Notices

717 phase out?

Old 03-23-2019, 06:09 AM
  #31  
Bye Bye Maddog!
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Movin' On UP........
Posts: 560
Default

Maybe we could just get new 767's in the UPS configuration....with the lav in the cockpit, and 4 jumpseats!
Piklepausepull is offline  
Old 03-23-2019, 06:51 AM
  #32  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: Looking left
Posts: 3,242
Default

Originally Posted by FL370esq View Post
Spitballin' but.....Ed Bastian? 😁
Info on this site is akin to this:

“Um, he's sick. My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it's pretty serious.”

Written document from said source or video where I hear the words out of their mouth is what I trust.

You are a funny guy! 😎
DWC CAP10 USAF is offline  
Old 03-23-2019, 06:51 AM
  #33  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: Looking left
Posts: 3,242
Default

Originally Posted by saturn View Post
Skyhub. Select group: Events Expressway. Use search function: Leadership Engagement Series. Choose video on Feb 13th. View starting at 45:07-47:16.

Really good Canabus info
Thanks Saturn! Time to fire up the SkyHub account!
DWC CAP10 USAF is offline  
Old 03-23-2019, 12:15 PM
  #34  
:-)
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Default

Originally Posted by Baradium View Post
If it could e a 767 NEO it could be a 797, you already said that the problem is engines in that thrust class?
Boeing sent out an RFP for a 45K-50K lbs engine with less than 7000lbs dry weight, and is a minimum 25% more fuel efficient than the Pratt PW2000. That means the 797 would be smaller than 767, but slightly larger than a 757. If they simply re-engine the 767, it would be cheaper to keep it a 767, than certify a new airplane the same size as a 767. It's definitely feasible to build the 797, the problem is the engine manufactures will take 10 years to get that clean slate engine, that was requested in the RFP. Boeing could simply go with the current Pratt PW2000, but the A321XLR would destroy it in operating costs.
Mesabah is offline  
Old 03-23-2019, 01:24 PM
  #35  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,224
Default

Originally Posted by Mesabah View Post
Boeing sent out an RFP for a 45K-50K lbs engine with less than 7000lbs dry weight, and is a minimum 25% more fuel efficient than the Pratt PW2000. That means the 797 would be smaller than 767, but slightly larger than a 757. If they simply re-engine the 767, it would be cheaper to keep it a 767, than certify a new airplane the same size as a 767. It's definitely feasible to build the 797, the problem is the engine manufactures will take 10 years to get that clean slate engine, that was requested in the RFP. Boeing could simply go with the current Pratt PW2000, but the A321XLR would destroy it in operating costs.
The original 767-300 operated with 48,000 lbs of thrust. With better wings and reductions in weight I suspect 45 to 50,000 lbs of thrust would allow a 767-300 sized airframe while maintaining the range of the 767-300 ER.
sailingfun is offline  
Old 03-23-2019, 01:25 PM
  #36  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Default

Originally Posted by Mesabah View Post
Boeing sent out an RFP for a 45K-50K lbs engine with less than 7000lbs dry weight, and is a minimum 25% more fuel efficient than the Pratt PW2000. That means the 797 would be smaller than 767, but slightly larger than a 757. If they simply re-engine the 767, it would be cheaper to keep it a 767, than certify a new airplane the same size as a 767. It's definitely feasible to build the 797, the problem is the engine manufactures will take 10 years to get that clean slate engine, that was requested in the RFP. Boeing could simply go with the current Pratt PW2000, but the A321XLR would destroy it in operating costs.
If they have a new engine for the size class of a 767, they could make a 797 with it. The whole point was the engine doesn't exist. An engine that does exist would still be more efficient on a new composite airframe than keeping the 767, which as you said would not be efficient enough.
Baradium is offline  
Old 03-23-2019, 01:27 PM
  #37  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,631
Default

Originally Posted by Mesabah View Post
Boeing sent out an RFP for a 45K-50K lbs engine with less than 7000lbs dry weight, and is a minimum 25% more fuel efficient than the Pratt PW2000. That means the 797 would be smaller than 767, but slightly larger than a 757. If they simply re-engine the 767, it would be cheaper to keep it a 767, than certify a new airplane the same size as a 767. It's definitely feasible to build the 797, the problem is the engine manufactures will take 10 years to get that clean slate engine, that was requested in the RFP. Boeing could simply go with the current Pratt PW2000, but the A321XLR would destroy it in operating costs.
Aren’t the 767 and 787 virtually the same size? BA wouldn’t want to build a cheap 767NEO if it was a sales threat to the 787.
Planetrain is offline  
Old 03-23-2019, 01:29 PM
  #38  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Default

Originally Posted by Planetrain View Post
Aren’t the 767 and 787 virtually the same size? BA wouldn’t want to build a cheap 767NEO if it was a sales threat to the 787.
They are. The 797 is supposed to be a shorter range aircraft than a 787. the 787 doesn't have much different fuel burn on short to mid range flights because of weight to carry the long range load.
Baradium is offline  
Old 03-23-2019, 01:31 PM
  #39  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: 320B
Posts: 369
Default

Originally Posted by saturn View Post
Skyhub. Select group: Events Expressway. Use search function: Leadership Engagement Series. Choose video on Feb 13th. View starting at 45:07-47:16.

Really good Canabus info
Great vid, thanks!
Bert Sampson is offline  
Old 03-23-2019, 01:42 PM
  #40  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,224
Default

Originally Posted by Planetrain View Post
Aren’t the 767 and 787 virtually the same size? BA wouldn’t want to build a cheap 767NEO if it was a sales threat to the 787.
They are not. The 787-800 seats more than the 767-300 and has a almost 100,000 lb higher gross weight. The 787-900 which is what should be compared to the 767-300 ER seats substantially more and has almost 150,000 lb higher takeoff weight.
sailingfun is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
marcal
Delta
42
05-11-2018 10:04 AM
Turboprop
Regional
16
02-28-2014 11:51 AM
nerd2009
Major
586
05-31-2012 04:02 AM
shado
Southwest
268
09-09-2011 03:08 PM
bjsmith
Technical
9
04-16-2009 09:18 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices