Boeing NMA is DOA
01-23-2020, 05:49 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 659
767 is still in production. How about a 767 MAX?
New engines, maybe new wing. Avoid costs of composite fuselage and clean sheet designs. You wind up with a slightly longer range more efficient 767 replacement, and you keep selling them for cargo.
New engines, maybe new wing. Avoid costs of composite fuselage and clean sheet designs. You wind up with a slightly longer range more efficient 767 replacement, and you keep selling them for cargo.
01-23-2020, 10:55 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Originally Posted by Peacock
767 is still in production. How about a 767 MAX?
New engines, maybe new wing. Avoid costs of composite fuselage and clean sheet designs. You wind up with a slightly longer range more efficient 767 replacement, and you keep selling them for cargo.
New engines, maybe new wing. Avoid costs of composite fuselage and clean sheet designs. You wind up with a slightly longer range more efficient 767 replacement, and you keep selling them for cargo.
01-24-2020, 03:05 AM
#14
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,511
767-X is basically a 767-400ER with taller landing gear and GEnx engines.
It’d make a fantastic MD11 replacement for UPS/FDX, and with shorter wings, fit on more passenger gates than a 330 CEO.
One issue is Boeing was only making 2.5 767/mo with a sizable order book from USAF, FDX and UPS. Boeing increased production to 3 airframes/mo this month but that’d likely need to come up substantially to support new passenger orders.
It’d make a fantastic MD11 replacement for UPS/FDX, and with shorter wings, fit on more passenger gates than a 330 CEO.
One issue is Boeing was only making 2.5 767/mo with a sizable order book from USAF, FDX and UPS. Boeing increased production to 3 airframes/mo this month but that’d likely need to come up substantially to support new passenger orders.
01-24-2020, 03:11 AM
#15
All is fine at .79
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Position: Paahlot
Posts: 4,082
75 is high enough on its gear for pretty large GenX engines.
According to the Crusties I’ve flown with only the 72 and the 75 are real airplanes and you’re not a real pilot unless you’ve flown one.
Cue there I was in a snowstorm inverted on the ILS with the #2 on fire....
Seriously the 73 is truly a Frankenstein airplane, part 1960’s part 2000’s.
They should have started 10-12 years ago with the 75 NG with pretty glass and efficient engines.
It was already a rocket ship so doubt the wing needs much tweaking.
According to the Crusties I’ve flown with only the 72 and the 75 are real airplanes and you’re not a real pilot unless you’ve flown one.
Cue there I was in a snowstorm inverted on the ILS with the #2 on fire....
Seriously the 73 is truly a Frankenstein airplane, part 1960’s part 2000’s.
They should have started 10-12 years ago with the 75 NG with pretty glass and efficient engines.
It was already a rocket ship so doubt the wing needs much tweaking.
01-24-2020, 03:55 AM
#16
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,244
Originally Posted by TiredSoul
It was already a rocket ship so doubt the wing needs much tweaking.
01-24-2020, 05:32 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 3,394
I've long thought that Boeing has too thin of a market for the NMA.
They have made the 737 so big (Max9 and Max10) that the gap between it and the 787 is just too small to really have a huge number of sales for a new plane. I like the idea of a spruced up 767, but that would just be a less efficient 787. I don't know
They have made the 737 so big (Max9 and Max10) that the gap between it and the 787 is just too small to really have a huge number of sales for a new plane. I like the idea of a spruced up 767, but that would just be a less efficient 787. I don't know
01-24-2020, 09:10 AM
#19
On Reserve
Joined APC: Oct 2019
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Oh there's a case in that niche all right. But is it a big enough case to pay for the R&D, especially squeezed between Max 10 / XLR on one end and 787 / 350 on the other?
Part of the problem is that the original NMA was intended to squarely fit the 757 niche, but it doesn't look like many folks will hang on to their 75's long enough now... by the time an NMA arrived, they'd already be replaced.
If they could offer an NMA right now, I'm sure it would sell just fine.
Part of the problem is that the original NMA was intended to squarely fit the 757 niche, but it doesn't look like many folks will hang on to their 75's long enough now... by the time an NMA arrived, they'd already be replaced.
If they could offer an NMA right now, I'm sure it would sell just fine.
Avionics could be as simple as the updated avionics packages that I think some of the cargo outfits are throwing into the 767.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
