This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss
Back to Squawk list
  • 19

Boeing Examines GEnx Powered 767-X for Cargo and Passenger Roles

Submitted
Boeing is studying a re-engined derivative of the 767 widebody primarily for the cargo market, with service entry slated for the mid-2020s. A passenger version, which is also part of the study, could provide Boeing with a lower-cost alternative to its proposed New Mid-market Airplane (NMA). (www.flightglobal.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


s2v8377
s2v8377 4
Boeing should develop a 767-X and a 757-X as a joint project like they did with the original aircraft back in the late 70's early 80's.
xtoler
Larry Toler 2
This is just what Airbus did with the A330. This should be interesting.
That said we won't see a reengined 757 unless Boeing can reproduce the old tooling used for manufacturing the 757. That would be pretty cool to see.The 767 makes more sense as they are still being produced.
w7psk
Ricky Scott 3
Unfortunately for some reason, they destroyed all the tooling and drawings. The company cleansed itself of the 757. Something that puzzled me when we did it.
nemosteve1080i
McDonnell Douglas & United Airlines executed the same type of upgrade back in the 1980's to UA's DC8's. I'm not sure what engine was used for the upgrade. This upgrade made for some exciting takeoff rolls & rotations!
williambaker08
They were CFM56-2 engines that were used for the upgrade.
Dubslow
Dubslow 2
Yet somehow a 757 re-engine didn't make sense? I don't follow.

Mayhaps a 757X, a re-engine and re-winging à la 777X might make medium-investment sense...

(On a related note, why isn't a 787F a thing? Why are 767Fs still selling when there are similar sized yet more advanced and efficient airframe-engine combos available?)
airuphere
airuphere 2
My understanding is a 757 re engine wouldn’t work as original 757 materials and tooling are too expensive and would have to be redone - which would be the cost of a clean sheet. As mentioned above. NMA would be CF.
dba74m
dba74m 2
Because money. That is usually the answer to every question
bentwing60
bentwing60 3
Because lot's of 767F's are converted PX. aircraft with a very proven airframe and powerplants and lots of rotables available. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/rotable.html For the folks that have never spent any time on freight ramps, that ain't where you go to see the "new" airplanes.
mbrews
mbrews 1
Boeing is examining a sensible option, to address the Huge market to replace worn out B767s built around 1988 or 1990. Sounds like very sensible management approach.
Jaidee3ster
Jim Dollan 1
Wasn't the 737Max "a sensible option..... sensible management" Don't think so, more like a 'Low Cost option, Bad management' I am no expert but it does appear that the most important consideration influencing Boeing management decisions is the 'bottom line'!
mbrews
mbrews 2
Your words are telling : " I am no expert but .... " What you probably don't know is the Boeing 767 re-engining would be a lower-cost, lower risk, faster to market, plan than the relatively expensive and relatively more risky development of the so-called NMA or Boeing B-797. B-797 program ideas have been floated; but not yet committed by Boeing board of directors. Seems that the only folks who pay ZERO attention to bottom line are in safe spaces like academia, government, homeless shelter, etc. Luckily, nobody expects them to design reliable aircraft.
Jaidee3ster
Jim Dollan 1
Wasn't the 737Max a "a lower-cost, lower risk, faster to market, plan than the relatively expensive and relatively more risky development of the so-called NMA or Boeing B-797. B-797 program ideas have been floated;"
mbrews
mbrews 1
We probably agree more that disagree. Its important to note : the 737MAX re-engine was a flawed concept because 737's are inherently short-legged (short landing gear & ground clearance. ) That led to a tilted engine mount angle and tilted "thrust line " for 737MAX. Then the MCAS was added to compensate for thrust line effects. The 767 DOES NOT suffer from short-legged landing gear length. Any evaluation of 767 re-engine would include thrust angle, center-of-gravity, fuel and hydraulics, bleed air, and many other considerations. put the engineers to work. Silence the MBA's ( money before anything)
spursno1
Ben Wind 1
Enough with re-engined planes. Go clean sheet!
Jaidee3ster
Jim Dollan 0
757Max, 767Max..... don't think so! Sounds like another Low Cost fiasco in the making!
bigkahuna400
Nice idea, but sounds like another 737-Max job, which is costing Boeing Billions...bad idea
mbrews
mbrews 1
Uninformed comment. B764 have been proven over 25 years service. Substitute a more efficient engine to extend the product life of a robust design
Jackx9
Don Quixote 1
Whether or not it's costing them billions, they still have almost 5,000 on order, which they'll still see a profit in the end.
raleedy
ALLAN LEEDY -4
Cargo seems like a logical use for airplanes that people don’t want to fly on.

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!