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 10-10-2019, 08:46 PM   #1  
Line Holder
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 55
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: 578
Default

Lipstick On A Pig, Part Deux.
Winston is offline  
Old 10-10-2019, 09:19 PM   #3  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Position: Guppy.
Posts: 28
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: 1,206
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.
Too soon?......
symbian simian is offline  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:22 PM   #5  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jun 2019
Position: Guppy.
Posts: 28
Default

Quote:
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: Uncertain; Negative RNP
Posts: 4,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winston View Post
Lipstick On A Pig, Part Deux.
I would say the significant difference is it wouldnít 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.

Iíve 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.

Iíd 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: 341
Default

Iím 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: 1,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck D View Post
Iím down with it just as long as they stick with current nomenclature and call it the 767 MAX
Ha. Solid bet
Aero1900 is offline  
Old 10-11-2019, 06:53 AM   #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2012
Position: 1900D CA
Posts: 1,159
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 offline  
Old 10-11-2019, 07:25 AM   #10  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2019
Posts: 49
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?
With all the financial damage Boeing has done to their customers, 787-8ís 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 isnít much smaller than a 787-8 so youíre question is indeed valid.
JimLaheyTPS 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 12:11 PM.