RJMAZ wrote:

I think the easy option is to talk to GE and PW to see if they can make one of the current 767 engines pass the newer emission standards.

Keep the same nacelle and fan so no airframe certification is required. Basically a PIP with the core running a bit hotter and cleaner. Keep thrust the same and engine life should improve. It will probably get a 3-5% fuel burn improvement with no weight increase. Max payload could then be flown a bit further.

How many freighters would justify the engine development? Maybe only 50?

Forget about the 787 freighter. The max landing weight will have to higher than the 787-10. Extra strengthening required. Wingspan issues. Cargo door issues.

They should just do the bare minimum to make the 767 engines pass the new emission standard. Doing the bare minimum is also the traditional Boeing way.

It is the easy option - and makes sense to a degree but very expensive if its only 50 frames. If you look back in some of the previous threads and read some of the engine experts - A PIP to meet emissions standards would be very expensive as you would basically need a new core to get the temperature you need. No one is going to put that time and money into that engine. Better to put that time and money into 787 Engine improvements.

The 763F sold 279 Frames (so far), the potential market is a lot bigger than 50 frames especially if the frame is potentially capable of Single pilot operations. If the world does permanently switch to favouring Single Aisle aircraft - that probably means more dedicated freighters going forward.

A re-engined 787 could be efficient enough that any extra capital cost be offset by lower fuel burn per tonne even for a freighter.

The MLW of the 787-10 is 201T, the OEW weight of an 789F should be around 120T. The 777LR MLW is 223T, 77W 253T, 777F 260T with the same gear. As many have pointed out pure freighters are usually certified for fewer cycles to get higher MLW. It is not inconceivable an 789F could be certified for 210T MLW, which should easily allow 80T of lift, with 55-65T of fuel (10-12+ hours of range at 80T in an re-engine - perfect for flying iPhones from China/India), depending on how far they push the MTOW of the 787.

The 787 has baked in provisions for the cargo door.

morrisond wrote:

Single pilot operations.

Wouldn't the 787 be easier to go to a single pilot system as it is a fly by wire airplane?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

morrisond wrote:

Single pilot operations.

Wouldn't the 787 be easier to go to a single pilot system as it is a fly by wire airplane?

bt

Sorry - I didn't make it very clear - probably very hard/costly to certify 763F for single pilot - potentially a lot easier with an 787F.

texl1649 wrote:

ILikeTrains wrote:

I’m sure whenever the 787 goes through its next major overhaul (787X or whatever) a freighter variant with folding wingtips to fit into parking limited to a 767 or MD11 (>170ft) would garner sales.

Calhouns comments didn’t seem too definitive on it in the near future. A GEnx powered 767-400F seems like the better short term move.

Folding tips for a freighter I doubt. Also, I look forward to what If any structural beefing up or stringers or whatever is done for a cargo cfrp frame. They should want to do that partly to eliminate any threat of third party offering conversions.

The 779F is using the same wing as the passenger model. Folding wing and all.

morrisond wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

I think the easy option is to talk to GE and PW to see if they can make one of the current 767 engines pass the newer emission standards.

Keep the same nacelle and fan so no airframe certification is required. Basically a PIP with the core running a bit hotter and cleaner. Keep thrust the same and engine life should improve. It will probably get a 3-5% fuel burn improvement with no weight increase. Max payload could then be flown a bit further.

How many freighters would justify the engine development? Maybe only 50?

Forget about the 787 freighter. The max landing weight will have to higher than the 787-10. Extra strengthening required. Wingspan issues. Cargo door issues.

They should just do the bare minimum to make the 767 engines pass the new emission standard. Doing the bare minimum is also the traditional Boeing way.

It is the easy option - and makes sense to a degree but very expensive if its only 50 frames. If you look back in some of the previous threads and read some of the engine experts - A PIP to meet emissions standards would be very expensive as you would basically need a new core to get the temperature you need. No one is going to put that time and money into that engine. Better to put that time and money into 787 Engine improvements.

The 763F sold 279 Frames (so far), the potential market is a lot bigger than 50 frames especially if the frame is potentially capable of Single pilot operations. If the world does permanently switch to favouring Single Aisle aircraft - that probably means more dedicated freighters going forward.

A re-engined 787 could be efficient enough that any extra capital cost be offset by lower fuel burn per tonne even for a freighter.

The MLW of the 787-10 is 201T, the OEW weight of an 789F should be around 120T. The 777LR MLW is 223T, 77W 253T, 777F 260T with the same gear. As many have pointed out pure freighters are usually certified for fewer cycles to get higher MLW. It is not inconceivable an 789F could be certified for 210T MLW, which should easily allow 80T of lift, with 55-65T of fuel (10-12+ hours of range at 80T in an re-engine - perfect for flying iPhones from China/India), depending on how far they push the MTOW of the 787.

The 787 has baked in provisions for the cargo door.

PW should do it since the KC-46 uses only PW4060. So it could benefit as well.

UA444 wrote:

PW should do it since the KC-46 uses only PW4060. So it could benefit as well.

Also the USAF wants single pilot operation for the KC-46 so the same system could be used for the 767F.

I think the PIP package to make the engine pass emissions would be fairly easy. No new core required just something along the lines of new turbine blades and/or combuster liner. Then run it a little hotter for a cleaner burn.

Trying to increase bypass ratio would result in lower overall thrust. E.g going from the Trent 700 to 500. Same fan and nacelle but the higher bypass Trent 500 has much less thrust. They would want to keep the same nacelle for certification.

Okcflyer wrote:

The 2028 IACO rule is for CO2 emissions. I’m 95% confident this standard cannot be met with a PIP of any sort to the PW4060 or CF6. If it was NOx or PM — maybe — but not CO2, which is fuel burn per kg of payload.

This cant be right. It can't be fuel burn per kg of payload.

A 767 freighter with 54t of payload burns less fuel per kg of payload than a 787-8 that has a max payload of only 43t.

The 767F could increase its max payload up to 60t and there is an instant 10% improvement in CO2 on paper.

IACO would have to do with emissions relative to flying weight or thrust. Small aircraft would have a big disadvantage here. An old 767 freighter would beat a new E170E2 in most emission metrics per kg or per passenger.

There has to be rules that change as aircraft get heavier or have longer range. A 200 seat aircraft with a 1,000nm design range will be much more efficient than a 200 seat aircraft with 5,000nm design range.

Boeing could play with the rules. Play with the payload rating. Play with the range on paper. Derate the engines so the thrust and CO2 is reduced at the expense of a longer take-off run on paper. Allow an emergency thrust bump and airlines can just use emergency thrust for every take-off. Combine this with an engine PIP with improved fuel burn and emissions and get it over the line.

It doesn't really answer the question.

A long haul flight with a light payload would produce very little CO2 per km. Compare this to a freighter with a heavy payload on a short haul flight it would produce much more CO2 per km. This is with both examples using the same aircraft.

The smaller narrowbody aircraft have a higher CO2 allowance to account for this short haul usage. It seems a large aircraft optimised for short haul would not be able to meet 2028 IACO requirement despite it using the latest engines and wing tech.

It appears there are plenty of loop holes. There must be additional rules for freighters to have an allowance for their short stage lengths. Increasing max payload while keeping MTOW constant would see any CO2 per payload change.

Is there any reason we haven't seen Boeing offer the 787 as a freighter?

It seems to be the clear successor to the 767 on the pax side and I would also assume the cargo side.

Won't the fuel savings entail better operating economics for airlines compared to ordering new 767Fs, since they've been in production for ages.

Do 767s have superior operating economics due to lower acquisition costs perhaps?

This has been debated pretty heavily on here in the past. Few overall points.

The airlines that are going to buy them in bulk are the integrators (5X,FX). But they have a few issues.
(1) Ramp space. Both carriers have night sorts where almost their entire fleet is on the ground at once. This means wingspan is a huge issue. The sorts are already jammed and neither can afford to lose parking spaces.
(2) Existing fleets. The 767 is perfect for a huge amount of the routes the integrators fly. It hits all the sweet spots. Cubic capacity, weight capacity, and wingspan. Throw in a low capital cost, it’s perfect.
(3) Integrators don’t do long, thin routes. You either have an aircraft that is 90% utilized or you put that container on another flight that will connect to the final destination. So while flying PHL-DXB would be great for transit times, the thing wouldn’t go because it would be fairly light loss wise. Boxes tend to complain less than people (though the shippers and receivers are just as loud).

Then you have the rest of the market. Anybody going new build is grabbing the 777F/A350F. Lots of lift, good range. They generally need that much lift so going smaller only kills their margins because they can’t lift as much.

Then you have everybody else. Yes they’re flying 767s, but the airframes flew pax turns for 20 years before someone took the metal shears to the forward fuselage. These guys aren’t going to be buying a brand new 787F. Their margins aren’t good enough to cover the payments and they’ll never make their money back. Best example I can think of is the DHL US network. An Air frame might fly BOS-CVG-BOS and that’s the day. Then sit all weekend. 4 hours of utilization and it is done. The cost savings isn’t there.

787F will exist one day, no doubt. Especially with the feedstock available. But the integrators will hold out until they can’t anymore. I think you’ll see some of the bottom feeders try to get a conversion program within the next 10 years. Boeing, who knows

slick1017 wrote:

Is there any reason we haven't seen Boeing offer the 787 as a freighter?

Boeing has said they will not be offering it.

zeke wrote:

slick1017 wrote:

Is there any reason we haven't seen Boeing offer the 787 as a freighter?

Boeing has said they will not be offering it.

Source? I haven't heard that. Perhaps they meant not right now, which is accurate, but 10 years from now? I highly doubt Boeing has said they won't ever build a freighter from the 787 platform.

My biggest question is how a conversion to the freighter specs will do with the 787's composite carbon fiber fuselage. Wouldn't cutting out a cargo door have some serious implications with structural integrity since carbon fiber is interwoven together and very tightly pulled to make it solid? Wouldn't it result in something similar to fraying a rope with the perimeter of the door cutout?

Mikenike wrote:

My biggest question is how a conversion to the freighter specs will do with the 787's composite carbon fiber fuselage. Wouldn't cutting out a cargo door have some serious implications with structural integrity since carbon fiber is interwoven together and very tightly pulled to make it solid? Wouldn't it result in something similar to fraying a rope with the perimeter of the door cutout?

That's been talked about a lot through the years. There are unique considerations. It appears that the Airbus A350 is going to be the first composite freighter.

Generally speaking, the 787 is not a 767 replacement. It's much heavier and has much longer range. The next phase of this discussion eventually devolves to the 767 re-engine discussion. Meanwhile, nothing actually happens. Rinse and repeat.

SteelChair wrote:

That's been talked about a lot through the years. There are unique considerations. It appears that the Airbus A350 is going to be the first composite freighter.

How would that work, I ask because you seem a little more informed on the issues of making it viable than I am. They obviously moved the cargo door aft and integrated it well, but how would that work with the rest of the airframe. As of right now, there are only 35 on order, so is it worth it for Airbus to tout this as the next generation of heavy lift cargo planes? The closest competitor, the 777F has 319 total orders, and the 747-8F had 107 total. So does Airbus really see a new influx in cargo aircraft demand that they see as being profitable in the next few years that I don't or are they playing blindly here?

Mikenike wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

That's been talked about a lot through the years. There are unique considerations. It appears that the Airbus A350 is going to be the first composite freighter.

How would that work, I ask because you seem a little more informed on the issues of making it viable than I am. They obviously moved the cargo door aft and integrated it well, but how would that work with the rest of the airframe. As of right now, there are only 35 on order, so is it worth it for Airbus to tout this as the next generation of heavy lift cargo planes? The closest competitor, the 777F has 319 total orders, and the 747-8F had 107 total. So does Airbus really see a new influx in cargo aircraft demand that they see as being profitable in the next few years that I don't or are they playing blindly here?

Pergaps you give me too much credit. I don't know how they will make it viable, only that they have committed to the program and have orders.

I feel that the A350F should be considered in the context of the freighter market. Boeing has owned it and perhaps Airbus is making a huge gamble to try to get some traction.

AAPilot48Heavy wrote:

zeke wrote:

slick1017 wrote:

Is there any reason we haven't seen Boeing offer the 787 as a freighter?

Boeing has said they will not be offering it.

Source? I haven't heard that. Perhaps they meant not right now, which is accurate, but 10 years from now? I highly doubt Boeing has said they won't ever build a freighter from the 787 platform.

I think this was the latest news. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/boein ... cceed-767f

Basically - it will probably happen - maybe just not yet and it sounds like after 778F is done, I would guess they will put the same team on it.

The easy way around the ramp space issue is a folding wing, which Boeing knows how to do. As passenger numbers grow over the next 10 years - gate space for Passenger aircraft will come at a premium as well - a folding wing may find a market for some passenger 787 operators in addition to demand from FedEX and UPS. Going to 10 per month on 787 will allow them to price a new build freighter pretty competitively, but its most likely an after 2030 product.

"Boeing: B787F most likely candidate to succeed B767F"
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1476711

This is a robust conversation from sep/oct 2022. There are several links to data sources and statements from Calhoun, Hermesmeyer...
One could pencil a b789f with a b783 wing, but launch expectations would be unlikely until the 2030s

*production constraints have likely eased for the b763f
*the a350f plays in the VLA space
*the a359cf(4-bogey) would play in the low density space against the ERSF
*the 787 was designed with the freighter in mind, production of a short winged version would place it in a unique marketing space. While providing new utility, it could also replace the MD11s and allow upgauging constrained 767 routes.

slick1017 wrote:

Is there any reason we haven't seen Boeing offer the 787 as a freighter?

It seems to be the clear successor to the 767 on the pax side and I would also assume the cargo side.

Won't the fuel savings entail better operating economics for airlines compared to ordering new 767Fs, since they've been in production for ages.

Do 767s have superior operating economics due to lower acquisition costs perhaps?

This is just what I think. Not many really know why but I could make some guesses.

1. To protect sales of the 777-8F for now. The 787 has already been a success in terms of sales but the 777X has not yet. They probably want the 777X to get as many orders as it can.

2. Covid caused alot of older aircraft to be retired early, so the market is kind of a bit saturated right now with plenty of options to choose from e.g aircraft freighter conversions

3. The 767F is still in wild demand, so they probably want to sell a lot more of those before committing to a 787F.

4. A 787F could be based on the 787 HGW ( -9) which they are currently working on, after these upgrades we might see a 787F launch. Remember the 777F is based on the longer range 777-200LR ( HGW)

The 787F will come eventually even thou I doubt it could be in the 2030s, I think sooner . Boeing won't be allowed to produce the 767F after 2027, so it means from 2027 onward they would not have an offering in the midsize segment if they don't develop the 787F.

Airbus would launch an a330neoF as a 767F replacement if Boeing does nothing. I doubt BA would wait till the 2030s and leave market share to airbus

Calhoun mentioned that some of their major costs last year included R&D, so I'm guessing they are working secretly on a 787F. Potential launch 2024/2025 ( I may be wrong but this is what I think)

A 787F could sit at around 80-90T and would not compete directly with the 109T a350F.
The 767F is a 52T freighter, the a330neo F could sit at 70-80T.

Mikenike wrote:

My biggest question is how a conversion to the freighter specs will do with the 787's composite carbon fiber fuselage. Wouldn't cutting out a cargo door have some serious implications with structural integrity since carbon fiber is interwoven together and very tightly pulled to make it solid? Wouldn't it result in something similar to fraying a rope with the perimeter of the door cutout?

Don’t underestimate the size of the lower hold cargo doors. They are pretty big so the implications you are referencing likely already have been dealt with

787 lower cargo door: 106x67 inches
767 main deck cargo door: 134x103 inches

zeke wrote:

slick1017 wrote:

Is there any reason we haven't seen Boeing offer the 787 as a freighter?

Boeing has said they will not be offering it.

False ,actually it's the opposite ,Calhoun said they are considering a F version

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Don’t underestimate the size of the lower hold cargo doors. They are pretty big so the implications you are referencing likely already have been dealt with

I was purely saying that it might be difficult to convert 787's because of the way they are built. I am not doubting the lower door at all, I was saying that it might be hard to cut a 134*103 or slightly larger actually hole in the side of the 787's carbon fibre fuselage without either it fraying apart or causing some issues with the integrity of it. Whether they have dealt with the implications I reference with an upper door, we don't know, and it very well could be the reason Boeing has stated that 787F is off the table for them.

Mikenike wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Don’t underestimate the size of the lower hold cargo doors. They are pretty big so the implications you are referencing likely already have been dealt with

I was purely saying that it might be difficult to convert 787's because of the way they are built. I am not doubting the lower door at all, I was saying that it might be hard to cut a 134*103 or slightly larger actually hole in the side of the 787's carbon fibre fuselage without either it fraying apart or causing some issues with the integrity of it. Whether they have dealt with the implications I reference with an upper door, we don't know, and it very well could be the reason Boeing has stated that 787F is off the table for them.

If you cut a hole in anything it is reinforced materially around that hole. Boeing has stated the 787 was designed to be easily made into a Freighter.

Boeing has not stated the 787F is off the table for them - its just not yet.

Mikenike wrote:

I was purely saying that it might be difficult to convert 787's because of the way they are built. I am not doubting the lower door at all, I was saying that it might be hard to cut a 134*103 or slightly larger actually hole in the side of the 787's carbon fibre fuselage without either it fraying apart or causing some issues with the integrity of it. Whether they have dealt with the implications I reference with an upper door, we don't know, and it very well could be the reason Boeing has stated that 787F is off the table for them.

Boeing is evidently on record stating that they designed the 787 Section 47 for a future freighter model and provisions have been made to support a large main deck cargo door if a decision to offer a factory-built option.

Mikenike wrote:

I was saying that it might be hard to cut a 134*103 or slightly larger actually hole in the side of the 787's carbon fibre fuselage without either it fraying apart or causing some issues with the integrity of it.

Fraying is not an issue. Delaminanation is more of a concern. In fact other than delamination, issues like crack propagation from the machined edges is non-existent in Carbon Reinforced composite.

Note that Boeing designed the 787 fuselage to be able to be repaired using bolted on patches. So if the structure can handle such repair, it can handle a mod such as a cargo door cut-out.

They already proved the concept by reparing that Eithiopian 787 with the crown fire.

bt