Back to Squawk list
  • 13

Boeing Investigates 767-XF and Possible PAX version to replace NMA

During the end of 2019, as it still produces the 767-300F - it was announced that Boeing will investigate the possibility of a 767-XF. A freighter based on the 767-400 with new GeX Engines. Using extended landing gear to add clearance for the new engines. "Sources indicate that a passenger 767-X development is also part of the project, which Boeing is examining as a cheaper, lower-risk alternative to developing the NMA – a clean-sheet design powered by next-generation engines." ( 기타...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

McDac Mindset. Dont design new, try to dress up the old. It will save money

How did that work out on the Max?
Let's not forget about that Airbus did the same thing with all of their narrow bodies with the Neo series and the A330 Neo as well.
Except Airbus didn’t have to make significant changes to the engine placement in order to accommodate geared turbofans. The basic 737 design dates back to a time before jetways and luggage containers, when roll-up air stairs and manual luggage handling were common, and the shorter landing gear was an advantage.
It is still an advanage for baggage handling; efficient airlines that need quick turnaround times at the gate count on it.
No idea why you're being downvoted. You must have hurt their feelings with those facts.
You mention anything negative Airbus on here and you always get downvoted, I've noticed.
Yup same here
No actually not quite..yes they made some minor changes to fuselage and bolted on more efficient engines, BUT they fit where old did. Much like auto makers make some cosmetic changes over the years and introduce a more fuel efficient engine.
Boeing, on the other hand wants changes much the same as the MAX. Not saying that the idea isn't good, but hope they think this 1 through better than the last. Also of note "To accommodate the larger-fan engines, the aircraft would incorporate extended landing gear to provide the necessary ground clearance." Now why did they not think of that before? Oh yeah..because certain individuals, who mentioned using extended or extendable landing gear, to the design team, to accommodate the larger engines, were not "engineers".
Aside from not being engineers, they apparently also weren’t aware that the length of the landing gear on the 737 enables baggage to be un/loaded without the use of airport equipment, an advantage the airline operators would not want to give up. Besides, where is the official document that says that the position of the engines or even MCAS caused the two crashes? Media “reports” don’t count.
mbrews 1
I disagree with your assertions about Lionair / MCAS factual history, However, you are correct about strong pressures during MAX design, to keep the 737's SHORT-LEGGED. Among the pressures : major 737 customer Ryanair has equipped their 737 NG fleet with the old-fashioned fold-out airstairs. That allows Ryanair flexibility to operate into minor European airports without expensive jetways, and speeds the turnaround time. Saw this firsthand at Pisa, Italy
I didn’t make an assertion, I asked where the official indictments of MCAS are. I did assert that the media’s reports don’t count, and I still do—after all they are still claiming MCAS is an anti-stall system and that it wrests control away from the pilots and pushes the airplane into a nose dive.
Then explain why the same concept, that was put forth for the 8 and 9, is being used on the 10 due to its length? Hydraulic extendable landing struts.
Yes they would have worked, no they would not cause landing or takeoff issues.
How did you determine “would not cause landing or takeoff issues?” Is there enough rotation for take off without the risk of a tailstrike?
Because there are no landing or takeoff issues on the 10. The extendable gear was used to prevent tailstrike on the 10. We are talking the Max 8 and 9 so for them to re-position the engines on the 10 would mean a completely different airframe. Do I think it's design is safe, no, but it's too late now and hopefully the "software fix" will do the job. So your "keeping it short" ideas got tossed out the window on the 10, yet it's still a MAX.
P.S.: Did they reposition the engines on the -10 to where you think they belong to make a safe design?
Agreed. McDac too late deciding what to do with the MD-11 until it was too little and too late. Half the potential customers no longer had any confidence in them.

I think Boeing realizes that they have to swim or sink.
It worked out very well. Do you know of any competent aviation agency that thinks engine placement or MCAS caused the two crashes? Reports by news reporters with close to zero competence in aviation obviously don’t count, nor do those “aviation experts” they trotted out to support the gross speculation that they published as fact. Try actually reading the official investigation reports and understanding the airplane’s recorded data to come to your conclusions rather than relying on the media’s distorted interpretation of them and the illogical verdict.
Maybe you best try reading the 600 page report from Lion Air crash. Sole blame was never placed on MCAS, but MCAS and it5's poorly designed operating perimeters, is being added to the blame.
I did read all of it. I focused on the data that shows what happened on that flight and the penultimate flight, not the media’s interpretation. And I didn’t find pilots struggling with the controls, or fighting a futile tug of war against MCAS, or that they were confused by numerous simultaneous warnings and alarms, or that MCAS acted so rapidly that they didn’t have time to figure out what was going on. Actually, they successfully countered the stab trim runaway more than two dozen times, quite easily, without even mentioning a runaway even once. That’s because they had never even heard of it, never mind practising the recovery procedure in a simulator—as has been mandatory since the 1960s. Thus they simply didn’t know how to shut off the powered trim system and when control was handed over to the FO (who was a terrible airman as training records show) he barely made any attempt to counter the runaway trim. The Captain, who had his head buried in ops manuals, didn’t notice the FO’s failure to counter the runaway. In fact, just seconds before impact, when the FO’s control force reached 93 lbs. and he complained, the Captain responded with “That’s ok” as though he was pacifying a nagging child! The rest is history. Did you miss all that when you read the report?

BTW, the media carefully avoided much mention of the penultimate flight that experienced the same stab trim runaway and survived, probably because doing so would have put a kink in the sensational story they were spinning to make click-bait headlines.
I never made mention of anything media since they never published the report, yet you continue to carry on like they did publish it. The report does say that Boeing failed in the MCAS with it's operational perimeters, which they did. It also mentioned poor maintenance procedures by the airline, poor repairs to the AOA sensor, poor training and poor airmanship of the flight.
So please, stop trying to defend their actions of allowing only 1 set of single perimeters to allow a flight system to operate.
I added the quote from the article for the last part - as New engine options are cheaper, but are they lower risk?
mbrews 7
- Boeings project analysis will no doubt evaluate the risk question(s) . No such thing as a risk-free undertaking. Its about comparative risk - development, certification, financing, market risks. sounds like extended landing gear would be a technology risk.
- How about asking GE to develop a high-efficiency CF6 that is more plug-and-play, AND keeps the same thrust angle, for goodness sake.
Because your last line would be too logical for them to consider.
Because your last line is illogical. These are axial flow engines, so the thrust angle is zero relative to the spin axis. To create something else would introduce technology not used on commercial airplanes to date, and would defeat your intent to keep risk low. Besides, the placement of the engines was not the cause of the two MAX crashes, not even indirectly.
NOOOOOOO. Redesign the 767 to accommodate different engines? See the 737-Max on how well Boeing did with that project. I'm not saying it can't be done. It just shouldn't be done with the existing Boeing middle and upper management.
Chris B 2
I pray that Boeing has learnt its $18 billion lesson from the Max debacle. The Max may well go down in history both as the most successful 737 variant and Boeing's biggest failure.

Consumers, airlines and Airbus need Boeing to succeed. Or else the door will be wide open to Chinese and Russian aircraft manufacturers.
racerxx -2
But when Airbus does that with their A32x and A33x, it’s ok?
The engines fit on the airbus. The engines did not fit on the Max and Boeing had to get creative. If the engines fit on the B767, then they fit.
I vote for a new 757 variant! Though, I do love me some 764 goodness!
jbermo 1
With today's mindset of Boeing, the risky B-707, B-727, and B-747 would most likely not have been built. We would have the super stretched B-377 MAX instead.
jbermo 1
They won't do it! Boeing simply does not want to build the NMA. Why won't Boeing build the #^$#% NMA?


계정을 가지고 계십니까? 사용자 정의된 기능, 비행 경보 및 더 많은 정보를 위해 지금(무료) 등록하세요!
이 웹 사이트는 쿠키를 사용합니다. 이 웹 사이트를 사용하고 탐색함으로써 귀하는 이러한 쿠기 사용을 수락하는 것입니다.
FlightAware 항공편 추적이 광고로 지원된다는 것을 알고 계셨습니까?
FlightAware.com의 광고를 허용하면 FlightAware를 무료로 유지할 수 있습니다. Flightaware에서는 훌륭한 경험을 제공할 수 있도록 관련성있고 방해되지 않는 광고를 유지하기 위해 열심히 노력하고 있습니다. FlightAware에서 간단히 광고를 허용 하거나 프리미엄 계정을 고려해 보십시오..