NMA= 767x ???
10-11-2019, 07:43 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 3,392
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
It’d be a cargo airframe first...
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
10-11-2019, 08:30 AM
#13
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,482
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 can’t do even the most basic things well.
10-11-2019, 08:33 AM
#14
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,505
Originally Posted by Excargodog
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 can’t do even the most basic things well.
10-11-2019, 08:43 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Originally Posted by Aero1900
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
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.
10-11-2019, 09:01 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 3,392
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
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.
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.
10-11-2019, 09:15 AM
#17
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,482
Originally Posted by BoilerUP
Interesting that similar issues have not been reported in the newly manufactured 767Fs delivered to FedEx and UPS...
Perhaps their standards are different.
10-11-2019, 09:43 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,262
Originally Posted by KonaJoe
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.
"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.
10-16-2019, 12:47 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Position: Airbus 320 Captain
Posts: 481
Originally Posted by Aero1900
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?
And to add to that, wouldn't a 767MAX just a worse version of a 787? How could that be a success?
