|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Oct 11, 2019 21:08:30 GMT 1
but why you want to upgrade 767 for F instead of building 787F Many customers like the 767 because their operation is based on it. For instance, in some airports, the 787 has too much span to fit in 767 gates. The 787 is also more expensive, and its higher efficiency doesn't matter so much for freighter duty. you can always find justification with subgroups of customers, but that doesn't mean it'll make the program successful plus if fuel efficiency isn't the big factor for freighter, than why bother install new engines ? |
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Oct 11, 2019 21:13:43 GMT 1
Many customers like the 767 because their operation is based on it. For instance, in some airports, the 787 has too much span to fit in 767 gates. The 787 is also more expensive, and its higher efficiency doesn't matter so much for freighter duty. for Boeing's prospective, what's the benefit to keep both line in long term ? Especially when you are having problem to fill your production gaps The B767 line will be running for many years to come 200 - 300 more USAF tankers to come. |
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Oct 11, 2019 21:17:11 GMT 1
Many customers like the 767 because their operation is based on it. For instance, in some airports, the 787 has too much span to fit in 767 gates. The 787 is also more expensive, and its higher efficiency doesn't matter so much for freighter duty. you can always find justification with subgroups of customers, but that doesn't mean it'll make the program successful plus if fuel efficiency isn't the big factor for freighter, than why bother install new engines ? Fuel efficiency is important for freighters, but the over complex / expensive carbon fuselage is not needed for a freighter! |
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Oct 11, 2019 21:30:48 GMT 1
Those USAF tankers are boutique products. There is no way that after so many years and after the Air Force not ordering GEnx's for their needs they now invest in new engines for this veteran bird's final sale.
A reengined 767 will be expensive AND old technology. Not a winning combination for cargo.
|
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Oct 11, 2019 22:25:21 GMT 1
Those USAF tankers are boutique products. There is no way that after so many years and after the Air Force not ordering GEnx's for their needs they now invest in new engines for this veteran bird's final sale. A reengined 767 will be expensive AND old technology. Not a winning combination for cargo. New engines, new wing, cheap fuselage, that's what the B777x is. PS the USAF don't fly their tankers for 20 hours a day, so fuel efficiency does not matter so much to them. |
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Oct 12, 2019 6:26:58 GMT 1
you can always find justification with subgroups of customers, but that doesn't mean it'll make the program successful plus if fuel efficiency isn't the big factor for freighter, than why bother install new engines ? Fuel efficiency is important for freighters, but the over complex / expensive carbon fuselage is not needed for a freighter! my argument is eventually all the planes will become carbon fiber fuselage this is just an unavoidable trend |
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Oct 12, 2019 7:29:52 GMT 1
This will be some non-FBW exot with old wings and structure. Just because a classic 767 was a good airplane during it's day it is now behind it's big years. Launching it would sort of repeat the 737 mistake to not launch early the next single aisle. And there are no huge numbers of 747-8 to pair it with like the old 767 and 747-400 synergies.
I still think this "project" is just used to divert attention from the other Boeing headlines.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Oct 13, 2019 9:47:44 GMT 1
It's easy to criticise a project to launch a 767-based freighter, but there are some good reasons for doing so. There is a market for freighters of this size, as shown by the fact that the existing version still sells. More precisely, Boeing may be trying to address a request from Amazon (there is now a lack of good frames for 767 freighter conversions, and we have already heard that Amazon applied for new offerings from both Airbus and Boeing).
We don't know whether a re-engined 767 version will turn out to be the best choice, but the only alternatives are a 767 as-is and a new 787 freighter version. The latter would probably be larger and more expensive than requested.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Oct 13, 2019 12:08:58 GMT 1
It's easy to criticise a project to launch a 767-based freighter, but there are some good reasons for doing so. There is a market for freighters of this size, as shown by the fact that the existing version still sells. More precisely, Boeing may be trying to address a request from Amazon (there is now a lack of good frames for 767 freighter conversions, and we have already heard that Amazon applied for new offerings from both Airbus and Boeing). We don't know whether a re-engined 767 version will turn out to be the best choice, but the only alternatives are a 767 as-is and a new 787 freighter version. The latter would probably be larger and more expensive than requested. The reengined 767-400 would come out similar in size as the A330F, at least in volume rather than pure payload. One of the declared reasons why the A330F did not sell better, is actually the size. To big against the 767-300F, to short ranged against the 777F. If Boeing want to continue the run of the 767-300F why not reengine that bird, or even bring a reengined 767-200F? Instead of going for the frame tat was a complete bust. If the industry needs a reengined 767-400 sized frame, that would open big possibilities for a A330Fneo or the current A330 freighter conversions. I personally thing, that talk about a reengined 767 freighter shows that there will be no 787F and talk about a reengined 767 pax frame shows that the NMA project is in trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Oct 13, 2019 13:20:28 GMT 1
Exactly this.
|
|
