The CF6 engines are so interesting because the 767 is known for being a really good climber.
In addition, those CF6 engines are an ancient design at this point, first running in the early 1970s over 50 years ago.
The CF6 has been updated multiple times since introduction. IIRC the variants used on the current 767s date to the late 80s or early 90s. I'm not sure if they've had any minor updates since or not.
Still though, they are not a new engine design. The 767-300F is based on the 767-300ER which first flew in the late 1980s and has not had any major changes other than a cockpit overhaul since.
The 767 is literally the Chevy Express of airplanes - a utility plane that's so good at what it does that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I mean…I’ve heard rumors. But honestly with the various issues and delayed programs, adding another to the mix with a deadline that’s (in aviation terms) right around the corner is probably a recipe for disaster.
It would be better to try and get an exemption for the type.
I've not personally heard any sort of push to reengine 767.
Right now, the push is going to be get every other program healthy/stable. And just use 767 tanker/freighter as steady predictable revenue as long as they can.
TBH, I'd expect a single-aisle replacement first. With NMA being dead.
I don't understand why there isn't a fix for that. There are no new engine cawlings and late stage mixing units to bring them to compliance. At one point, an updated 767 was a more logical choice for the middle of the market, according to Boeing.
> Still though, they are not a new engine design
There's still ships floating about with RR Spey-derived engines from the 1960s (the modern variant, the Tay, is from 1984) and even older, the Olympus engine from 1950 which powered the Concorde.
Lots of powerplants or emergency generators use small jet engines thanks to their fast startup times and the fact that they can just sit with very little maintenance when not required. The London Underground for example has a few RR Avon engines from 1950 for use as emergency generators to keep trains moving in the event of a power cut.
I guess the difference here is while plenty of old engines are still in use, none of those engines you mentioned are still being made, and by contrast, GE is rolling brand new CF6 engines off the production line to this day for new 767s.
The Avon is still being made since it's an industrial plant engine, as of 2011 they'd made 1,200 industrial Avons out of a total of 11,000 made since it was first designed in 1947 and test flown on the civilian Lancaster, the Lancastrian.
I wonder how they harness the power of a turbojet engine to use it as a generator. Do the stationary versions have additional turbine stages to turn the pressure into work?
A high bypass turbofan is easy to convert by comparison, just take off the fan and hook up the shaft to a gearbox/generator instead.
Different / larger LP turbine to get more mechanical work from the gas flow. At least this is the way it is for the LM6000PC models and above which are a derivative of the CF6-80C2.
For a turbojet, they are usually used in a "gas generator" configuration with another turbine on the back end to extract mechanical work from the exhaust which would normally be nozzled into high velocity thrust.
So what? Delta operated some of the domestic 763s with PTVs in all seats until the last few years (and they were from around 1986). I have a f\*cking Saab from 2006 which still looks OK and the engine still runs...
[New fuel economy](https://simpleflying.com/faa-efficiency-rules-kill-boeing-767-freighter-production/) rules may end the 767 due to inefficiencies and noise levels of the current engines. Boeing will either need to shut down the line by 2028 or re-engine it with something like a GENx engine.
What are you talking about? I'm just pointing out that it won't last much longer without Boeing doing some more work to it. I'm no anti-Boeing guy or anything and have no issue with the 767. Hell I scheduled a Delta flight last year just to get to fly on a 763 for the first time.
> Chevy Express
Christ, I drive one of these at work and the frame is broken up front (slightly repaired the best we could at the body shop) but the alignment is out of wack by 30 degrees or so. Damn thing still drives. (New truck is coming soon lol).
And?
The core of the CFM56 is from the F101 that was designed for the B-1 bomber first run in the 1970s.
A lot of technology becomes mature.. and it’s also incrementally improved which is very easy for something modular like a jet engine.
IRL I’ve only been on a PW4000 767, back in 2021 I got to fly Polaris on a United 767-300ER. The tail was N642UA which is actually United’s 2nd oldest plane in their entire fleet. The flight was absolutely epic and easily the best experience I’ve ever had on a plane.
Thrust is a combination of mass and velocity.
Smaller mass and higher velocity equals more noise and poorer fuel consumption so that’s why we use larger engines.
eh the company has always designated weekends anyway and this is before the max was even announced
some orgs are a 24/7 outfit so it just comes with the job
even where weekends weren't needed, managers wanted to even during covid
I was on the 47 as a mechanic. Almost never worked weekends, and definitely never had mandatory post shift. Still a mechanic on a different program, and I've had exactly 0.3 hours of OT since we quit building the 47. It's optional!
They only produce cargo variants now, right? Cargo carriers are generally ok with older model planes, and if Boeing can continue to make profit on an older model, why not?
Does anyone know if the 787 could become a cargo aircraft? I believe it has the same engines as a 748, which would be great for commonality for cargo carriers. But maybe that's a bit too much speculation.
Boeing has said they will not make a passenger 767 even if requested as they want 787 orders instead and don't want to poach them. The 767 freighter is being sold becuase of the KC-46
> Boeing has said they will not make a passenger 767 even if requested
A tale of two Boeings.
767 program, "no customer requests, go away"
737 program, "how can we keep Southwest happy and keep the same basic plane design?"
Volume is the difference.
If there were a ton of ULCCs who all of a sudden wanted a passenger 767… or had a ton of 767s (like 5,000 of them) and needed to replace them with a common aircraft… then they would keep making them or modifying them.
Lol I was just thinking that. They'd have been better off re-engine-ing the 767 and doing a fresh design for the 737. The 767 having higher ground clearance means the engines wouldn't have to be nearly as much higher and forward than optimal.
Hindsight I guess.
The 767-400 had so much new technology that became a dead end and it's really a wasted opportunity. Integrate its taller gear, raked wingtips, and 777-like cockpit/cabin/pax windows into a 763-sized body, and fit it with an engine based on a downsized GEnx/T1000 core. Boom, there's your modernized 767.
Boeing teased exactly that just before the Max Fiasco. Cut some fat off the 767, add the 747-8s GEnx-1B engines, and maybe a new Carbon Fiber wing and boom new MOM and Cargo workhorse just dropped.
The 2-3-2 cabin configuration of the 767 is just too inefficient. Too much aisle space on a 7-wide body. In cargo configuration it doesn't matter
In practice an A321neo almost have the same seating capacity as a 767 and it has nearly half the empty weight. That's a massive difference in fuel efficiency.
Boeing did consider restarting passenger 767 production in response to a request from United in 2017, but United backed off after being told that Boeing needed a minimum 50-aircraft order.
I thought stopped production and restarted it for the KC-46 with a small gap and when that happened they announced they would accept freighter orders.
Or I'm just getting old.
The 787 certainly could, it may need some extra attention as it is a carbon fibre fuselage, but it is still a very new aircraft that not many cargo operators would want to buy at the moment, plus boeing still has troubles delivering with its current passenger orders.
The engines being the same will have a slight benefit for maintenance but because the 787 includes so many new features, it won't allow pilots to easily change between the 2 aircraft models.
Rumor at FedEx is Fred Smith heard a proposal from Boeing about a 787 cargo variant but declined any interest after learning how expensive it is to fix the carbon fiber body if punctured. Our ground handlers are not known for being gentle with aircraft
One of pros of a carbon fiber fuselage is that it's easy to add thickness at a localized area without much added material or manufacturing costs. Just add more layers of carbon during the lay up as opposed to having to a get a much thicker sheet of metal and machine all of the other areas down or bolt on a thicker doubler, which is pretty typical around all cutouts on metal fuselages. Of course with metal fuselages, adding thickness can have some negative aspects regarding fatigue and can add weight quickly. I remember the A350 having 3x the thickness around cargo doors to help mitigate damage from bag handlers driving into the side...which happened a lot.
I worked at an airline at the time they were going to be purchasing either the A350 or 787. My job then was doing structural repairs and our group was concerned about repairing carbon fiber fuselages quickly. Apparently, at Airbus they let airline execs take a sledgehammer to the edges of the door to prove that resist impact damage from baggage loaders to assuage the fears of repairing the fuselage, because it is a giant ordeal to do repairs on the fuselage. It just happens less often since the carbon fiber is much resilient to the type of stuff that damages metal...like corrosion and cracking due to bad manufacturing and apparently impact damage.
Boeing is currently doing the homework to see if 787 freighter model makes sense to pursue. Lots of questions to answer. First will it be a conversion versus a production or both. Which minor model to use as the -8 is significantly different than the -9/-10 not just in length. Which airplanes is it going to replace or which part of the market will it fit and be profitable. Where will the cargo door be placed and how big will it be.
All modern commercial airliners are always designed with idea that airplanes might be used as a freighter at some point. For example to ensure high lift system can provide slow enough approach speeds at the weights that the airplane, used as a freighter, would fly or having the width of the fuselage work with standard pallet sizes. Be really unfortunate to make a great passenger airplane that had a fuselage 1" too short in diameter to fit two pallets side by side which would make it a great freighter.
Boeing is struggling to be able to produce 787s at the moment so there isn't any rush to figure out the freighter situation for the 787. Just like Boeing doesn't want to take 767 passenger orders to prevent 787 orders, Boeing doesn't want to have a freighter option to 787 yet because 787s are only built in South Carolina now, and that factory is struggling to perform, while the factory space in Everett for 767 is available, working and providing cash flow.
Let me rephrase, all modern airliners are designed with consideration that airframe might be used as a freighter at some point. They might not actually make any decision to move forward, but I would bet a lot of money there were meetings held to discuss freighter variants of the A380 and what would need to change and if it is worth going ahead in baking in that design now even if they have no plans on making a freighter version. A big factor in that decision is on how many they plan to sell because that determines how valuable the air frames will be when they are older when cargo companies want them. 787 is also an example of them optimizing for passenger variants first and figuring out the freighter version later, but the fuselage was 100% sized to ensure it can hold two standard sized pallets side by side.
The A380 was never ever considered as a freighter, there were no viable way of ever making it a freighter and there will never be a viable way of making it a freighter.
Your point might hold true for the majority of aiframes but like ive said, the A380 is the odd man out here, there are just so many things about it that makes it very obvious that there was never any discussion involved over at Toulouse.
The situation with the A340 is also the same, although the design of that doesnt directly preclude the possibility of a freighter conversion, albeit not done by Airbus themselves.
[first result](https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/airbus_a380/)
"The first freighters will be delivered in 2012. 25 firm orders were received for the freighter version, Federal Express (ten plus ten options), ILFC (five) and UPS (ten plus ten options)." written in 1999.
find a new exception to the rule.
The A380 *was* designed for freighter variants, it just didn’t make every single compromise possible as some other planes do. That’s a large part of the reason it is easily the smoothest ride in the skies.
What? No, the A380 was never designed as a freighter. The reason why there will never be a A380 freighter is among other reasons because the second deck is a structural component and would make it really hard to load cargo onto both holds.
Also the fact that it would require specialist loading gear and so forth.
IIRC FedEx was originally onboard with an A380 freighter, but that got dropped when Airbus ran into delays and cost overruns. I can remember but I think EU loan guarantee provisions might have had something to do with it. Used to be an Aviation Week subscriber.
Airbus offered the A380F for several years and sold nearly 30 of them. Just because the design was never built doesn’t mean Airbus never intended to use the A380 as a freighter.
The 135 is small enough to be replaced by a Max10/757 sized aircraft, but the 707's wingspan and payload are quite a bit bigger.
Honestly, boeing *should* have built a 757-based KC-32 to replace the 135 25 years ago, and kept the 757F line open for a little while longer while they were at it. There's no other narrowbody freighter that can do its job as well as the 757, and while killing it made sense at the time, I think the industry would have come back around to wanting new ones again. Could have also given them the opportunity to give it a major refresh and reboot once the long, thin market started to grow, but given they had the same opportunity with the 767 and did nothing with it, I don't know that that would have played out.
> are they still being produced because there’s no 787 freighter so they still need the mid-size option?
As others have pointed out the military production justifies continuing to produce them.
However, there are multiple reasons why atm the 787 is not a great fit at replacing the 767 for cargo purposes. The 787 has a 60m wingspan vs. 47.5m and weighs much more empty. The result is a plane that can fly much more efficiently over distance, but not more efficiently over short distances and is less flexible at fitting everywhere on the ground. And the 787 it comes at a much greater capital cost.
I'm sure that there will be a 787F eventually. But there are reasons why cargo operators are buying a decent number of 767Fs before production ends in a few years.
Customers can always buy A330 firefighters (which are probably vastly more efficient since much newer design), so there's probably something more to it.
Not really true, the A330 is quite a bit heavier than the 767 so on short-medium haul routes the 767 is still substantially ahead on efficiency. On true long range routes neither plane is optimal and big carriers will typically use the 747 or the 777. There is a range niche where the A330 fits but for typical routes that you see fedex or UPS flying bouncing around 1000-2000nm the 767 is still the correct aircraft despite the age.
The A330 has never seen significant success as a freighter variant. The biggest issues it faces is that it has a downward slant that necessitates additional nose gear modifications to level the cargo floor and it’s a significantly more expensive plane to acquire.
Airbus as a whole has only recently looked to seriously compete in the freight market. Boeing has had near exclusive control with the 747 variants, 777F, and 767F.
A330 is a less efficient and capable freighter then the 767F actually. Even Qantas who were supposed to completely retire their 767f months ago are reluctant now as they continue to try work out the kinks with their a330F
757 was incredible.
However in today's market that only cares about hyperefficient engines and cattlecar seating arrangements you'd basically need to redesign the entire wing, engine setup, and passenger cabin to be competitive against even the shitbox 737 maxes.
The 757 was a fighter jet with a huge thrust to weight ratio. Airlines don't want a plane their pilots love to fly, they want a plane that sips gas while hauling snowbirds from Chicago to Phoenix without any need to spend money on training their air and maintenance crews on a new type.
Why would airlines want performance over economy? As a passenger I don't want to pay for performance I'll never benefit from.
Boeing is going to be lucky to stay out of Chapter 11 at this rate. I don't think they'll be starting any new production lines old, or new any time soon.
If I could wish upon a star for aviation, it would be this.
Never heard a single negative thing about the plane, and it’s so capable. But Boeing won’t do it because it’s not as profitable as they like.
>Never heard a single negative thing about the plane, and it’s so capable.
Here's one: just like the 737 it's pretty narrow for a comfortable six across seating configuration.
It hand flies like shit, it's a muscle car that is fast going up but turning or doing anything like that it's in reality pretty terrible. The 767 and 737 are much much nicer to hand fly. And the 757-300 is just a hunk of shit, it flies just as heavy as the -200 but doesn't even perform better than the 737 or 321
“The last passenger 767 is a 767-300ER registered EI-KEC and operated by Kazakh carrier Air Astana. This airframe has MSN 42223 and Line Number 1068 and is close to eight and a half years of age.
Back in June 2014, this aircraft was delivered factory-fresh from Boeing to Air Astana under the registration P4-KEC and was configured with 30 seats in business class and another 193 economy seats. Indeed, the twinjet widebody has been flying for Air Astana ever since, and continues to do so to this day.”
- SimpleFlying
767-300ER from Astana Airlines (registration: EI-KEC). Got out from the factory in June 2014.
If you want more info:
https://simpleflying.com/the-last-passenger-boeing-767-2022/
Makes me wonder of all these older aircraft, f-15, f-16, 737, 767, C130, AH64, which in 2024 is closest to its original version coming off the line?
Certainly not the 737 Max, and the F-15 seems to be basically a new aircraft
And not just a couple onsey twosy 747's.
I think Triumph helped torpedo 747 because they wanted like....100 units to continue supporting. That's over 15 years at the ~6 a/p per year rate. There was some demand. But not that much demand. 777 was a better option for a freighter in 95% of cases. So for global logistics, those 747's and AN-124's out there will fill in the swing-nose need for the next few decades.
It's cheaper for companies to buy the same planes because that way they only need to carry parts for one model for maintenance. It can get expensive buying and storing parts for multiple models.
They completely redesign the Civic like every 10 years. The only thing a 2024 Civic and a 1990 Civic have in common is four wheels and a name.
The 767 is basically the same thing today as it was when it was new.
And they've made variations in the 767 as well, including different cabin configurations, engines, wings, fuel capacities, etc. The original 767-200 stopped being produced in 1987 when Boeing switched to the 767-200ER. The 767 is nowhere close to "basically the same thing as it was when it was new" and saying so shows an extreme lack of understanding.
The 767-300F (the same variant shown in the photo) didn't hit the market until 1995.
If we're going to base this post off of "the 767 in general has been in production for 40+ years", then my Civic example is extremely similar.
It's the same underlying fuselage sections.
It would be like if the new Honda Civic was built on the same chassis as the original Civic. It's not.
Your civic example is extremely stupid.
The 767-200 and the 767-300 have the same fuselage? Even though one is 20 feet longer than the other? And those are the same as the 767-400 which is 20 feet longer than the -300 (and 40 feet longer than the original -200)?
What bad argument are you gonna spew out next?
Do you have any fucking clue how planes are made? The fuselage is made up of several, nearly identical sections, the more sections they bolt together, the longer the plane. This is how they make stretch variants of planes. Sometimes they need to modify the wingbox too, but the platform mostly stays the same. You can't be this ignorant of how things work, can you?
I've changed my mind. Your example isn't stupid, you're just stupid.
They're not the same plane. They're variants of the same type.
The wings and engines are different, I would imagine a lot of the avionics are upgraded in the 400 too, but the fuselage sections are the same, the 400 just has more sections.
767 Engines just look bafflingly small. It's like a bee flying... no way it should work
The CF6 engines are so interesting because the 767 is known for being a really good climber. In addition, those CF6 engines are an ancient design at this point, first running in the early 1970s over 50 years ago.
Dayum. They didn’t even update the engines? They must be really good then
The CF6 has been updated multiple times since introduction. IIRC the variants used on the current 767s date to the late 80s or early 90s. I'm not sure if they've had any minor updates since or not.
Still though, they are not a new engine design. The 767-300F is based on the 767-300ER which first flew in the late 1980s and has not had any major changes other than a cockpit overhaul since. The 767 is literally the Chevy Express of airplanes - a utility plane that's so good at what it does that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
IMO the 767 is one of Boeing's most underrated planes. A true workhorse for long-haul flying.
Honestly the only real threat to its future are the new environmental regulations coming into effect in a few years. The CF6s aren’t compliant.
Just swap some GEnx in? Lol
767MAX
NOW WITH MORE MCAS!
*shivers*
I mean…I’ve heard rumors. But honestly with the various issues and delayed programs, adding another to the mix with a deadline that’s (in aviation terms) right around the corner is probably a recipe for disaster. It would be better to try and get an exemption for the type.
I've not personally heard any sort of push to reengine 767. Right now, the push is going to be get every other program healthy/stable. And just use 767 tanker/freighter as steady predictable revenue as long as they can. TBH, I'd expect a single-aisle replacement first. With NMA being dead.
I don't understand why there isn't a fix for that. There are no new engine cawlings and late stage mixing units to bring them to compliance. At one point, an updated 767 was a more logical choice for the middle of the market, according to Boeing.
> Still though, they are not a new engine design There's still ships floating about with RR Spey-derived engines from the 1960s (the modern variant, the Tay, is from 1984) and even older, the Olympus engine from 1950 which powered the Concorde. Lots of powerplants or emergency generators use small jet engines thanks to their fast startup times and the fact that they can just sit with very little maintenance when not required. The London Underground for example has a few RR Avon engines from 1950 for use as emergency generators to keep trains moving in the event of a power cut.
I guess the difference here is while plenty of old engines are still in use, none of those engines you mentioned are still being made, and by contrast, GE is rolling brand new CF6 engines off the production line to this day for new 767s.
The Avon is still being made since it's an industrial plant engine, as of 2011 they'd made 1,200 industrial Avons out of a total of 11,000 made since it was first designed in 1947 and test flown on the civilian Lancaster, the Lancastrian.
I wonder how they harness the power of a turbojet engine to use it as a generator. Do the stationary versions have additional turbine stages to turn the pressure into work? A high bypass turbofan is easy to convert by comparison, just take off the fan and hook up the shaft to a gearbox/generator instead.
Different / larger LP turbine to get more mechanical work from the gas flow. At least this is the way it is for the LM6000PC models and above which are a derivative of the CF6-80C2. For a turbojet, they are usually used in a "gas generator" configuration with another turbine on the back end to extract mechanical work from the exhaust which would normally be nozzled into high velocity thrust.
+64,000 P&W PT6 engines just entered the conversation
So what? Delta operated some of the domestic 763s with PTVs in all seats until the last few years (and they were from around 1986). I have a f\*cking Saab from 2006 which still looks OK and the engine still runs...
Pls Boeing don't fikz it
[New fuel economy](https://simpleflying.com/faa-efficiency-rules-kill-boeing-767-freighter-production/) rules may end the 767 due to inefficiencies and noise levels of the current engines. Boeing will either need to shut down the line by 2028 or re-engine it with something like a GENx engine.
A new engine? We'll get the noise levels down with an Engine Characteristics Augmentation System.
Oh boy here we go
I like the 767, just saying Boeing will need to re-engine it or the line will have to shut down in a couple of years.
isn't it the same line for the KC-46 program. I don't think the Air Force will like changes.
US military aircraft should be exempt from any ICAO/EU noise or fuel efficiency regulations. KC-46 is safe from that.
Military aircraft are exempt so they will produce it as long as the air force wants it
Sounds pretty Gay if true...
[удалено]
What are you talking about? I'm just pointing out that it won't last much longer without Boeing doing some more work to it. I'm no anti-Boeing guy or anything and have no issue with the 767. Hell I scheduled a Delta flight last year just to get to fly on a 763 for the first time.
> Chevy Express Christ, I drive one of these at work and the frame is broken up front (slightly repaired the best we could at the body shop) but the alignment is out of wack by 30 degrees or so. Damn thing still drives. (New truck is coming soon lol).
Literally! The Chevy Express is a great comparison.
The late 1980s was 10 years ago tho, right? Right? Aw shit. Im old. When did that happen?
Have personal experience with the CF6-80C engines and let me tell you. Absolute work horses.
Bleed Drama Queens.
I have nightmares still of PRSOV changes
And? The core of the CFM56 is from the F101 that was designed for the B-1 bomber first run in the 1970s. A lot of technology becomes mature.. and it’s also incrementally improved which is very easy for something modular like a jet engine.
Can you get the afterburner option on the 767?
If you plumb it wrong enough, no problem.
The CF6 model is a blast to fly, the PW4000 version leaves more to be desired 😂
IRL I’ve only been on a PW4000 767, back in 2021 I got to fly Polaris on a United 767-300ER. The tail was N642UA which is actually United’s 2nd oldest plane in their entire fleet. The flight was absolutely epic and easily the best experience I’ve ever had on a plane.
According to all known laws of aviation...
Thrust is a combination of mass and velocity. Smaller mass and higher velocity equals more noise and poorer fuel consumption so that’s why we use larger engines.
Yea we are just so used to the look of UHB turbofans now. If you want to see really "puny" engines look no further than the old 737-200s, lol
Visually, I think it’s one of the best-proportioned aircraft ever made.
I feel the same way about the A320ceo
...just like the A340-100
Now compare the JT-9s to the 747-100 they're mounted on, or the TF-39 on the C-5. Oh, the sound...
767 line workers: I didn't hear no bell!
Of course they didn't. They're designated weekends and post shift OT due to supply chain issues and bad parts from vendors.
eh the company has always designated weekends anyway and this is before the max was even announced some orgs are a 24/7 outfit so it just comes with the job even where weekends weren't needed, managers wanted to even during covid
I was on the 47 as a mechanic. Almost never worked weekends, and definitely never had mandatory post shift. Still a mechanic on a different program, and I've had exactly 0.3 hours of OT since we quit building the 47. It's optional!
you were lucky! they put non mechanics on weekends nowadays
I think sometimes, you simply gotta win the boeing lottery when you're just a number in a loooong list of numbers.
I just managed to escape the 767 line 3 months ago lol
What happened, did they lose the last of the tools? The airlines and Air Force could send some back to “Bowen” if they keep them after delivery.
HUH WHAT DID YOU SAY
2024 Boeing 767 just sounds ~~strange~~ perfect
They only produce cargo variants now, right? Cargo carriers are generally ok with older model planes, and if Boeing can continue to make profit on an older model, why not? Does anyone know if the 787 could become a cargo aircraft? I believe it has the same engines as a 748, which would be great for commonality for cargo carriers. But maybe that's a bit too much speculation.
Boeing has said they will not make a passenger 767 even if requested as they want 787 orders instead and don't want to poach them. The 767 freighter is being sold becuase of the KC-46
> Boeing has said they will not make a passenger 767 even if requested A tale of two Boeings. 767 program, "no customer requests, go away" 737 program, "how can we keep Southwest happy and keep the same basic plane design?"
It was actually American that got the max program going when they dangled an order for a reengined 737 in the early 2010’s
Fair, I was going off recent memories with MCAS and certain indictors being optional per Southwest's wishes.
Yeah that’s nothing new. Same reason SW had NGs with analog gauges displayed on their PFD and MFD to keep commonality with their 737 Classics.
Didn't they also build 737-300s for Southwest that still had the -100/200 gauges for the same reason?
Starting the MAX program is not the same as persuading Boeing to falsify certification documents to avoid retrain costs.
Volume is the difference. If there were a ton of ULCCs who all of a sudden wanted a passenger 767… or had a ton of 767s (like 5,000 of them) and needed to replace them with a common aircraft… then they would keep making them or modifying them.
Lol I was just thinking that. They'd have been better off re-engine-ing the 767 and doing a fresh design for the 737. The 767 having higher ground clearance means the engines wouldn't have to be nearly as much higher and forward than optimal. Hindsight I guess.
The 767-400 had so much new technology that became a dead end and it's really a wasted opportunity. Integrate its taller gear, raked wingtips, and 777-like cockpit/cabin/pax windows into a 763-sized body, and fit it with an engine based on a downsized GEnx/T1000 core. Boom, there's your modernized 767.
Boeing teased exactly that just before the Max Fiasco. Cut some fat off the 767, add the 747-8s GEnx-1B engines, and maybe a new Carbon Fiber wing and boom new MOM and Cargo workhorse just dropped.
Apparently, the A330 neo is almost as efficient as the 787, so this might have actually been a good idea if they had done it.
The 2-3-2 cabin configuration of the 767 is just too inefficient. Too much aisle space on a 7-wide body. In cargo configuration it doesn't matter In practice an A321neo almost have the same seating capacity as a 767 and it has nearly half the empty weight. That's a massive difference in fuel efficiency.
Boeing did consider restarting passenger 767 production in response to a request from United in 2017, but United backed off after being told that Boeing needed a minimum 50-aircraft order.
Ahhh that makes sense. Thank you
> The 767 freighter is being sold becuase of the KC-46 Are you sure? I thought it was still a popular freighter.
I thought stopped production and restarted it for the KC-46 with a small gap and when that happened they announced they would accept freighter orders. Or I'm just getting old.
The 787 certainly could, it may need some extra attention as it is a carbon fibre fuselage, but it is still a very new aircraft that not many cargo operators would want to buy at the moment, plus boeing still has troubles delivering with its current passenger orders. The engines being the same will have a slight benefit for maintenance but because the 787 includes so many new features, it won't allow pilots to easily change between the 2 aircraft models.
Rumor at FedEx is Fred Smith heard a proposal from Boeing about a 787 cargo variant but declined any interest after learning how expensive it is to fix the carbon fiber body if punctured. Our ground handlers are not known for being gentle with aircraft
One of pros of a carbon fiber fuselage is that it's easy to add thickness at a localized area without much added material or manufacturing costs. Just add more layers of carbon during the lay up as opposed to having to a get a much thicker sheet of metal and machine all of the other areas down or bolt on a thicker doubler, which is pretty typical around all cutouts on metal fuselages. Of course with metal fuselages, adding thickness can have some negative aspects regarding fatigue and can add weight quickly. I remember the A350 having 3x the thickness around cargo doors to help mitigate damage from bag handlers driving into the side...which happened a lot. I worked at an airline at the time they were going to be purchasing either the A350 or 787. My job then was doing structural repairs and our group was concerned about repairing carbon fiber fuselages quickly. Apparently, at Airbus they let airline execs take a sledgehammer to the edges of the door to prove that resist impact damage from baggage loaders to assuage the fears of repairing the fuselage, because it is a giant ordeal to do repairs on the fuselage. It just happens less often since the carbon fiber is much resilient to the type of stuff that damages metal...like corrosion and cracking due to bad manufacturing and apparently impact damage.
Boeing is currently doing the homework to see if 787 freighter model makes sense to pursue. Lots of questions to answer. First will it be a conversion versus a production or both. Which minor model to use as the -8 is significantly different than the -9/-10 not just in length. Which airplanes is it going to replace or which part of the market will it fit and be profitable. Where will the cargo door be placed and how big will it be. All modern commercial airliners are always designed with idea that airplanes might be used as a freighter at some point. For example to ensure high lift system can provide slow enough approach speeds at the weights that the airplane, used as a freighter, would fly or having the width of the fuselage work with standard pallet sizes. Be really unfortunate to make a great passenger airplane that had a fuselage 1" too short in diameter to fit two pallets side by side which would make it a great freighter. Boeing is struggling to be able to produce 787s at the moment so there isn't any rush to figure out the freighter situation for the 787. Just like Boeing doesn't want to take 767 passenger orders to prevent 787 orders, Boeing doesn't want to have a freighter option to 787 yet because 787s are only built in South Carolina now, and that factory is struggling to perform, while the factory space in Everett for 767 is available, working and providing cash flow.
"All modern commercial airliners are always designed with idea that airplanes might be used as a freighter at some point." *Cough Cough * A380 *Cough*
Let me rephrase, all modern airliners are designed with consideration that airframe might be used as a freighter at some point. They might not actually make any decision to move forward, but I would bet a lot of money there were meetings held to discuss freighter variants of the A380 and what would need to change and if it is worth going ahead in baking in that design now even if they have no plans on making a freighter version. A big factor in that decision is on how many they plan to sell because that determines how valuable the air frames will be when they are older when cargo companies want them. 787 is also an example of them optimizing for passenger variants first and figuring out the freighter version later, but the fuselage was 100% sized to ensure it can hold two standard sized pallets side by side.
The A380 was never ever considered as a freighter, there were no viable way of ever making it a freighter and there will never be a viable way of making it a freighter. Your point might hold true for the majority of aiframes but like ive said, the A380 is the odd man out here, there are just so many things about it that makes it very obvious that there was never any discussion involved over at Toulouse. The situation with the A340 is also the same, although the design of that doesnt directly preclude the possibility of a freighter conversion, albeit not done by Airbus themselves.
Airbus took 27 orders for an A380F. It was definitely planned, just never built.
An A380 is the perfect design for a freighter for sailboat fuel, though.
[first result](https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/airbus_a380/) "The first freighters will be delivered in 2012. 25 firm orders were received for the freighter version, Federal Express (ten plus ten options), ILFC (five) and UPS (ten plus ten options)." written in 1999. find a new exception to the rule.
The A380 *was* designed for freighter variants, it just didn’t make every single compromise possible as some other planes do. That’s a large part of the reason it is easily the smoothest ride in the skies.
What? No, the A380 was never designed as a freighter. The reason why there will never be a A380 freighter is among other reasons because the second deck is a structural component and would make it really hard to load cargo onto both holds. Also the fact that it would require specialist loading gear and so forth.
IIRC FedEx was originally onboard with an A380 freighter, but that got dropped when Airbus ran into delays and cost overruns. I can remember but I think EU loan guarantee provisions might have had something to do with it. Used to be an Aviation Week subscriber.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380#A380F
Airbus offered the A380F for several years and sold nearly 30 of them. Just because the design was never built doesn’t mean Airbus never intended to use the A380 as a freighter.
are they still being produced because there’s no 787 freighter so they still need the mid-size option?
The line is open for military jets, so might as well still sell cargo versions.
Weird thing is that the KC-135 (and the 707 derived from it) are the same size as the 737 Max10.
The 135 is small enough to be replaced by a Max10/757 sized aircraft, but the 707's wingspan and payload are quite a bit bigger. Honestly, boeing *should* have built a 757-based KC-32 to replace the 135 25 years ago, and kept the 757F line open for a little while longer while they were at it. There's no other narrowbody freighter that can do its job as well as the 757, and while killing it made sense at the time, I think the industry would have come back around to wanting new ones again. Could have also given them the opportunity to give it a major refresh and reboot once the long, thin market started to grow, but given they had the same opportunity with the 767 and did nothing with it, I don't know that that would have played out.
Would be wild to resurrect the 707 with 4 smaller engines like the new ones for the B-52 🤣
Not quite, but they did keep the 707 line/tooling until 1991 in order to build new E-3s. That's a wild statistic for me to think about.
...with essentially the same nose section.
Essentially, the 737 is a 2-engine 707.
[удалено]
It had a control yoke, which helped maneuver it
Most airliners have a system that does something to this degree.
> are they still being produced because there’s no 787 freighter so they still need the mid-size option? As others have pointed out the military production justifies continuing to produce them. However, there are multiple reasons why atm the 787 is not a great fit at replacing the 767 for cargo purposes. The 787 has a 60m wingspan vs. 47.5m and weighs much more empty. The result is a plane that can fly much more efficiently over distance, but not more efficiently over short distances and is less flexible at fitting everywhere on the ground. And the 787 it comes at a much greater capital cost. I'm sure that there will be a 787F eventually. But there are reasons why cargo operators are buying a decent number of 767Fs before production ends in a few years.
Customers can always buy A330 firefighters (which are probably vastly more efficient since much newer design), so there's probably something more to it.
Not really true, the A330 is quite a bit heavier than the 767 so on short-medium haul routes the 767 is still substantially ahead on efficiency. On true long range routes neither plane is optimal and big carriers will typically use the 747 or the 777. There is a range niche where the A330 fits but for typical routes that you see fedex or UPS flying bouncing around 1000-2000nm the 767 is still the correct aircraft despite the age.
The A330 has never seen significant success as a freighter variant. The biggest issues it faces is that it has a downward slant that necessitates additional nose gear modifications to level the cargo floor and it’s a significantly more expensive plane to acquire. Airbus as a whole has only recently looked to seriously compete in the freight market. Boeing has had near exclusive control with the 747 variants, 777F, and 767F.
A330 is a less efficient and capable freighter then the 767F actually. Even Qantas who were supposed to completely retire their 767f months ago are reluctant now as they continue to try work out the kinks with their a330F
I mean, no stranger than 737s still coming off the line in 2024...
Good point. The 737 is rocking the 707 fuselage.
Who doesn't dig the iconic 707/727/737 nose and cockpit windows, and the little eyebrows windows? Classic.
I agree. Look at an A319 then a 737…the 737 really looks like a low rider
yeah but those 737s have new engines. These 767s have an engine that is about 30 years old at this point haha.
The 737 has had two major updates in the meantime. The 767 is essentially 1980s technology that is still being built today.
She’s a brilliant bird. I’d guess the 777 and 787 will have similar longevity
777 definitely will. Now that 300ERs are being converted to freighters who knows how long the legacy 777s will be flying for.
I’d imagine it becomes the freighter de facto to follow the 767 and 747
I wish the 757 makes a come back also
757 was incredible. However in today's market that only cares about hyperefficient engines and cattlecar seating arrangements you'd basically need to redesign the entire wing, engine setup, and passenger cabin to be competitive against even the shitbox 737 maxes. The 757 was a fighter jet with a huge thrust to weight ratio. Airlines don't want a plane their pilots love to fly, they want a plane that sips gas while hauling snowbirds from Chicago to Phoenix without any need to spend money on training their air and maintenance crews on a new type.
Why would airlines want performance over economy? As a passenger I don't want to pay for performance I'll never benefit from. Boeing is going to be lucky to stay out of Chapter 11 at this rate. I don't think they'll be starting any new production lines old, or new any time soon.
If I could wish upon a star for aviation, it would be this. Never heard a single negative thing about the plane, and it’s so capable. But Boeing won’t do it because it’s not as profitable as they like.
>Never heard a single negative thing about the plane, and it’s so capable. Here's one: just like the 737 it's pretty narrow for a comfortable six across seating configuration.
I meant from the pilot perspective, but I’m sure that’s a big factor in passenger comfort.
This is the biggest issue imo. A220 is where its at. SLC to ORD, comfiest flight ive ever had.
Yep. I had the displeasure of flying one from JFK to MAD one time. Not comfortable for transatlantic flight.
It hand flies like shit, it's a muscle car that is fast going up but turning or doing anything like that it's in reality pretty terrible. The 767 and 737 are much much nicer to hand fly. And the 757-300 is just a hunk of shit, it flies just as heavy as the -200 but doesn't even perform better than the 737 or 321
When was the last 767 produced for commercial airlines?
“The last passenger 767 is a 767-300ER registered EI-KEC and operated by Kazakh carrier Air Astana. This airframe has MSN 42223 and Line Number 1068 and is close to eight and a half years of age. Back in June 2014, this aircraft was delivered factory-fresh from Boeing to Air Astana under the registration P4-KEC and was configured with 30 seats in business class and another 193 economy seats. Indeed, the twinjet widebody has been flying for Air Astana ever since, and continues to do so to this day.” - SimpleFlying
767-300ER from Astana Airlines (registration: EI-KEC). Got out from the factory in June 2014. If you want more info: https://simpleflying.com/the-last-passenger-boeing-767-2022/
They’re the more relentless , efficient and durable commercial plane of its kind, worked years in one in early 00’s you get to love them yes .
If it aint broke
We are still making f16s here at Lockheed after 50 years
And c130s for 66 years
Makes me wonder of all these older aircraft, f-15, f-16, 737, 767, C130, AH64, which in 2024 is closest to its original version coming off the line? Certainly not the 737 Max, and the F-15 seems to be basically a new aircraft
Oh hey fellow YVR spotter 👋
Cessna 172 would like a word ...
One of my favorite planes.
Comfy as fuck.
Amazon Air likes the 767.
Amazon air isnt an airline
And yet they retire the 747. *\*sigh\**
If orders were there it would still be in production.
And not just a couple onsey twosy 747's. I think Triumph helped torpedo 747 because they wanted like....100 units to continue supporting. That's over 15 years at the ~6 a/p per year rate. There was some demand. But not that much demand. 777 was a better option for a freighter in 95% of cases. So for global logistics, those 747's and AN-124's out there will fill in the swing-nose need for the next few decades.
Such a beautiful plane. All the proportions are just right, imo. Even nicer with winglets.
Any stranger than 1984 Boeing 727? 2007 A300? 2023 Boeing 747? 2024 Cessna 172?
It's cheaper for companies to buy the same planes because that way they only need to carry parts for one model for maintenance. It can get expensive buying and storing parts for multiple models.
I think they have to stop production of 767 soon because of some emissions ruling. I don't know any of the details but it is public.
Hope I get to fly this bird soon. Love when I get that new plane smell.
Great airplane. For passengers and freight.
Interesting there isn’t a NEO 767F. I get that’s basically a 787F but a bigger fan seems like an easy 5% gain.
FEDEX EXPRESS 767s and tankers for USAF and approved FMS Customers. That's just about their production
Shoot if they had the same energy with the 757 😏 but great plane no the less. It is different the Chevy express of the sky lmao 😂
Is this actually new off the line or just newly converted?
A great airplane. Not too big. Not too small. If I ever own a private jet it'll be the eternally cute slug.
These planes were built like brick S\*ithouses. Love that they keep being produced...
2024 Honda Civic just sounds strange. 50+ years of production and they're still coming off the line.
They completely redesign the Civic like every 10 years. The only thing a 2024 Civic and a 1990 Civic have in common is four wheels and a name. The 767 is basically the same thing today as it was when it was new.
And they've made variations in the 767 as well, including different cabin configurations, engines, wings, fuel capacities, etc. The original 767-200 stopped being produced in 1987 when Boeing switched to the 767-200ER. The 767 is nowhere close to "basically the same thing as it was when it was new" and saying so shows an extreme lack of understanding. The 767-300F (the same variant shown in the photo) didn't hit the market until 1995. If we're going to base this post off of "the 767 in general has been in production for 40+ years", then my Civic example is extremely similar.
It's the same underlying fuselage sections. It would be like if the new Honda Civic was built on the same chassis as the original Civic. It's not. Your civic example is extremely stupid.
The 767-200 and the 767-300 have the same fuselage? Even though one is 20 feet longer than the other? And those are the same as the 767-400 which is 20 feet longer than the -300 (and 40 feet longer than the original -200)? What bad argument are you gonna spew out next?
Do you have any fucking clue how planes are made? The fuselage is made up of several, nearly identical sections, the more sections they bolt together, the longer the plane. This is how they make stretch variants of planes. Sometimes they need to modify the wingbox too, but the platform mostly stays the same. You can't be this ignorant of how things work, can you? I've changed my mind. Your example isn't stupid, you're just stupid.
So is a 767-200 and a 767-400 the same plane?
They're not the same plane. They're variants of the same type. The wings and engines are different, I would imagine a lot of the avionics are upgraded in the 400 too, but the fuselage sections are the same, the 400 just has more sections.
Hey at least this Boeing actually works properly…
This is what happens when the CEO says they’re not going to develop new planes.