Notices

NMA= 767x ???

Old 10-10-2019, 08:46 PM
  #1  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 80
Default NMA= 767x ???

https://www.google.com/amp/s/simpleflying.com/boeing-767x-nma/amp/
STXDrew is offline  
Old 10-10-2019, 08:54 PM
  #2  
Squawking 2000
 
Winston's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Position: Skeptical
Posts: 737
Default

Lipstick On A Pig, Part Deux.
Winston is offline  
Old 10-10-2019, 09:19 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Position: Guppy.
Posts: 285
Default

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.
KonaJoe is offline  
Old 10-10-2019, 10:32 PM
  #4  
Line holder
 
symbian simian's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: On the bus,seat 0A
Posts: 3,215
Default

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.
Too soon?......
symbian simian is offline  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:22 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Position: Guppy.
Posts: 285
Default

Originally Posted by symbian simian View Post
Too soon?......
No I'm just impressed that Boeing learned something.
KonaJoe is offline  
Old 10-11-2019, 12:37 AM
  #6  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

Originally Posted by Winston View Post
Lipstick On A Pig, Part Deux.
I would say the significant difference is it wouldn’t have to fly 160+ kt finals or have artificially high Vr speeds to avoid tail-strikes.

The 767-400 mentioned has very tall gear (airplane appears to be about 1-degree nose-down when parked). It probably gives the clearance they are looking for, to avoid the Max debacle.

I’ve read the estimated development costs for a 797 and they were huge. With their butt currently wedged in the porta-john, Boeing might be cash-strapped and risk-averse to a totally new design.

I’d say this might happen, and would likely be a good product.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 10-11-2019, 05:47 AM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 693
Default

I’m down with it just as long as they stick with current nomenclature and call it the 767 MAX
Chuck D is offline  
Old 10-11-2019, 06:50 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 3,384
Default

Originally Posted by Chuck D View Post
I’m down with it just as long as they stick with current nomenclature and call it the 767 MAX
Ha. Solid bet
Aero1900 is online now  
Old 10-11-2019, 06:53 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 3,384
Default

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?
Aero1900 is online now  
Old 10-11-2019, 07:25 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2019
Posts: 432
Default

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?
With all the financial damage Boeing has done to their customers, 787-8’s should be dished out as massive discount to make them that much more competitive vs bringing back an ancient design like the 767. A 767-400 isn’t much smaller than a 787-8 so you’re question is indeed valid.
JimLaheyTPS is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices