CLazarus

Unless development has been full speed ahead behind the scenes, the commonly discussed 2025 entry into service date of a NMA is frankly un-achievable. BA has described the NMA as a twin aisle aircraft with single aisle economics. The technological advances needed to ensure market success in an aircraft whose market is somewhat limited are nowhere near ready. I think they need at least another decade to mature the airframe (one in which the fuselage generates a lot of lift). One only need look at the 787 and MAX developments to see the dangers of rushing to market.

Meanwhile, our oldest 756s (and 777s) are not going to make it another decade, but a re-engined -400 would probably tide us over nicely. Plus I'd bet on a USAF follow on buy, some other Big 3 orders, and even some freighters. I suppose reviving the 787-3 is another distinct possibility.

Rather than a NMA, I think BA is going to dust off its clean sheet 737 replacement even if it cannibalizes future MAX orders. I just read an article about how BA won the USAF's T-38 replacement competition with an exceptionally low bid, in large part due to the greatly improved manufacturing efficiencies it expects to achieve (yes, I know it could all turn out to be BS). I think BA is now going to turn around and apply the same know how to a 737 replacement, one better able to meet the A220-300 and A321NEO threat. By the time the clean sheet NB design enters service (2027ish?), the technology for a NMA should be mature enough to enter full scale development.

Or they could just launch the MAX-11 instead

Itsajob

My guess is some deeply discounted 787’s will replace the 767 after the total amount of money that the Max has cost the company is determined. Who knows, possibly cheap Max’s. It’s an extremely efficient airplane when flying straight and level. Boeing’s reputation may be damaged to the point where a 767 Max would be a tough sale.

Aero1900

Whatever Boeing comes up with will be a tough sell. This 737Max debacle is going to hurt for a long time.

I'm pretty sure that they have a design ready to move forward with but can't unveil anything right now. I bet they have shown it to the airlines in private but wouldn't dare show anything new to the public right now. I still don't know how you find the middle ground between a MAX10 and a 787 though

fasteddie800

As the world is now painfully aware, Boeing's approach on the MAX was "Save on certification costs by modifying an existing design under the existing type cert." The FAA nodded in agreement, and everything worked out fine right until it didn't.

I gotta think the FAA isn't going to make the same mistake again, and any efforts to get a new design in under the existing 767 type certificate are going to be incredibly scrutinized. If they tried type-certifying the 737NG today, it wouldn't pass. Of course, the 737 is a mid-60s design, where as the 767 is late 70s, so maybe the 767 design would be better able to stand up to modern certification standards.

Regardless, if Boeing designs it, hangs a good price tag on it and gets one freighter operator to sign up with a big order, it's probably off to the races. Then if United or someone else decides to replace old 767s with these new-fangled 767s, well, there you go.

fasteddie800

For the KC-46, my understanding is the airframes are built-up on the normal 767 line along with the freighters, and then moved over to the mod facility to have all the tanker-specific stuff installed.

My assumption is the mod facility runs like any other defense contractor operation I've ever been involved with. Too much money, too many people, low bar for success, and just general chaos. You didn't put your best people on the government work. You singled-out the lackluster performers, and sent them to go work on Uncle Sam's dime.

UAL T38 Phlyer

As a former high-time T-38 guy, I’ve followed the replacement selection closely.

The newly-named T-7A Redtail was mostly designed by SAAB. My best guess is Boeing partnered for “systems integration,” but mostly to make it look like it was “built in America.”

Most analysts say Boeing is selling the jets at a loss, but because it comes with a 30-year “Boeing Support Services Package,” they intend to make their profit in maintenance and spare parts....NOT some new manufacturing techniques.

So, I doubt there is any technology crossover therein for the NMA.

Sniper66

787 - 8
Ordered 45 at cheap price or buy used since most want the 9 and 10
And game over
Great replacement for the 767

CLazarus

I like it, plus well suited for expanding the DEN 787 base with Intl and HI flying.

TallFlyer

People seem to forget that the crux of the 737s current issues is that the weight height was originally designed around a low bypass turbofan design, and later iterations had to deal with that original design choice. They made it work well on the NGs, not so much on the MAX as that engine design was significantly larger than the CFM56.

The 767 (and 757) were originally designed around much larger diameter engines and therefore the re-engine g those frames will be a much more straightforward process than the engineering gymnastics they’ve had to do with the MAX.

As proof of that, consider the A320NEO, A330NEO, 747-400, 747-8, and (potentially) 777x. All of those airframes are re-engined variants of types that were originally designed around smaller diameter engines.

Bottom line, a re-engined 767 (or 757) would not have the same challenges of the 737MAX.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fasteddie800

Correct, however engine mounting wasn't the only challenge to fielding the MAX. There were other aspects of the 737 design that, while approved during the initial certification in the 60s, would never be approved as part of a new type cert today. The rudder cables running along the side of the fuselage face danger of being severed in the event of an uncontained engine failure, as an example.

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/0...certified.html

The FAA more or less held up their noses and approved the MAX, in spite of this. Reference this quote form the linked article.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. While I don't think the FAA would strictly forbid a new model of the 767 under the existing type, I'd imagine they're going to be a lot less lenient on what they approve. That said, the 767 was originally certified in the late 70s (as opposed to the 737 in the mid 60s), so one would hope there would be fewer issues.