forgot to bid

An enhanced 762 with gtfo engines and a 787 cockpit for commonality would probably sell like hot cakes at a fatty convention.



Surely it could come to market quickly? Outside of Boeing running the program... so nevermind

Mesabah

UDF engine, kinda neat looking.

TrojanCMH

Wasn’t that the 787?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MadDogMikeATL

The 787 is substantially larger & heavier than the 767.

TrojanCMH

Close enough. Maybe just make a shorter 787 with less fuel capacity and call it a 767 replacement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BeatNavy

I think you are talking about something like the 787-3 (same size as a -8 but with less fuel, lower weight, shorter wings), which got shelved after a lack of interest. The 787 is a 9 abreast plane (except at JAL where it’s 8), the 767 is 7 abreast. Apples and oranges.

TrojanCMH

Fair enough. Just seems like it would take a much smaller investment to shrink the 787 than to design a clean sheet airplane to match the 767. But if there’s no market then there’s no market...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BeatNavy

The initial cost is one of the concerns with the whole MoM/NMA/797 development. Some analysts think there may not be a large enough market to justify the enormous cost of developing a new clean sheet plane.

That said, shrinks are very rarely efficient because the base plane is usually designed in an optimum configuration for that size. Engine and other PIPs can make stretches end up being more efficient (kind of what happened with the 321), but shrinks have historically never really worked out well. Note that the A350-800 got canceled due to lack of interest, and the A319NEO has a tiny fraction of orders compared to 320/321NEO. The 787 has very heavy components for a hypothetical shrink (in other words it'd be way overbuilt), and it would end up being pretty heavy and inefficient in a shorter/lighter config for a base design optimized for a bigger/heavier plane. At that point airlines would probably be better off with a more versatile 787-8 or even a -9. Even the -8s have fallen out of favor, and the -9 and -10 has outsold the -8 by a huge margin in the last several years due to their much better casm.

I thought a 767MAX would have been cool. Throw in a 787 type cockpit, new efficient motors, design a new more efficient/lighter CFRP wing, maybe some other mods. But apparently that wasn't a good idea either.

I'm guessing a new Boeing 797 (or whatever they will call it) will be announced this year or next though. Supposedly it already exists on paper and the major design elements of it are frozen. Or so I heard.

Mesabah

The supposed design of the 797 is a new oval shaped fuselage that only composites can accomplish. This is to allow a double aisle aircraft, that uses a 757 sized engine, with the fuel burn of the 737NG at cruise. This is significantly different than a 767, the 797 competes directly with a long range narrowbody. It has no advantage to a narrowbody, other than passenger comfort.

Herkflyr

Let's say this hypothetical plane gets built and delivered. A twin aisle boards and deplanes far more quickly than a single aisle. With the 767 2-3-2 configuration, 2/7 of the pax have a window seat (with only one pax to bother when needing a bathroom break), 4/7 have an aisle seat, and the one out of 7 stuck with middle seat has two different aisles to choose from when getting up.

Throw in a 2L door that's used most of the time (like the 757 and most WBs not called a 767) and that makes deplaning even quicker, not to mention quicker and easier (and less obnoxious) catering.

With our new found religion of Net Promoter Scores, does any of that really add up to warrant a new aircraft design and purchase?

Sadly my guess is no. Pax comfort DOES mean something... within the existing fleet mix. I don't think it means enough to change a fleet order specifically for that reason.