Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-11-2019, 08:34 AM   #11  
Challenge Accepted Five
 
BoilerUP's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,062
Default

Itíd be a cargo airframe first...
BoilerUP is offline  
Old 10-11-2019, 08:43 AM   #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 1,206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerUP View Post
Itíd be a cargo airframe first...
That definitely makes sense.

I've long thought that the middle of market was an awfully narrow gap for Boeing to try and fill. After they have made the 737 so big, the gap to the 787 just isn't that much especially with a 737Max10 coming
Aero1900 is offline  
Old 10-11-2019, 09:30 AM   #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 2,816
Default

They are going to have to - literally - clean up their act. The USAF has now TWICE stopped deliveries of their tankers that are built on the 767 airframe because the delivered aircraft were found to have so much FOD from laziness and shoddy workmanship the USAF considered them unacceptable. These days it seems like Boeing canít do even the most basic things well.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 10-11-2019, 09:33 AM   #14  
Challenge Accepted Five
 
BoilerUP's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Excargodog View Post
They are going to have to - literally - clean up their act. The USAF has now TWICE stopped deliveries of their tankers that are built on the 767 airframe because the delivered aircraft were found to have so much FOD from laziness and shoddy workmanship the USAF considered them unacceptable. These days it seems like Boeing canít do even the most basic things well.
Interesting that similar issues have not been reported in the newly manufactured 767Fs delivered to FedEx and UPS...
BoilerUP is offline  
Old 10-11-2019, 09:43 AM   #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
cadetdrivr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aero1900 View Post
I've long thought that the middle of market was an awfully narrow gap for Boeing to try and fill. After they have made the 737 so big, the gap to the 787 just isn't that much especially with a 737Max10 coming
FWIW, the problem is not the seating capacity but the range. As each MAX in the series is larger, each one also has less range with the -10 being the shortest range of all.

The MAX-10 is presumably fine for domestic flights with long runways at sea level, but it can't replace the 757/767 across the Atlantic which would be a primary market for the NMA or a re-engined 767.
cadetdrivr is offline  
Old 10-11-2019, 10:01 AM   #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 1,206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr View Post
FWIW, the problem is not the seating capacity but the range. As each MAX in the series is larger, each one also has less range with the -10 being the shortest range of all.

The MAX-10 is presumably fine for domestic flights with long runways at sea level, but it can't replace the 757/767 across the Atlantic which would be a primary market for the NMA or a re-engined 767.
Good point thanks. I was thinking about seating capacity
Aero1900 is offline  
Old 10-11-2019, 10:15 AM   #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 2,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerUP View Post
Interesting that similar issues have not been reported in the newly manufactured 767Fs delivered to FedEx and UPS...
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...-debris-found/


Perhaps their standards are different.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 10-11-2019, 10:43 AM   #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 13,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaJoe View Post
From the Flight Global article:

"As these engines would be larger than the current CF6 engines, the 767X would require a modified landing gear, to give greater clearance below the plane."

Why not just move the engines further forward and abov... Nevermind.
Thatís what Airbus did on the A330-900. Seems to work fine. The issue was MCAS without a backup. Almost all stretched airliners have poor high AOA characteristics including the issues now coming out on the A320/21 NEO
sailingfun is offline  
Old 10-13-2019, 11:20 PM   #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ItnStln's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,243
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerUP View Post
Interesting that similar issues have not been reported in the newly manufactured 767Fs delivered to FedEx and UPS...
I've noticed that as well and it is interesting
ItnStln is offline  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:47 PM   #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Position: Airbus 320 Captain
Posts: 441
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aero1900 View Post
If you compare a 767 to a 787, what percentage of the fuel efficiency gains is a result of the engine's compared to the aerodynamics and advanced wing design?

And to add to that, wouldn't a 767MAX just a worse version of a 787? How could that be a success?
I'd guess the some of the largest efficiency gains come from the composite (lighter weight) construction of the 787.
rp2pilot is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:44 AM.