717 phase out?
03-23-2019 | 06:51 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 3,974
Likes: 178
From: Looking left
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! 😎
“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! 😎
03-23-2019 | 06:51 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 3,974
Likes: 178
From: Looking left
03-23-2019 | 12:15 PM
#34
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 0
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.
03-23-2019 | 01:24 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,868
Likes: 187
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.
03-23-2019 | 01:25 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,370
Likes: 0
From: 737 FO
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.
03-23-2019 | 01:27 PM
#37
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 1,995
Likes: 176
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.
03-23-2019 | 01:29 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,370
Likes: 0
From: 737 FO
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.
03-23-2019 | 01:31 PM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
From: 320B
03-23-2019 | 01:42 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,868
Likes: 187
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.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
