Tutti
← Back to Squawk list
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." (www.aircargonews.net) Altro...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
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".
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.
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.
How did that work out on the Max?