be smaller and carry less than the 767F.

I think pax to freighter conversions, especially of the A330 and 777 will be what replaces the 767. Of these two, the A330 is closest in size to the 767, but still significantly larger. And of course there will be lots of A321 pax to freighter conversions.

I don't think Boeing will consider an 787-8F nor will Airbus consider an A330-800F.

Agreed, I don’t think a re-engine is in the cards and the 767F requires a new clean sheet. Assuming it takes 7 years to develop it needs to be launched in 2025 for EIS 2032. Big question is will the tech be ready enough to launch in 2025…

UPS757Pilot wrote:

More 767s. Boeing will lobby for relief from impending engine restrictions and may buy some time for a future engine option that is approved.

Considering the target date was selected before the pandemic, I wouldn't be surprised it some relief were given. Also if the situation in Ukraine escalates, I could imagine there would be more disruptions in all sorts of regulatory timetables and not just in aviation.

There will be the 777XF for much of the 767F business. With more volume which can be well used for all the internet consumer packages shipping. The market below can be well covered by thousands of used cheap A321s converted to freighters.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Mentioned in the 777XF Specification thread by Morrisond;
Boeings forecast predicts 500-600 planes to be sold in the 767F segment in the next 20 years.

That is quite a lot of metal for a derivative and the question is will either A or B develop a MoM with a freighter derivative. And what should an ideal 767F replacement look like?

Seeing the latest comments from Calhoun, the tech is not there yet to warrant EIS this decade…

Considering the 767 shares an assembly line with the KC-46, there are benefits to continuing to build 767F variants. If Boeing were to build a 767-400F reengined with the GEnx-2B67B used on the 747-8, the 767 could continue to be used as a freighter platform as it would meet the updated environmental regulations that will be in place at the end of the decade.

Yes the 764 has a higher MTOW, a bit bigger wing but still within the 767 size (by inches) but most importantly taller gear that has enough clearance for the GEnX-2B67B, this has about 10% more thrust than the current 763 engines. GE would love to sell more GEnX and end production of the older, this is basically the current GE engine on the 787 except a smaller fan. A stretch of the 763, with these engines it has a good match. As the 744 and the 763 used the exact same engines, much of the tech has been done.

It's a relatively low cost update that will fill in the line around the KC-Y, it might be the frame offered with the KC-Y as well. I don't expect this freighter to proceed until & unless Boeing wins the KC-Y. If they lose it, the 767 line will close.

JayinKitsap wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

Mentioned in the 777XF Specification thread by Morrisond;
Boeings forecast predicts 500-600 planes to be sold in the 767F segment in the next 20 years.

That is quite a lot of metal for a derivative and the question is will either A or B develop a MoM with a freighter derivative. And what should an ideal 767F replacement look like?

Seeing the latest comments from Calhoun, the tech is not there yet to warrant EIS this decade…

Considering the 767 shares an assembly line with the KC-46, there are benefits to continuing to build 767F variants. If Boeing were to build a 767-400F reengined with the GEnx-2B67B used on the 747-8, the 767 could continue to be used as a freighter platform as it would meet the updated environmental regulations that will be in place at the end of the decade.

Yes the 764 has a higher MTOW, a bit bigger wing but still within the 767 size (by inches) but most importantly taller gear that has enough clearance for the GEnX-2B67B, this has about 10% more thrust than the current 763 engines. GE would love to sell more GEnX and end production of the older, this is basically the current GE engine on the 787 except a smaller fan. A stretch of the 763, with these engines it has a good match. As the 744 and the 763 used the exact same engines, much of the tech has been done.

It's a relatively low cost update that will fill in the line around the KC-Y, it might be the frame offered with the KC-Y as well. I don't expect this freighter to proceed until & unless Boeing wins the KC-Y. If they lose it, the 767 line will close.

I find it highly unlikely at Boeing would spend a few billons reviving the 767-400. The 767-400 was a total flop, with only 37 aircraft delivered. It is now about 20 years since production ended. There are many parts that are -400 specific, parts that have been out of production for decades.

It doesn't make sense to: 1) revive a derivative of an aircraft that was originally designed in the 1970s, 2) invest in re-engine this old design, 3) start development of a freighter derivative of the revived 767-400 (flop) derivative, 4) spend years and several more billions trying to get the old thing certified. If Boeing would be able to pull that of, it would be about 50 years after first flight of the 767 this frankenstein monster would enter service. There isn't any future in that kind of investments.

And all this just to sell the 764F at a loss. The reason the 763F is selling, is because it is the cheapest thing available. This 764F thing would be very old and expensive.

reidar76 wrote:

I find it highly unlikely at Boeing would spend a few billons reviving the 767-400. The 767-400 was a total flop, with only 37 aircraft delivered. It is now about 20 years since production ended. There are many parts that are -400 specific, parts that have been out of production for decades.

It doesn't make sense to: 1) revive a derivative of an aircraft that was originally designed in the 1970s, 2) invest in re-engine this old design, 3) start development of a freighter derivative of the revived 767-400 (flop) derivative, 4) spend years and several more billions trying to get the old thing certified. If Boeing would be able to pull that of, it would be about 50 years after first flight of the 767 this frankenstein monster would enter service. There isn't any future in that kind of investments.

And all this just to sell the 764F at a loss. The reason the 763F is selling, is because it is the cheapest thing available. This 764F thing would be very old and expensive.

Why should a 767-400ER MAX F (= 767-500F or 767-8F ?) should cost „billions“ and „more billions“ of dollars? The A330neo has cost Airbus something around 1.5 billion dollars. If Boeing does the exact same - a simple re-engine - it wont cost „billions“ and „more billions“ of dollars.

And of course it would be quite old. But isn’t the A330neo also quite old? I mean its based on the A300/310… The 767 re-engine would play in a class, where age and efficiency are not really the number one problems (for now). So IMO, if they get KC-Y, a 767-500F or -8F is not very unlikely.

ben7x wrote:

reidar76 wrote:

I find it highly unlikely at Boeing would spend a few billons reviving the 767-400. The 767-400 was a total flop, with only 37 aircraft delivered. It is now about 20 years since production ended. There are many parts that are -400 specific, parts that have been out of production for decades.

It doesn't make sense to: 1) revive a derivative of an aircraft that was originally designed in the 1970s, 2) invest in re-engine this old design, 3) start development of a freighter derivative of the revived 767-400 (flop) derivative, 4) spend years and several more billions trying to get the old thing certified. If Boeing would be able to pull that of, it would be about 50 years after first flight of the 767 this frankenstein monster would enter service. There isn't any future in that kind of investments.

And all this just to sell the 764F at a loss. The reason the 763F is selling, is because it is the cheapest thing available. This 764F thing would be very old and expensive.

Why should a 767-400ER MAX F (= 767-500F or 767-8F ?) should cost „billions“ and „more billions“ of dollars? The A330neo has cost Airbus something around 1.5 billion dollars. If Boeing does the exact same - a simple re-engine - it wont cost „billions“ and „more billions“ of dollars.

And of course it would be quite old. But isn’t the A330neo also quite old? I mean its based on the A300/310… The 767 re-engine would play in a class, where age and efficiency are not really the number one problems (for now). So IMO, if they get KC-Y, a 767-500F or -8F is not very unlikely.

While I believe a 767 re-engine with a scaled down version of the GE9X sounds compelling, Boeing seems to not like that proposition as they have been pushing a clean sheet NMA. Which is the exact opposite of what a bean counter (which Boeing have been accused of) would do…

I may be overlooking something obvious…. But what about a 787F? Much closer in size to a 767 than a 777 and a proven aircraft that can meet all future emissions regulations.

ben7x wrote:

But isn’t the A330neo also quite old? I mean its based on the A300/310…

Based on? As in shares the same fuselage cross-section?

ben7x wrote:

Why should a 767-400ER MAX F (= 767-500F or 767-8F ?) should cost „billions“ and „more billions“ of dollars? The A330neo has cost Airbus something around 1.5 billion dollars. If Boeing does the exact same - a simple re-engine - it wont cost „billions“ and „more billions“ of dollars.

And of course it would be quite old. But isn’t the A330neo also quite old? I mean its based on the A300/310… The 767 re-engine would play in a class, where age and efficiency are not really the number one problems (for now). So IMO, if they get KC-Y, a 767-500F or -8F is not very unlikely.

The A330 was a clean-sheet fly-by-wire aircraft when it entered service in 1994, 13 years after the 767. These are different aircraft belonging to different generations. The 767 couldn't compete with the newer A330 and the 767 as a passenger aircraft went out of production. Boeing found a niche in cheap freighters. Just as the 767 and 777 share some parts, like the same nose section, so does the A330 and A300. These aircraft families are all different types. The A330 might have more in common with the A320, like fly-by-wire systems etc.

The A330ceo to A330neo was a minimal change of an in-production aircraft. The ceo variants are still in production.

There isn't any engine available for a re-engine of the current 767F. That's why someone was suggesting 764F with the 747-8 engine. Doing that means reviving an old derivative of the 767 that has been out of production for 20 years, making a new freighter derivate of the derivative, and getting everything certified. When all this is done (9 years), if possible at all, if would be 50 years since the 767 first entered service. This is nothing like the A330neo, which entered service 23 years after the A330ceo. Even 77W to 77X might be less work.

Northwest1988 wrote:

I may be overlooking something obvious…. But what about a 787F? Much closer in size to a 767 than a 777 and a proven aircraft that can meet all future emissions regulations.

Well, that's a good question - spend the money on a 764F, or a 787F?

But the first question: Does Boeing see a place in the market for two of its own widebody freighters?

As for the 764 being a failure, yes, as a passenger frame. That 767Fs continue to sell well suggest there's some life in those bones still.

reidar76 wrote:

ben7x wrote:

Why should a 767-400ER MAX F (= 767-500F or 767-8F ?) should cost „billions“ and „more billions“ of dollars? The A330neo has cost Airbus something around 1.5 billion dollars. If Boeing does the exact same - a simple re-engine - it wont cost „billions“ and „more billions“ of dollars.

And of course it would be quite old. But isn’t the A330neo also quite old? I mean its based on the A300/310… The 767 re-engine would play in a class, where age and efficiency are not really the number one problems (for now). So IMO, if they get KC-Y, a 767-500F or -8F is not very unlikely.

The A330 was a clean-sheet fly-by-wire aircraft when it entered service in 1994, 13 years after the 767. These are different aircraft belonging to different generations. The 767 couldn't compete with the newer A330 and the 767 as a passenger aircraft went out of production. Boeing found a niche in cheap freighters. Just as the 767 and 777 share some parts, like the same nose section, so does the A330 and A300. These aircraft families are all different types. The A330 might have more in common with the A320, like fly-by-wire systems etc.

The A330ceo to A330neo was a minimal change of an in-production aircraft. The ceo variants are still in production.

There isn't any engine available for a re-engine of the current 767F. That's why someone was suggesting 764F with the 747-8 engine. Doing that means reviving an old derivative of the 767 that has been out of production for 20 years, making a new freighter derivate of the derivative, and getting everything certified. When all this is done (9 years), if possible at all, if would be 50 years since the 767 first entered service. This is nothing like the A330neo, which entered service 23 years after the A330ceo. Even 77W to 77X might be less work.

Yet that's exactly what Boeing did with the 737 family, and I'm sure Airbus will still be making improvements/changes to the A320 NEO line in the late 2030's and onwards.

If the NMA does get off the ground, I think it's a done done deal that there will be a freighter early in the program, but simply using the age of the 767 family as the only thing to consider does not match the OEM's business model over the last 20 years of "incremental improvements" and warming-over older designs.

I think at some point Boeing will announce new engine options for the 787 and also launch the 788F and/or 789F at once.

There's really only 2 ways Boeing can go, based on their biggest operator's constraints:

1: 764F with GenX engines. Fairly simple rework of existing aircraft, and many -400 parts still in production for the KC-46 wing.

2: 788/9F but with reworked folding wingtips to fit into current 767 gates. Whatever it takes to get the wings down to 783 span on the ground.

JonesNL wrote:

Mentioned in the 777XF Specification thread by Morrisond;
Boeings forecast predicts 500-600 planes to be sold in the 767F segment in the next 20 years.

That is quite a lot of metal for a derivative and the question is will either A or B develop a MoM with a freighter derivative. And what should an ideal 767F replacement look like?

Seeing the latest comments from Calhoun, the tech is not there yet to warrant EIS this decade…

Thanks for starting this thread.

I think there is a market for an in-between sized freighter in the 60-80T weight class given that A350 and 777xf have become so capable - but they are also very expensive.

As discussed many times I think the direction Boeing takes is dependent on what it's biggest customers want - UPS/Fedex and the US military.

I personally have a hard time thinking that putting any extra money into 767 is a good idea. It's very old tech and even with new engines will you really want to be selling it in 2035? By then Single pilot operations (at least for freight) should be possible - you would have to put a large amount into 767 to upgrade it enough to make it capable.

If KC-46A wins KC-Y - and it should - the bugs are getting worked out and bringing A330MRTT up to speed for the US military will cost a lot and take a lot of time. See this article. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... 41074164cd

I highly doubt Boeing would pitch a longer/new engine more capable 767-400 based solution for KC-Y - it would just be too heavy and not much more capable than an 767-300F for the civilian market. It would cost billions to develop and you would still be left with old tech that can't be upgraded.

However if 330MRTT gains traction and looks like it could win - I could see Boeing pitching a version of the 787. Use the refuelling systems from KC-46A but then you would need to harden it for EMP and nuclear war and probably figure out how to shorten the wingspan with either Folding tips or vertical Wingtips.

Expensive - but possibly less expensive than investing a lot into 767 that won't really carry over into the Civilian market, but not that likely.

Fedex's oldest 767F is only 9 years old. They have ordered a total of 148 of them. UPS has ordered 91 with the first 30 now approaching 30 years old which may need to be replaced sooner rather later. The latest 19 seem to be for expansion.

Boeing has 68 767F in the backlog. I suspect Fedex and UPS could order another 30-50 each before 2027. They both have lots of frames (mainly A300-600) to replace, however I think the regs say you just have to order by 2027 - you can deliver after 2027 which is no problem if KC46a is still in production. Then UPS and Fedex may take a pause in this size category and focus on A350F/777xF to replace early 747's and MD-11/10's. That potentially takes care of say Medium Widebody 150 in the Boeing market forecast - so then you are left with another 350-450 frames.

Logically these 350-450 would be from operators other than the US military/Fedex or UPS. Other operators don't seem to have the wingspan issue these three have. Hence why I think an 787F may make a lot of sense.

By the time FEDEX and UPS need significant numbers of new frames in this size - possibly not until after 2040 if they keep buying 767's to 2027 - there could be a completely new solution to replace 787 - or not that hard to do a folding wing.

I'll leave that to my next post.

morrisond wrote:

Boeing has 68 767F in the backlog. I suspect Fedex and UPS could order another 30-50 each before 2027. They both have lots of frames (mainly A300-600) to replace, however I think the regs say you just have to order by 2027 - you can deliver after 2027 which is no problem if KC46a is still in production. Then UPS and Fedex may take a pause in this size category and focus on A350F/777xF to replace early 747's and MD-11/10's. That potentially takes care of say Medium Widebody 150 in the Boeing market forecast - so then you are left with another 350-450 frames.

Not to nitpick, but production will cease at the end of 2027, orders unbuilt by then will not be able to be built at all.

The recent 19 for UPS was reported to be all of the freighter production slots available till then that FX didn't already have options on. So you may see a FX order in the near future for those options, but there's a firm number of airframes that can be produced and they are already seemingly all spoken for. So there's a hard constraint on the number of new 767Fs that can possibly be assembeled until then.

Keep an eye out on the used/converted freighter market. Already over 200 767s have been converted, and there is a wave of 762s coming that are hitting their cycle limits. In the next 5-7 years you'll definitely see demand on the bottom end as well from these converted aircraft hitting LOV. And that's not even taking attrition into account. Plus the MD-11 aging issues. Plus the A300 retirements.

Not all of this can be solved by jut saying "just ungauge to 777/A350F.' A similar-sized (especially in span) and capable freighter will be needed as a like for like replacement

So if you don't need to worry about the US Military or UPS or Fedex and wingspan isn't the issue - who is the customer? The obvious one is the Package freight business where volume trumps density. The Amazon freighter.

Then cost of the airframe and fuel burn become the big issue. A350F and 777xF are overkill for this market.

The real competition is 777-300P2F and 330P2F. Boeing is assuming over 1,000 conversions get done in it's market forecast - however if you do something relatively inexpensive you could take a good part of that market. In addition to the 350-450 new builds required in the other part of the forecast.

That is where an 787-9 or -10F could become really interesting. Also an A330-300F-NEO if they launch one.

Compared to an 77F which can take 27 pallets up top and 10 in the belly an 789F should be able to take about the same number up top (maybe more contoured though) as it's about the same length but it can take 11 in the belly. An 787-10F should be able to hold 31 up top and it takes 13 in the belly.

But how much could both of them lift if they take advantage of the new potential 265T MTOW?

The OEW weights of the 789 and 781 are 129 and 135T respectively. Let's take 5% off this to get a reasonable OEW for freighter versions - that takes us to about 122T and 129T. MLW weights for both are 193 and 201T - it's not inconceivable that they can get to say 210T like what happens on almost all other freighters.

Basically then they could lift about 80T and 73T respectively - with more volume than 77F and still have enough lift for 55T of fuel. At 787 consumption levels that should mean about 4,500-5,000nm of range.

That's probably about 75% of the density of A350F/777XF and 85-90% density of 777-300P2F with radically less fuel burn.

It's not inconceivable that the capital cost of an 789F or 781F is within 30% of an 777-300P2F - say $85-95 Million vs $60-70.

Boeings cost of designing 789F or 781F would be very low, maybe a billion or two. Apparently it's already baked into the design. It's worth it to generate another 400-500 frames as it helps to keep line rates up on 787.

I can't see them not doing it and they don't need the US military, UPS or Fedex to buy it.

Eventually UPS or Fedex may be able to get over the ramp space issues by the time they need it (after 2035) as fuel costs (due to carbon taxes) may necessitate the need to begin to replace oldest frames with more efficient ones - and single pilot operations being allowed. You could see them buying out the end of the line just like they are with 767F and 77F.

Spacepope wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Boeing has 68 767F in the backlog. I suspect Fedex and UPS could order another 30-50 each before 2027. They both have lots of frames (mainly A300-600) to replace, however I think the regs say you just have to order by 2027 - you can deliver after 2027 which is no problem if KC46a is still in production. Then UPS and Fedex may take a pause in this size category and focus on A350F/777xF to replace early 747's and MD-11/10's. That potentially takes care of say Medium Widebody 150 in the Boeing market forecast - so then you are left with another 350-450 frames.

Not to nitpick, but production will cease at the end of 2027, orders unbuilt by then will not be able to be built at all.

The recent 19 for UPS was reported to be all of the freighter production slots available till then that FX didn't already have options on. So you may see a FX order in the near future for those options, but there's a firm number of airframes that can be produced and they are already seemingly all spoken for. So there's a hard constraint on the number of new 767Fs that can possibly be assembeled until then.

Keep an eye out on the used/converted freighter market. Already over 200 767s have been converted, and there is a wave of 762s coming that are hitting their cycle limits. In the next 5-7 years you'll definitely see demand on the bottom end as well from these converted aircraft hitting LOV. And that's not even taking attrition into account. Plus the MD-11 aging issues. Plus the A300 retirements.

Not all of this can be solved by jut saying "just ungauge to 777/A350F.' A similar-sized (especially in span) and capable freighter will be needed as a like for like replacement

I'll have to find the reference but I think Boeing is working on ways to wiggle around that 2027 date. There is also no reason they could not increase the line rate - which they may need to do for KC-Y anyways.

But if that doesn't work, I think 787F makes more sense anyways - UPS and Fedex may have enough frames for a while.

morrisond wrote:

So if you don't need to worry about the US Military or UPS or Fedex and wingspan isn't the issue - who is the customer? The obvious one is the Package freight business where volume trumps density. The Amazon freighter.

Then cost of the airframe and fuel burn become the big issue. A350F and 777xF are overkill for this market.

The real competition is 777-300P2F and 330P2F. Boeing is assuming over 1,000 conversions get done in it's market forecast - however if you do something relatively inexpensive you could take a good part of that market. In addition to the 350-450 new builds required in the other part of the forecast.

That is where an 787-9 or -10F could become really interesting. Also an A330-300F-NEO if they launch one.

Compared to an 77F which can take 27 pallets up top and 10 in the belly an 789F should be able to take about the same number up top (maybe more contoured though) as it's about the same length but it can take 11 in the belly. An 787-10F should be able to hold 31 up top and it takes 13 in the belly.

But how much could both of them lift if they take advantage of the new potential 265T MTOW?

The OEW weights of the 789 and 781 are 129 and 135T respectively. Let's take 5% off this to get a reasonable OEW for freighter versions - that takes us to about 122T and 129T. MLW weights for both are 193 and 201T - it's not inconceivable that they can get to say 210T like what happens on almost all other freighters.

Basically then they could lift about 80T and 73T respectively - with more volume than 77F and still have enough lift for 55T of fuel. At 787 consumption levels that should mean about 4,500-5,000nm of range.

That's probably about 75% of the density of A350F/777XF and 85-90% density of 777-300P2F with radically less fuel burn.

It's not inconceivable that the capital cost of an 789F or 781F is within 30% of an 777-300P2F - say $85-95 Million vs $60-70.

Boeings cost of designing 789F or 781F would be very low, maybe a billion or two. Apparently it's already baked into the design. It's worth it to generate another 400-500 frames as it helps to keep line rates up on 787.

I can't see them not doing it and they don't need the US military, UPS or Fedex to buy it.

Eventually UPS or Fedex may be able to get over the ramp space issues by the time they need it (after 2035) as fuel costs (due to carbon taxes) may necessitate the need to begin to replace oldest frames with more efficient ones - and single pilot operations being allowed. You could see them buying out the end of the line just like they are with 767F and 77F.

787F would probably be too close to the 777xf and too big to replace the 767f.
I think the possible route is a clean sheet with derivative freighter version that can close its business case.

JonesNL wrote:

morrisond wrote:

So if you don't need to worry about the US Military or UPS or Fedex and wingspan isn't the issue - who is the customer? The obvious one is the Package freight business where volume trumps density. The Amazon freighter.

Then cost of the airframe and fuel burn become the big issue. A350F and 777xF are overkill for this market.

The real competition is 777-300P2F and 330P2F. Boeing is assuming over 1,000 conversions get done in it's market forecast - however if you do something relatively inexpensive you could take a good part of that market. In addition to the 350-450 new builds required in the other part of the forecast.

That is where an 787-9 or -10F could become really interesting. Also an A330-300F-NEO if they launch one.

Compared to an 77F which can take 27 pallets up top and 10 in the belly an 789F should be able to take about the same number up top (maybe more contoured though) as it's about the same length but it can take 11 in the belly. An 787-10F should be able to hold 31 up top and it takes 13 in the belly.

But how much could both of them lift if they take advantage of the new potential 265T MTOW?

The OEW weights of the 789 and 781 are 129 and 135T respectively. Let's take 5% off this to get a reasonable OEW for freighter versions - that takes us to about 122T and 129T. MLW weights for both are 193 and 201T - it's not inconceivable that they can get to say 210T like what happens on almost all other freighters.

Basically then they could lift about 80T and 73T respectively - with more volume than 77F and still have enough lift for 55T of fuel. At 787 consumption levels that should mean about 4,500-5,000nm of range.

That's probably about 75% of the density of A350F/777XF and 85-90% density of 777-300P2F with radically less fuel burn.

It's not inconceivable that the capital cost of an 789F or 781F is within 30% of an 777-300P2F - say $85-95 Million vs $60-70.

Boeings cost of designing 789F or 781F would be very low, maybe a billion or two. Apparently it's already baked into the design. It's worth it to generate another 400-500 frames as it helps to keep line rates up on 787.

I can't see them not doing it and they don't need the US military, UPS or Fedex to buy it.

Eventually UPS or Fedex may be able to get over the ramp space issues by the time they need it (after 2035) as fuel costs (due to carbon taxes) may necessitate the need to begin to replace oldest frames with more efficient ones - and single pilot operations being allowed. You could see them buying out the end of the line just like they are with 767F and 77F.

787F would probably be too close to the 777xf and too big to replace the 767f.
I think the possible route is a clean sheet with derivative freighter version that can close its business case.

You probably would not see that for a decade though - an 789/781F could be available in 2-3 years. It's not a big effort.

It would not have anywhere close to the density of an 777XF which if you don't need the purchase price and fuel burn savings will totally trump an 777Xf.

Spacepope wrote:

There's really only 2 ways Boeing can go, based on their biggest operator's constraints:

1: 764F with GenX engines. Fairly simple rework of existing aircraft, and many -400 parts still in production for the KC-46 wing.

2: 788/9F but with reworked folding wingtips to fit into current 767 gates. Whatever it takes to get the wings down to 783 span on the ground.

On this second point, would it be possible for Boeing to just use the 783 wing? I imagine that most of the engineering work was completed on it and I'm sure they still have all the data/proposed specs. If you did a 788F with the proposed 783 wing that could maybe be a winner. Fitting into the gates and roughly appropriately sized (at least in volume terms). I'm not an engineer however, would the 783 wing have a major impact on MTOW? The 783 was, after all, designed to be a lower MTOW aircraft compared the 788 and I imagine a 787F would aim for a significantly higher MTOW than the current 788. If any engineer knows a bit about that it would be great if they could share.

argentinevol98 wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

There's really only 2 ways Boeing can go, based on their biggest operator's constraints:

1: 764F with GenX engines. Fairly simple rework of existing aircraft, and many -400 parts still in production for the KC-46 wing.

2: 788/9F but with reworked folding wingtips to fit into current 767 gates. Whatever it takes to get the wings down to 783 span on the ground.

On this second point, would it be possible for Boeing to just use the 783 wing? I imagine that most of the engineering work was completed on it and I'm sure they still have all the data/proposed specs. If you did a 788F with the proposed 783 wing that could maybe be a winner. Fitting into the gates and roughly appropriately sized (at least in volume terms). I'm not an engineer however, would the 783 wing have a major impact on MTOW? The 783 was, after all, designed to be a lower MTOW aircraft compared the 788 and I imagine a 787F would aim for a significantly higher MTOW than the current 788. If any engineer knows a bit about that it would be great if they could share.

I think you nailed it. It just wouldn't be efficient enough for an 252-265T MTOW aircraft. A folding wing though may have a market(albeit limited) outside of just an 789/781F.

The possible volumes are high enough to maybe justify the expense.

If you look at this image of the 788/9/10 wing vs the 783 it appears to be the same with the only difference being shorter outer slats - flaps and Ailerons appear the same, main wing unchanged - it is conceivable they could put a hinge there without a ton of effort.

It looks like they almost designed it with the thought of making it able to fold at some point. That was a consideration in the original 777 design as well.

https://modernairliners.com/wp-content/ ... r-wing.png

The large B767F and A300F replacement market makes a really good point for Boeing to go for a true 767 replacement with its MoM plans. That is, a wide body aircraft with the ability to do the same things the 767F does today.

A few years ago Boeing floated a trial balloon for a reengined 767-400ER freighter. Looking at the GEnx-2B67B, it is about a foot larger in diameter than the CF6-80C2. The ground clearance from the bottom of the nacelle is only 22 inches on the 767-300F. On the -400ER it is 47 inches due to the increase in the main gear length to avoid tail strikes. There is plenty of room for a larger engine. However, like the A330, the 767-400ER has a nose down angle caused by the longer main gear. That is not good for a cargo aircraft, so I could see a reengined 767-400F needing a longer nose gear to level the main cargo floor.

This is something Boeing has considerable experience in, due to the multiple times they extended the nose gear on the 737.

It might even open the opportunity for a new passenger version. If a reengining can provide a 10% boost in range, it would match the range performance of the 767-300ER. With the increased demand for premium seats, including lie-flat business and also a premium economy cabin, the larger size could be useful.

That said, I think the better answer is a net-new "Plastic 767" for the MoM. It does not need the legs of a 787, but needs longer legs than what Airbus can provide with the A321XLR. And it needs to be sized so it can also be a freighter, and designed from the start to be able to offer an all-freight version (i.e., level floor). If I were Boeing I would look at geared turbofans and concepts like the Rolls-Royce UltraFan, but obviously in the 60,000 lb thrust class. Boeing needs its MoM to provide a step-function boost in efficiency, so it can last for decades.

Boeing was nearly genius in how it sized the 767. The floor width of the lower-deck cargo holds was exactly 96 inches, so it could take 96x125 inch pallets lengthwise. The next step up would require a 125 inch wide floor. On the main floor, two 88-inch wide pallets could be loaded side by side, or one row of 96"x125" pallets could be loaded. The next step up would be two rows of 96" pallets. In both cases, the next step for a freighter is to an A300/A330 fuselage width.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Northwest1988 wrote:

I may be overlooking something obvious…. But what about a 787F? Much closer in size to a 767 than a 777 and a proven aircraft that can meet all future emissions regulations.

Well, that's a good question - spend the money on a 764F, or a 787F?

But the first question: Does Boeing see a place in the market for two of its own widebody freighters?

As for the 764 being a failure, yes, as a passenger frame. That 767Fs continue to sell well suggest there's some life in those bones still.

It is a very good question. And I don't think anyone sees a clear answer to it, including Boeing. A potential 764XF would be cheaper, proven, and ready sooner. But it would be a stop gap. Other advantages: would be a more efficient 'regional' freighter, would fit directly in to the operations of any 763F operator with little to no changes for the operations, and has a smaller footprint and thus saves on ramp space.

A potential 787F would be more capable in all respects: volume, payload and range. It's also built for the future and shares parts and maintenance with a very large, worldwide fleet. But it would also be much more expensive, take up much more ramp space (without a significant investment in a re-wing with folding tips), and most likely take longer to bring to market.

In my view, Boeing won't bring out a 787F until they do the next significant upgrade to that platform (new/upgraded engine, re-worked wing, etc.). So we're talking 2030 at the earliest, and probably later. So the question becomes if they want/need an interim solution. If the answers yes, then it's the 764F by 2027, if not sooner. If the answer is no, they'll sell what they can out of the current 763F and leave it at that. My hunch says they launch the 764F. But it's just a hunch.

Regards,

Hamlet69

Noshow wrote:

There will be the 777XF for much of the 767F business. With more volume which can be well used for all the internet consumer packages shipping. The market below can be well covered by thousands of used cheap A321s converted to freighters.

Seriously? Some of the thoughts in this thread are just astounding. We're gonna substitute 777XFs for 767s? When Boeing itself estimates a market for a buttload of frames in the 767 (not 777) size range?

Current market conditions, and likely future conditions, are based on many things nobody in this tread has even mentioned.

Boeing would need some 787 freighter then. Would this technically work with the CFRP sections, frames and stuff? Plus wouldn't a 787-9 be too much internal competition to the 777XF? Some NMA freighter might be perfect and help the NMA business case.

If Boeing builds a 300Klb / 136t MOM aircraft, potentially FX and UPS could start to switch over with new containers in 2035 or 2040. I think using all the 763 containers on the 764 will be a big incentive for the 764 to happen.

Will a non FBW aircraft like the trusted 767 still work in the future environment with future FBW-pilots? I like the 767 but won't it be jurassic by then? Think about new built frames being used for tens of years between scheduled mars flights.

I think Boeing should use what it knows to build some badass future aircraft not revamped oldies.

Noshow wrote:

Boeing would need some 787 freighter then. Would this technically work with the CFRP sections, frames and stuff? Plus wouldn't a 787-9 be too much internal competition to the 777XF? Some NMA freighter might be perfect and help the NMA business case.

A potential NMA freighter would likely be the ideal long-term 767F replacement and would help the business case on the pax side too. I'd argue that if Boeing is thinking more along the NMA lines it could actually help the idea of a 764F. If you go NMA for a freighter you probably don't need a 787F. Yet, the NMA is still a long way off (way past 2027) so Boeing would be tempted to offer a cheap stop-gap. That could be the 764F.

That said, I think it is all very dependent on the KC-Y contract. If Boeing wins the KC-Y with a 767 derivative (which seems quite likely imo) then there is a stronger argument for investing in the 767 line. I could see Boeing doing a 764F and waiting for the long-term solution in the NMA in that case. But if they lose the KC-Y or end up winning but not with a 767 (as one poster above mentioned perhaps a 787 if things got desperate) then I think Boeing would be adverse to investing in the 767 (borderline impossible in those events). In that case I seem them far more likely to invest in a 787F. I doubt they would abandon the market for the number of years between 2028 and the NMA.

Boeing has trademarked "Dreamfreighter". If that's not tipping your hand, I don't know what is.

Maybe some NTU marketing name for what became the Dreamlifter?

CoThG wrote:

Boeing has trademarked "Dreamfreighter". If that's not tipping your hand, I don't know what is.

When did they do that?

If they needed smaller freighters why couldn’t they make one based on the 787-8?

32andBelow wrote:

If they needed smaller freighters why couldn’t they make one based on the 787-8?

With the A321 at 200K MTOW and a 787F freighter at 500K MTOW, is there a need for a 300K or 400K freighter that fits in a code D 52m wingspan?
I think a MoM freighter or 764F is a better size than a 787F.

DenverTed wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

If they needed smaller freighters why couldn’t they make one based on the 787-8?

With the A321 at 200K MTOW and a 787F freighter at 500K MTOW, is there a need for a 300K or 400K freighter that fits in a code D 52m wingspan?
I think a MoM freighter or 764F is a better size than a 787F.

Yah but would it be cheaper to operate than the 787-8F? Plus they probably wouldn’t need as much fuel so they’d probably reduce the MTOW

DenverTed wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

If they needed smaller freighters why couldn’t they make one based on the 787-8?

With the A321 at 200K MTOW and a 787F freighter at 500K MTOW, is there a need for a 300K or 400K freighter that fits in a code D 52m wingspan?
I think a MoM freighter or 764F is a better size than a 787F.

The problem with the 764F is that it is really heavy - it was not an efficient stretch. It went from 90T OEW to 104T from the 300ER to 400ER to only increase its Maximum structural payload by 2T.

The 300F can lift 54T - an 400F at OEW weight of around 104T (it will be lighter than the 400ER by a few tons - but then you have to add in the heavier engines) might only be able to lift 56T, without a lot of expensive engineering changes.

An 788F could have an OEW weight around 110-115T but be able to lift in the region of 70T using 788F 228T MTOW, with many ways to increase capabilities/lift by using 789 parts.

The other advantage the 788F or 789F would have would be LD3's in the belly side by side and normal sized pallets up top side by side (96x125), 767 can only accomodate one wide 96X125" pallets (turned 90).

An 764F or 763F using a lot of 764Fparts is a lot of work - if you are looking at increasing 763F capabilities. 788F or 789F are minimal change and minimal flight test, excepting for if they choose to make the wing folding - however they seem to have thought of that possibiity in the design of its control surfaces (excepting for shortening one slat).

The other thing to remember is that I don't think the 767 was digitally designed - would that not make any changes even more difficult to implement vs just slapping new engines on 764?

The other thing to look at between 764F and 787F is line rates. You might be lucky to build 2 per month 764F's. The only material customers of 767F are FEDEX and UPS. Only 8 have been ordered by customers other than them since 2010.

Future 787 line rates should return to what they were once projected at - easily over 10 per month.

Boeing's market forecast is for 7,670 New Build passenger widebody deliveries between now and 2040. A330/350/787/777 backlogs are about 1,500. That gives another 6,000 left to order.

Assuming Boeing does an 777-9ER at 365T MTOW or 777-10 I can see that program taking 500 of those 6,000, 330 takes another 500, that leaves 350/787 with 2,500 each.

The odds of another WB frame appearing before 2040 are low - excepting for Chinese/Russian efforts which could take a few hundred.

For 787 that basically means you need to build another 3,000 (500 in backlog) between now and 2040 - that means we should eventually see 787 line rates up at 15 or 16 per month - 10-12 on the low side if Boeing really got it wrong and some sort of real NMA solution arrives that eats into this.

Those type of line rates change things materially in the 764F vs 787F debate.

wjcandee wrote:

Noshow wrote:

There will be the 777XF for much of the 767F business. With more volume which can be well used for all the internet consumer packages shipping. The market below can be well covered by thousands of used cheap A321s converted to freighters.

Seriously? Some of the thoughts in this thread are just astounding. We're gonna substitute 777XFs for 767s? When Boeing itself estimates a market for a buttload of frames in the 767 (not 777) size range?

Current market conditions, and likely future conditions, are based on many things nobody in this tread has even mentioned.

We need a forum which includes things like aviation/politics, aviation/markets, aviation/macro-economics, aviation/demographics etc. It should be heavily moderated. I miss the posts and threads on the Amazon air thread that veered in that direction, but which seem (?) to have been deleted as being off topic.

It sounds like the 767 is going to die. However it looks like Boeing may be trying to get exemption for deliveries to FEDEX and UPS beyond 2027. 787F may wait until a re-engine.

From this article. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... to-airbus/

"Since the 767F for the past decade has been delivered exclusively to just two customers, FedEx and UPS, both American companies, the U.S. government might grant such a waiver. Boeing could argue that delivering a new 767F to FedEx to replace one of its ancient MD-10 tri-jets would substantially reduce carbon emissions.

CEO Dave Calhoun said in July that the government should accommodate such a request “in some way, shape or form.”

However, an exemption for the 777F is highly unlikely. Because it’s a long-haul international freighter sold globally, it could not be solely a U.S. decision; other countries would have to agree.

Longer term, even with a 767F exemption for a couple of years, Boeing will need to replace that jet. Hermesmeyer said at that point a freighter version of the Dreamliner, a 787F, “would be the natural place for us to go.”

Hermesmeyer is in charge of Freighters at Boeing - I think he would have pretty good insight on what will replace 763F.

morrisond wrote:

It sounds like the 767 is going to die. However it looks like Boeing may be trying to get exemption for deliveries to FEDEX and UPS beyond 2027. 787F may wait until a re-engine.

From this article. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... to-airbus/

"Since the 767F for the past decade has been delivered exclusively to just two customers, FedEx and UPS, both American companies, the U.S. government might grant such a waiver. Boeing could argue that delivering a new 767F to FedEx to replace one of its ancient MD-10 tri-jets would substantially reduce carbon emissions.

CEO Dave Calhoun said in July that the government should accommodate such a request “in some way, shape or form.”

However, an exemption for the 777F is highly unlikely. Because it’s a long-haul international freighter sold globally, it could not be solely a U.S. decision; other countries would have to agree.

Longer term, even with a 767F exemption for a couple of years, Boeing will need to replace that jet. Hermesmeyer said at that point a freighter version of the Dreamliner, a 787F, “would be the natural place for us to go.”

Hermesmeyer is in charge of Freighters at Boeing - I think he would have pretty good insight on what will replace 763F.

They are also being delivered in large numbers to the us government itself

32andBelow wrote:

They are also being delivered in large numbers to the us government itself

Still about 100 KC-46 tankers on order, and likely an RFP for ~150 more.

32andBelow wrote:

morrisond wrote:

It sounds like the 767 is going to die. However it looks like Boeing may be trying to get exemption for deliveries to FEDEX and UPS beyond 2027. 787F may wait until a re-engine.

From this article. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... to-airbus/

"Since the 767F for the past decade has been delivered exclusively to just two customers, FedEx and UPS, both American companies, the U.S. government might grant such a waiver. Boeing could argue that delivering a new 767F to FedEx to replace one of its ancient MD-10 tri-jets would substantially reduce carbon emissions.

CEO Dave Calhoun said in July that the government should accommodate such a request “in some way, shape or form.”

However, an exemption for the 777F is highly unlikely. Because it’s a long-haul international freighter sold globally, it could not be solely a U.S. decision; other countries would have to agree.

Longer term, even with a 767F exemption for a couple of years, Boeing will need to replace that jet. Hermesmeyer said at that point a freighter version of the Dreamliner, a 787F, “would be the natural place for us to go.”

Hermesmeyer is in charge of Freighters at Boeing - I think he would have pretty good insight on what will replace 763F.

They are also being delivered in large numbers to the us government itself

Yes - however I assume the Military is exempted from the regulations.

morrisond wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

morrisond wrote:

It sounds like the 767 is going to die. However it looks like Boeing may be trying to get exemption for deliveries to FEDEX and UPS beyond 2027. 787F may wait until a re-engine.

From this article. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/b ... to-airbus/

"Since the 767F for the past decade has been delivered exclusively to just two customers, FedEx and UPS, both American companies, the U.S. government might grant such a waiver. Boeing could argue that delivering a new 767F to FedEx to replace one of its ancient MD-10 tri-jets would substantially reduce carbon emissions.

CEO Dave Calhoun said in July that the government should accommodate such a request “in some way, shape or form.”

However, an exemption for the 777F is highly unlikely. Because it’s a long-haul international freighter sold globally, it could not be solely a U.S. decision; other countries would have to agree.

Longer term, even with a 767F exemption for a couple of years, Boeing will need to replace that jet. Hermesmeyer said at that point a freighter version of the Dreamliner, a 787F, “would be the natural place for us to go.”

Hermesmeyer is in charge of Freighters at Boeing - I think he would have pretty good insight on what will replace 763F.

They are also being delivered in large numbers to the us government itself

Yes - however I assume the Military is exempted from the regulations.

Even with Purple and Brown, these new builds are being flown to dozens of international destinations every day. Exemption will have to be international, and I have my doubts they’ll get it.

Spacepope wrote:

2: 788/9F but with reworked folding wingtips to fit into current 767 gates. Whatever it takes to get the wings down to 783 span on the ground.

26.7 ft is the difference between the wingspans of 783 and 788. Just for reference, the 777X reduces its wingspan from 235.5 ft to 212.9 ft which is a difference of 22.6 ft

argentinevol98 wrote:

On this second point, would it be possible for Boeing to just use the 783 wing? I imagine that most of the engineering work was completed on it and I'm sure they still have all the data/proposed specs. If you did a 788F with the proposed 783 wing that could maybe be a winner. Fitting into the gates and roughly appropriately sized (at least in volume terms). I'm not an engineer however, would the 783 wing have a major impact on MTOW? The 783 was, after all, designed to be a lower MTOW aircraft compared the 788 and I imagine a 787F would aim for a significantly higher MTOW than the current 788. If any engineer knows a bit about that it would be great if they could share.

783
MTOW: 374,782 lbs
Wingspan: 170.6 ft
Range: 3,050 NM
Length: 186.1 ft

788
MTOW: 502,500 lbs
Wingspan: 197.3 ft
Range: 7,355 NM
Length: 186.1 ft


Could a mix of 788 and a reworked 783 be beneficial for FX and UPS? 788 seems like overkill for their domestic runs. I'm skeptical that a 764F is the answer.

INFINITI329 wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

2: 788/9F but with reworked folding wingtips to fit into current 767 gates. Whatever it takes to get the wings down to 783 span on the ground.

26.7 ft is the difference between the wingspans of 783 and 788. Just for reference, the 777X reduces its wingspan from 235.5 ft to 212.9 ft which is a difference of 22.6 ft

argentinevol98 wrote:

On this second point, would it be possible for Boeing to just use the 783 wing? I imagine that most of the engineering work was completed on it and I'm sure they still have all the data/proposed specs. If you did a 788F with the proposed 783 wing that could maybe be a winner. Fitting into the gates and roughly appropriately sized (at least in volume terms). I'm not an engineer however, would the 783 wing have a major impact on MTOW? The 783 was, after all, designed to be a lower MTOW aircraft compared the 788 and I imagine a 787F would aim for a significantly higher MTOW than the current 788. If any engineer knows a bit about that it would be great if they could share.

783
MTOW: 374,782 lbs
Wingspan: 170.6 ft
Range: 3,050 NM
Length: 186.1 ft

788
MTOW: 502,500 lbs
Wingspan: 197.3 ft
Range: 7,355 NM
Length: 186.1 ft


Could a mix of 788 and a reworked 783 be beneficial for FX and UPS? 788 seems like overkill for their domestic runs. I'm skeptical that a 764F is the answer.

I think the easy answer is make the 787 wing folding - which seems to have been baked into the initial design. The freighter could sell enough to pay for it. You may also have some takers in passenger markets as well for operators where there operations are constrained by gate space, which will be a big problem going forward if growth in travel is as expected over the next 20 years (baring another pandemic).

Making the wing fold may be the only big investment they have to put into the 787 to make it viable freighter so FEDEX and UPS want it.

Which Passenger Carriers could benefit from a folding wing 787 that could fit into Code D/Group IV gates that have a maximum wing span of 52M?

It's possible the passenger 787 program could get to 4,000 frames by 2040 - it's not hard to see 500 or so wanting a folding wing.

500 Passenger 787 Folding wing frames + 500 Freighter folding wing / $1 B development cost - (just reuse what they did on 777X) equals only $1 Million per frame. It's not a lot.

Look above - Boeing just said 787 is the answer - it sounds like 767 will die whenever they have to stop producing 763F and the last KC-46A's are delivered (with a possible extension if they win the KC-Y contract).