Boeing Should NOT Build the 797
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 чер 2024
- Why Boeing Won't Re-engine the 757 (primer video): • Why Hasn't Boeing Re-E...
A few weeks ago, I posted a video about why Boeing WON'T re-engine the 757, even with demand for a new mid-market jet higher than ever. In that video, I also alluded that Boeing would instead develop a new airplane, ostensibly the 797, to fill the void left by the 757. But rumors have surfaced that Boeing no longer favor building a 797, but will rather re-engine the 767's bigger brother - the 767 - to fill this void. Why? Let me explain...
Follow me on Instagram for more great aviation content! / cobyexplanes
#Boeing #767x #757plus - Авто та транспорт
I hope you’re able to add more subscribers; your videos are far superior to some of your more subscribed to competition. I actually learn something from your videos. Keep em coming!
Thank you!! The channel is still fairly young but the subsribers are coming don't worry ;)
Let me explain...
@@allex2451 :)
@@allex2451 ... Let me explane.
@@cobyexplanes ... Hi Coby, I came across a couple of videos of yours a few weeks ago. Today I wanted to watch more and, while I eventually succeeded, it was not easy to find you. I remembered your play of words (explain + plane = explane) and I did a search using "explane" and neither your channel or videos came up. I went to my watch history and searched again for "explane" and again nothing came up. I had to manually dig down my watch history through weeks of watched videos until I finally came across one of the videos I had watched, and from there I could link to your channel. I don't think that most people will take the time and effort that I took. Why doesn't your channel come up even when people intentionally looks specifically for it using a quite unusual word as "explane"? I don't know, but it's a pity.
It’s strange when I was younger I always thought a Boeing 797 would be a giant 1000 seater or a hyper sonic aircraft not a twin jet looking like all the others mmmm 😉
A kid can dream
I remember seeing that concept in an old yt video when I was a kid. I think it was called strange planes.
Personally, i think the 757 has a really nice sleek design. The United livery on it actually looks really good.
I thought.. the 787 was the 767 replacement
If you take the 787-8, you're in a simillar PAX range like the 767
Well, the 787-3 was going to be closer to a 767 replacement but got cancelled
@@cobyexplanes isn't a no demand for 787-3 a sign that there will be not much demand for such capacity range they are planning for 767x? Also by creating/ updating new wings and engine for 767X and what not would be more costly than the already established and in production 787 since most of the components will be coming from 787. Not sure how do they do their analysis and they are far more knowledgeable than me so i leave it to them.
No it wasn’t. It could have been but too much range
You are correct the 787 is the 767 replacement Boeing will NOT be rehashing the 767 program. This video is pure conjecture.
As an old fart retired engineer with fading memory that worked on the systems design on the 757, 737 300 through 900, and 777 and 787 and lots of other non-Boeing air frames, I find this very interesting and will be following your presentations. A couple comments. The similarity between the 757 and 767 is to a large extend marketing and sales talk with wishful thinking of top executives that really didn't get their hands all that dirty into knowing how it really worked.. The cockpit user interface is the same or similar enough to the pilots but other than that there is really not many similarities from my knot hole. The 757 uses engine driven hydraulic pumps with a PTU between the system and the 767 uses engine bleed air drive pumps with no PTU. So the very heart of the power that drives actuates everything is quite different. The Landing Gear and door configuration on the two are vastly different and the systems to actuate and sequence the landing gear are vastly different. No real commonality except the cockpit interface. Another example, the 767 has two side braces and the 757 has one. 767 truck is positioned toes down, 757 positioned toes up. 767 main gear is locked up by the MG door mechanism, 757 has a separate up lock hook and door with internal locking actuators. 767 has slaved nose gear doors and 757 has separate actuators for the doors which mechanically sequenced off the down lock mechanism. The 757 was designed by the Renton team and the 767 was the Everett team which really didn't pair up and agree on anything until about 20 years later. The 757 cargo version which came out in the later 80s uses a hydraulically driven 727 upper deck cargo door stolen from the 727 by a re-tab to drawing sheet (Rollin H did that one). The 767 has an electrically actuated lower lobe cargo door. On the other hand, the flight control architecture is similar and they both have single engines with a RAT.
As for NRE on a new vehicle that is fly by wire as opposed to a mechanically controlled hydraulic aircraft, the flyby wire systems are about an order of magnitude or two more expensive to design and certify. Have gone down that trade study many times. I really doubt the 787 will ever recover from the NRE to get that puppy flying. And with the supply chain contracts all dropping dead over the next couple years, they are going to have to re-invent themselves when the suppliers want to recover the losses they held for the last 13 years. As far as weight goes, hydraulic actuators have about a 6 to 1 weight advantage over electric actuators for the same power capability and can fit into far tighter locations with far better stroke to retract length ratios since they are basically a cylinder with a piston, as opposed to an electric actuator with motor, gear box, drive screw, power electronics, software, cooling and etc. And the hydraulic actuator back drives easily and is essentially jam free and can be designed with one eye open by an old sheep dog. Still there are some good places where an electric actuator makes sense, just not everywhere because some executive thinks leaky fluid is there biggest problem.
Embraer seems to have the magic combination of new and old technology on their new designs with a modern glass cockpit with 1980s hydraulic systems style architecture which is more reliable, lower cost to maintain, and far faster and cheaper to get certified. Combine that with a composite wing and old fashion metal tube and you have the best profit maker in the sky.
Incidentally, when the 777 was first conceptualized, it was called the 767-x and was going to be a derivative of the 767 with an upper deck and one time. In spite of what wikipedia says, when I started on it in 1990, it was really still just a warmed over 767 going through a lot of evolution. In fact, the plumbing designers had already plumbed the solid models in CATIA to the 767 architecture not knowing that this was going in a far different direction.. The 767 structure was all done on vellum (no fancy CAD back then). I don't know the story there but if they never converted the structure to CATIA models by now, that will be a real painful redesign for kids that never used a pencil. If you keep the system architecture low tech where you can, the cost of new program comes down a lot.
A 2-class 762 would has around 214 seats so very similar to the 752 capacity with more range tho and extra comfort
Sure, but the 762 is considerably less optimized of an airframe than the -300er
@@cobyexplanes the 767-300ER or 777-300ER?
Edit: I've finished the video, so that's a dumb question. But why is the 767-200ER not optimized? The -300/ER is a simple stretch and that's really the only big difference. I might even argue that the original -200, non ER is a good base for a midmarket contender because it has similar capacity and range to the 757.
@@ThatGuy-te9wh the original 767-200 was FAA certified as a trans continental jet. The plan can fly from San Francisco to New York in about four hours.
@@frankdenardo8684 5-6H
From my view I feel the A350 and 787 are great examples of why you just start new. While the 737 MAX show what unforeseen problems can arise from trying to re-engineer an old plane.
The 747 is older that the 767 and it was re-engined so it is possible to do the same for the 767
@@captkay5330 that's true it was. I'm just pointing out how the 737 had to be jimmy rigged with MCAS to get the newer bigger engines to work on it and it ended up causing some very expensive problems, they might have been better off just making a replacement for the 737. That's why I'm pointing out how the A350 and 787 are very succesful with no legacy issues. Although, I don't really get why you'd want to re-engine the 767 . Isn't 787 about the same in size? I thought the plane the airlines were scrambling to try and get ahold of was the 757 so they could have the long range, smaller airplane.
@@rclv428 Yes the 767 and 787 are the same size but the 9 and 10 series of the 787 are larger.... the 787 is wider and carrys more passengers... The 767 is really use on mini long hauls too lol i find it to be unique to be the only boeing plane with forward tilted gears oh that's just sexy😀😀 but boeing will know how to fitfit the new engines on the 767... they can make alot of 767s like 767-5X, 767-8X 767-10X we'll see what they think of all the best buddy it was funny sharing my thoughts with you
Charlie Lund 787 is around the size of a 767 but the -10 version is a fair bit larger, they’re very economic planes over long haul routes. They don’t do so well in short haul. That’s where the 797 could come in
@@captkay5330 The 747 was indeed re-engined, and it's a commercial flop. Total orders in the double digits does not a sucessful aircraft make. If the Max and 747-8 debacles have taught Boeing anything it should be that quick'n'cheap isn't a good strategy for making planes.
The 757X should have been made instead of the 737Max.
Hindsight sure is 20/20 isn't it
The last 757s were made in the early 2000s. Boeing doesn't have the ability to re-engine the 757. Plus, not all variants of the 737Max weren't built to replace the 757.
@@grahamturner2640 It's amazing how the 737 has managed to maintain market relevance for so long, surpassing the 757
That's a very hard sell. The A320 and 737 are the two largest families of commercial planes period and not coincidentally, they happen to be in the exact same market. If you argued that the 797 should've been a 737 replacement rather than a 757 replacement, I could've bought that argument but getting smoked for the next two decades by the A320 Neo in a market that is an order of magnitude larger than any other doesn't make sense.
@@cobyexplanes that shouldn't have even been hindsight. The 737 is a plane from the late 60s, designed from a plane from the late 50s, and its role has completely shifted to one it wasn't designed to do. It's too old to have a future. The 757 was a plane perfect for the 737 MAX role.
What airlines wanted in 2019 is no longer valid given the impact of COVID-19 and shutting down the industry.
As we have seen, airlines are rapidly retiring older aircraft to the boneyards reducing their fleet capacity. The 757,767, a340, 747 and a380 are all going away along with older 737, a330 and a320 aircraft.
As air travel begins in the post virus world, it is estimated that it will take until 2023 for demand to return to 2019 levels and when it does return, what will that demand look like? If you think you know, you don’t as the airlines can’t answer that question right now.
Airlines will be forced to rethink and replan their entire operations in a post virus word. Airlines that don’t survive will not only create an abundance of aircraft in the secondary market that will be available for substantial discounts. These failed airlines will also result in the order books for new aircraft being trimmed down at both Boeing and Airbus. Further, current aircraft orders from the survivors will either be deferred, converted to other models or cancelled all together.
Will American Airlines or United maintain their orders for the A321xlr or will they cancel and expand their use of the 787 which they already have and possibly will be looking for use given reduced international destinations and flight frequencies?
Will airlines be forced to look at operating fewer larger aircraft between city pairs vs operating a high frequency of smaller aircraft between those cities?
Will connecting smaller international destinations directly become less important and passengers will return to flying through major operating hubs?
Will ambitions like Qantas Project Sunrise be set aside as Qantas looks to recover financially and reduces the financial risk in future projects?
Tonight I saw (again) on Flight Radar 24 4 A-340 313 and 642 in a few minutes so they're still there… Making a comeback. And then I stumbled across two Boeing 707-320 from Project Orbis flying around Riverside, CA.
What a buzzkill.
That is true, but when this video was posted in January the shit was yet to hit the fan
747s are still crucial in the cargo space, as well as higher demand routes across the pacific and atlantic.
737s are going to go out after the failed max modification though lol.
I would love to see a 767 X - The 2-3-2 economy seating is the best.
agreed!
Indeed! I will choose them over anything else , if available when traveling with someone just so I don't have some random stranger sitting next to us!
Airbus could re-engine the A310 to compete 😀
That's what the A330 already is, a development of the A300/A310 design.
A fuselage saves zero weight between carbon and aluminum. There are also zero aerodynamic reasons to change. So, if fuselage diameter is going to be the same, go with what already exists. The only reason the new double aisle fuselage was going to be "better" was because the diameter was going to be the same, but the fuselage height was going to be lower. They were going to build an ellipse. So, until this happens, re-engining an A310 would do just fine. But the 310 was too danged small. Same reason the 767-200 was effectively never built. Why the 767-300 and ER versions were the vast majority of the orders. Same reason the A330 was built. A310 fuselage was unable to be extended to compete with the 767-300 and the 757 had better fuel efficiency than the A310. Only reason airbus did not completely die was due to subsidy after the idiotic A310 fiasco.
@@johnnyboythepilot4098 Not exactly: A310 was an epic disaster and its fuselage could not be extended. Without gov subsidies company should have collapsed. 767-200 was also an epic disaster/not built but was able to be extended to the -300 and 300ER models which sold very well saving Boeing's Bacon.
😂😂😂
I disagree with the message. The A310 was a SHRINK of the A300, but with some (at the time) highly advanced new features (like the cockpit for 2, or more composites). These features were then also built into the A300 (to become the quite successful sub-family A300-600/-600R). So - in a way - THAT was the "extended A310".
tbh the 767 feels like a baby triple 7, the cockpit looks quite similar since they both have this brown color cockpit, but the triple 7 has more bigger screens then the 767, and lets be honest, the triple seven sounds better in the name
The 777 cockpit is not similar to the 767, it's the same. Identical.
The 767 and 777 share the same cockpit and nose fuselage section.
The 767-300ER might not be a good replacement for the very popular 757-200, but a re-engined and refreshed 767-200ER would work perfectly. The current 767-200ER has a range of 6590 nm or 12,200 km and seats 214 in a typical 2-class configuration and up to 245 in a 1-class configuration, it's perfect for the 757's routes.
A B767X based on the shorter 767-200ER would probably be nearer the capacity point, the long thin route market wants.
Hey coby, great video.
I believe you have vastly underestimated the resources and efforts to re-engine the B767.
First of all, the 767 is a fly by steel airframe. That means that boeing will need change almost everything to convert the aircraft to the modern flyby wire. If they choose to keep the flyby steel in place, it is definitely going to be less efficient than the A330neo and nobody will want the aircraft that comes with a dated 40yrs old technology. Estimated cost to make this changes - approx USD5billion
Secondly the B767 does not have big ground clearance to take the big sized modern High bypass engine. To enable this, boeing can either do it the max way which we know what are the outcomes or
Redesign a new wing box and a new pair of efficient wings to go with it. For comparison, the B777X scope was only redesign a new lightweight composite wings and and change of fuselage length and that already cost boeing over $5b to do it. So the cost for a new wing box and wings is going to be similarly around $5b.
Thirdly the B767 fuselage is an older design which has a lower service ceiling. Lower service ceiling has a negative impact on fuel consumption. Therefore to improve on this, fuselage modifications will be needed to make sure the B767X is competitive. This will likely add more cost to the development.
In summary building the B767X will cost boeing in a range of USD$10b to $15b to build. In comparison the clean sheet B797 which cost $15b - $20b to develop, it is not hard to see why boeing should not even consider building the B767X.
Let me address your points one by one, because I think they're valid but missing some key components:
1. $5b for conversion to fly-by-wire is a greatly exaggerated figure. For instance, Boeing upgraded some flight surfaces (though admittedly not all) to fly-by-wire for the MAX at considerably less cost. The entire development cost of the MAX's airframe was estimated to be just about $1b, which included other structural changes including a redesigned APU exhaust.
2. the GEnx has a fan diameter that's only about an extra 2.5 feet bigger than the CF6. With its current ground clearance, the engine would still fit under the 767's wing. Further, the GEnx would likely be scaled down anyway for the 767, meaning ground clearance would be a non-factor.
3. Service ceiling doesn't factor into program development cost, as Boeing would not look to increase its service ceiling. Again, the tradeoff here is a less efficient plane at a cheaper cost - Boeing would not push for a higher service ceiling in the first place.
4. (you didn't mention this but it's worth pointing out) the vast amounts of resources it takes to develop a new supply networking and final assembly line are absolutely massive and would be avoided with the 767x
I like how you critically think - even though I don't agree with all your points I appreciate there are people like you on the channel that think critically about these matters
@@cobyexplanes
1) you seems to have forgotten that a significant amount of upgrade was implemented in the B737NG. This made the upgrade you mention significantly cheaper and simpler. The same cannot be said for the B767, hence I don't think the $5b cost estimate is greatly exaggerated. No doubt this cost can be capped at a minimum by selectively choosing the more beneficial areas to upgrade. However the tradeoff will be quite obvious as it will then feature semi-fly-by-wire similar to the B737max.
2) based on boeing's aircraft specification for airport planning document, the B767-300ER currently has a minimum engine ground clearance of only 22 inches. With a 2.5ft bigger engines, the ground clearance will only be left with 7in???? (you've gotta be kidding me if you think this is acceptable). On the other hand although the engines thrust will be scaled down, the fan diameter will not likely to be reduced by much. For comparison The GEnX-2B67 is only 6in smaller but only has a bypass ratio of 8. If we incorporate all the improvements and higher bypass ratio from the GE9X, we can expect the fan diameter to remain roughly the same as the GEnX-1B or maybe even bigger. Hence there is a real need to redesign the wingbox and fit a longer landing gear for the B767X.
3) your argument is reasonable, however the tradeoff is that where does that balance point lies? Nobody will want a cheap airframe that burns more fuel than it saves. The question ultimately falls onto how much cheaper can it be vs how much more fuel/money it burns because of the service ceiling. Service ceiling is quite a significant factor in fuel burn. My take on this is that the margins are slim. The lower service ceiling will cause a few thousands more per day as the B767 would mainly be doing more medium haul flights rather than short ones. If we use $5000/day as an example, the math will work out to approx $1.8m more fuel burnt each year. For the B767-300ER that has a listed price of $218m, give it a 45% discount the acquisition price would be around $120m. For that price range, $18m more is quite a substantial penalty to pay for a cheaper airframe with lower service ceiling.
4) the fourth point you mention does not really differ in my estimation because the scope of change for the B767X is already so extensive, it does not differ much from establishing a brand new supply chain. Your point will only be valid if the real cost to re-engine the B767 is less than half of the development cost for the B797. Otherwise it really does not differ much.
Likewise I truly appreciate your effort to make more in-depth video to explain the things that are going on in the aviation industry to the general public. It helps to stimulate further thinking such as this that helps us truly understand the situation
The B767X does have merit but there is one thing that arm chair aviation experts are not taking into account is the impact of a warming planet and its associated unpredictable weather patterns and air turbulence will have on global air travel, global trade, global financing, global logistics and supply, etc and sales of expensive clean sheet aircraft design. Remember there is no manual on how to deal with and/or adapting to a warming planet.
Unfortunately, Boeing is bleeding money in their commercial aerospace division over the B737 MAX fiasco and it will be a struggle for Boeing to regain public confidence to fly on the B737 MAX or the rebranded B737-8, -9, etc. Boeing needs to replace the B737 type with something new but if Boeing does go with a clean sheet design for a single aisle aircraft to replace the B737 type, will there be a demand for it if ongoing planet warming reduces the demand for air travel.
@@chrismckellar9350 I find that the B767X only merit is its cost, but not by much. Regardless of boeing in a crisis or not, the B767X should not be a compelling option. It is too much work for a suboptimal design with limited market.
Indeed global warming will have a profound impact on the demand of air travel moving forward. However global warming isn't going to change global travel overnight. It will be years or decades before we see the patterns emerges. Therefore the the demand for the NSA or NMA will remain in the this coming decade as it is not going to disappear overnight.
@@chingweixion621 - As mentioned, the B767X has merit but Boeing has a major issue with the B737 MAX fiasco, that is bleeding their commercial aerospace division money and that needs to be resolved quickly. Already Boeing is looking at raising US$10 billion in loans to sort out the B737 MAX mess which will have an impact on the development of any new aircraft type whether its the B797 or the B767X
In the meantime, the planet is warming quicker than expected and the 2019/2020 Australia wide bushfires is a glimpse to what is to come in devastation and financial costs to a country. The impact of these fires released almost the entire year's of Australia's carbon emissions which is additional to the normal annual carbon emissions that Australia omits. Through 2019 there has seen rapid increase in stratosphere warming above Antarctica to highest levels which is contributing to erratic and unpredictable storms and droughts. If there is more regular occurrences of stratosphere warming above Antarctica and in the Arctic, I have a feeling there will be increasing unpredictable severe air turbulence in the slip streams in the next 10 years that will affect commercial air travel.
Hasn’t this gotten Boeing into trouble with the 737? Seems like they need a from scratch design that incorporates the latest technologies.
The reason why the 737 MAX has had lots of problems was because the 737 was originally a regional jet that had its engines on the wings. Even in the 1980s, there were problems with putting on bigger engines.
The MAX is a 4th Generation 737 - Original, Classic, NG, MAX. Each one has to make progressively greater adaptations to compromise for the original design philosophy being very different from today. This would be a 2nd Generation 767, so the risk is not nearly the same. That is not the same as riskless and honestly, the risk of the MAX might not have been immediately apparent (though considering some of the things they had to do with the engines for the NG, the warning signs were there), but one should not assume that the risk of adaptation is necessarily ensuring the same fate as the MAX.
It's equally worth noting that a fully new model is not without its own risk - either the risk of financial loss like the A380 which was a disaster for Airbus or the DC-10 which has insanely eerie echoes of the MAX: 2 total-loss crashes mid-flight early in its lifespan, a failure to take responsibility when a problem was realized , a failure of regulators to ensure safety issues were addressed. (It's worth noting that DC-10 ended up having an excellent safety record once the issues were addressed, but the bad press led to bad sales and the program didn't crack 400 planes)
767-X would not be a kludge like 737 max. It would not require alteration of the center of gravity or the length of the landing gear like the max did.
@Francis So with nearly every analysis I'd heard calling it a disaster and failure, I found your claim suspect so I thought I'd dig in a bit deeper. The actual numbers will likely never be publicly available but I actually could not find a single article that supported the argument. What I did find (and I suspect you're confusing with project cost recovery) was that in 2015, Airbus had reached the break even point on production costs - ie: as they developed their supply chain and such, the cost per unit of the plane fell below their actual production costs. That means they spent more years *losing money* on each plane than the spent making money. There's no way they hit overall break even and no analysts I've read believes that they recouped their R&D costs which are pegged at about 25B Euros. At some point, they were just trying to get some revenue from the project. It's worth noting that before project cost overruns and the 2 year delay were known, Airbus indicated that the projected break even point was 270 planes. To date, they've sold 251 (at one point, they had 313 sales booked but that is no longer the case). So even before we account for documented cost overruns, we have reason to believe it didn't make its money back.
I could be wrong. I welcome your discovery of an article that disagrees with what I'm reading. But I just don't see the evidence to support your belief in that.
I acknowledge the argument that the A350 XWB benefited from some of their work on the A380 but if they had never pursued the A380, I think it would be safe to assume they'd have the resources to invest in a different model instead and may have developed those technologies anyways while having a project that was a net win for them. It is hard to know what the road not traveled might have given them but assuming that it was the A380 or nothing is almost certainly not what would have been the other reality.
@@grahamturner2640 Well, it wasn't a regional jet per-se, but it was a shorter range jet. Regional jets usually only fly shorter distances (like inter-state, or in areas where a larger jet can't fly--like the mountains, or for small airports, such as the one in Jackson Hole, WY where a 737 is the largest plane that can land there--but most that do are either turbo-props or regional jets). The primariy problem with the Max was that Boeing shouldn't have bothered with it in the first place. The regular 737's were (and still are) among the best selling jets, and some airlines only use 737's (like Southwest). Boeing needs to scrap the Max, and go back to continuing to make the non-Max jets, and save the larger LEAP engines for a new design (maybe a 797)--that was part of the problem with the 737 Max... the engines were too big and they used software to compensate for it and we all know how that worked out.
Airlines are wanting to replace the 757 and now that Airbus has brought forward the A321XLR. There’s not much of a market for a 767 sized aircraft as that’s basically a 787-8 or a A330neo. They need to bring out a 797 that perfectly replaces the legendary 757
Avión Charlie _ the 787 is still a little too big for the 767 and has too much range to be a viable replacement.
I’m all for the 767 being re-engined I want my favorite plane to return
Thats not quite true, the 787 sits in the A330 and 777-200 market. Theres is still quite a big market between the 737-9/10, A321neo and 787/A330 thats completely owned by the 767. Until today there is no proper 767 replacement on the market. The 787-3 once was the closest to it.
Nope - the replacement thing is done. Most of the 757 remaining in service are freighters, most of which are conversions, going to be replaced with new conversions of then aging aircraft. In the PAX sphere, most 757 are with DELTA, AMERICAN und UNITED, and they all have large numbers of the A321 on order. The next in line is ICELANDAIR, and they had opted for the 737 as a replacement. The rest is scattered over a number of tiny outfits. TITAN is one of them (with two frames), that just decided to go "all-Airbus".
They need to replace MAX. And the larger version would be the exact size of B757-200.
Way better than B797.
@@nntflow7058 yeah, but the problem would be that either the largest - 757-200 capacity - version would lack range (or stuffed with ACTs, taking cargo space) or the smallest - 737-8 capacity - version would be too heavy and uncompetitive.
I think they should develop two different airplanes simultaneously like they did with the 757/767, sharing as many parts as possible. The smaller one being single aisle, sized from 190-240 seats single class, base model being the 190 seat variant -- the bigger one being a small widebody 7 or better 8 abreast with 190-240 seats in two class configuration, base model being the smaller one of course.
Of course they have to have different wing/wingbox sizes, different engines and landing gears, but the rest could share as many parts as possible.
Both a 240 seat single aisle as well a 180 seat widebody make no sense.
best plane channel on youtube - great work mate!
Really solid video, as we've come to expect! Btw will you be covering the 777-9's first flight?
Will be putting out a video tomorrow! And then another video the following week, both on the 777x :)
its been canceled
Wouldn't this end up competing with the A330neo instead of the A321XLR?
It would essentially slot between them (in theory)
@@cobyexplanes The gap in capacity between the A321XLR and the A330-800neo isn't that big anyway, so even just between those two Airbus planes, there's a certain amount of overlap in the routes they could fly on.
Critical Rider It would be competing with the 787!
Robert Faber well the A330-800 isn’t selling as much as the A330-90 so the re-engined 767 has a place in the market
@@sashingopaul3111 Possibly. Then again, you could argue that the relative lack of orders for the A330-800neo indicates that in this middle-of-the-market sector, airlines prefer a stretched narrowbody (A321XLR) to a shrunk widebody (A330-800neo), which could be an indicator that a hypothetical 767X would actually struggle to capture this market just like the A330-800neo has.
Love your videos! Greetings from Brazil
Thank you!
Just came across your channel today and I'm very impressed by your videos. Being a somewhat regular flier and a dyed in the wool commercial aviation fanatic, my curiosity led me to watch three of your videos, before commenting. What is your background in relation to commercial aviation, if any, or is this just a situation of a pure love of and an infatuation with all things commercial aviation related? As some other commentators have mentioned, your videos are far superior to ANY of the competition that's available on UA-cam.
The NMA program will not involve an update of the 767.
Would you consider putting links in the description for additional reading/references regarding your video topics? That would be great!
Please continue doing high quality aviation education and commentary videos!
Yep! Been thinking about doing that just have been lazy lol
👋 Hey , Nice job mate this is making me loving aviation
Saw your video about 747-8; good job!
I personally believe that the Boeing 767 is too old to be improved on. I am also afraid that 767X while may be beneficial short-term, but may fell short long-term wise. I also believe that the 767X may be unnecessary aircraft since it would be in the higher tier in terms of passenger capacity and by the time they have finished developing the 767X, Boeing may have lost huge chunks of the market to Airbus with their A321XLR. In my opinion, it would be a lot wiser for them to develop the 797 and then compete with the predecessor of the A321XLR.
Boeing ! lol is just a stupid company that should work for the Stupid Space Force ...lol
A 797 may enter the market in the mid 2030's , 10 to 15 years from now . A 767X may enter into service in 2-4 years from now .
It's too late to build a new aircraft to compete with the XLR , so the 797 should just be more of a 737 replacement or aircraft of the future rather than an a321 competitor.
Boeing managed to re engine the 737 with the Max , and the 737 is older than the 767 , so it still possible for a 767 X. Makes a lot of sense
Wouldn't the 767X be the 787?
It would sure be close, but a little smaller with less range. Quite close to what they had in mind for the 797.
@@mijnordna but it would be real close to the 787-8
@@CaptainSazzman Agreed
@@CaptainSazzman Yeah just 1,5 meter off in length, way to tight of a gap. The 757-300 is a better fit. A true mid-range plane right between the 787-8 and the 737 MAX 8
@@CaptainSazzman No, the 787-8 is one third heavier than the 767-300 and has much more range, which makes it more inefficient on shorter longhaul routes.
They have to build the 767X asap. United and Delta are on the verge of ordering A330neos out of desperation to replace 767s.
They won't they have already stopped building all 767s to my knowledge also I dont think they have the cash right now to do that
@@lucasfragoso7634 No, Boeing still produces freighter and military tanker variant of 767, as said in the video
thanks for your informative videos. pls explain what u mean by "more capable" ? disregarding fuel efficiency
Really enjoy your clear, informative explanations. 🙌🏻
Thank you :)
SPhmm thats a valid point you have there for the Airbus A330Neo....oooops I mean 767 :-) How about the 787, wouldnt it be even more cheaper to produce a 'squashed' version of it? kinda like what they did with the 747SP? The 787 already has the range, the engines and the wings, all they need is to reduce the fuselage
The issue is that the 787-9 is already the best optimized 787, with the 787-8 not selling as well because of it. If they squared the fuselage even more proportionally it would be all out of wack
they tried to, search the boeing 787-3 project
The A330neo is way larger (the 900, the 800 is way to heavy and too much range). Same for the 787-8, too heavy and too much range.
Excellent video very informative well done
Yup they should re-engine and update the systems of 767
Capt.K Peterkin nd 757
@@andersonrodriguez8258 Boeing already made a desicion that they won't re-engine the 757. But they are planning to re-engine the 767.
The 767X definitely makes a lot of sense. It would be one awesome 7-9 hour plane.
It especially makes sense for China, as there’s a large demand for extra freight capacity that widebodies can handle.
isn't a 787-8 already more or less a 767X size wise?
GREAT VIDEOS COBY, I JUST DISCOERED YOU TODAY....GREAT GRAPHICS AND EXPLANATIONS MAKE SENSE. WE NOW HAVE TO WAIT WHAT BOEING WILL DO...
Thanks :)
@@cobyexplanes I love your video so much more than others. Your enthusiasm adds life and so much more to the video, like DJ's aviation videos the way he talks in his video is so mundane and boring. It sounds like he's going to slump over and fall asleep lol.
Would the fuselage structure remain the same?
Coby you made a mistake in the description. You said “they will re-engine the 767’s bigger brother, the 767.”
whoops good eye
Coby - your videos are very informative, clearly described, most of all your voice inflection - others mumble - greetings from Philippines
Thank you :)
The 75 is still my favorite and I fly the triple today. Everyone I fly with, that flew the 75, talk about how cool a new 75 would be. Composite frame and new engines, it could do anything.
I have been saying this for a couple of years. As I have written many times, how many ways are there to build a tube with wings?
Like Apple with there new phones LOL
I think Boeing may just end up building what amounts to the something based on the _Yellowstone 1_ studies of 2003-2009, essentially a wider fuselage single-aisle airliner that will replace everything from the 737-800 (737 MAX 8) to 757-200. Think of it as a reduced size 787, powered by an uprated version of the CFM LEAP-1A or PW1100G engines.
I have watched a number of your videos and I am quite impressed with all of its content. As a pilot I can appreciate your well researched information, and above all I really like your presentation.
Thanks Gordon :)
I just subscribed love your channel
Welcome aboard :)
On the Airbus side, would you consider doing a video regarding what could potentially be an A321 stretch with additional fuel tanks (tentatively called A322 and A323)?
Airbus has not mentioned anything about this officially, however, it seems to pop up from time to time on aviation forums such as in airliners.net.
A video on its merits and potential to bridge the gap between the A321neoLR and A330-800 would be interesting, at least that's what I think.
Keep up the great work though!
Happy to look into it - I don't know much about a further a321 stretch but always happy to learn more
Great video--you have a new subscriber.
welcome aboard :)
767 is still being produced today for cargo. So I'll love Boeing to redevelop the 767 with New Engines glass cockpit
AHHH the KC-46 which is a military version already has a glass cockpit and the 767 already had the first generation glass cockpit.
Love your channel, I've been a airplane nerd before the first 747 took flight. I just subscribed, keep up the good work.
Thank you :)
yes they must! I need my new 2-3-2 seater before the 767 is gone
Hi there. Enjoyed this video btw. If i be allowed, i'd like to give a thought on the matter.
A less capable but cheaper plane sooner? It is worthy to note that when this video was released, the pandemic we are in right now was not exactly wreaking havoc yet to the industry. Putting into perspective, having any plane sooner under the circumstances would not make any commercial sense. But having a plane well-timed in the future, although more expensive but responsive and relevant, when hopefully the industry has recovered or at least is well on its way would certainly make more sense.
Furthermore, there is a lot of time in the drawing board for a new aircraft ironically due to the pandemic itself.
Premises considered, a Boeing NMA widebody made to not only replace the 737 but also replace the 757 smaller variant (a market the a321xlr is targeting) would make sense. A 767 is indeed too big as there is a 787 to do the job and the market gap of the 767 and the 787 is too small.
Maybe BOTH, since they serve different markets 🤷♂️
The one bit of the 767 supply chain that is gone is any bit to do with passenger fittings. So sidewalls, overhead bins, passenger windows, etc. Its not as hard to get that started, but it’ll still take some time and effort.
Can anyone tell me what's trailing from the rudder of the 747 freighter at 4:43? Some kind of antenna cable?
Sure can. It is the trailing cone. This is used for the static pressure source to get extremely accurate airspeed. It is actually on a long hose that is unreeled once the airplane is at altitude and ready to begin flight testing. It is then reeled back in prior to landing.
@@dougball328 Only used for testing I assume. It's not a standard instrument.
amazing video..nice info....
Thanks!
Freight companies usually buy retired passenger aircraft and repurpose them. A used airframe is way cheaper than new purpose built aircraft. Strip out the seats and galleys,reinforce the floors and install cargo doors,refresh the engines and you’re ready to go at considerably less money.
@ Coby, you're forgetting that the majority of the "remaining 300+ 767's " to be built are freighters.
I love the 767 and it's 2-3-2 and hope an X version comes out. I thought a 767-200NG might be at the sweet spot between 737max and 787 around 220-240 passengers? In these uncertain times not doing an all new clean sheet is better and if we can get a 767X in the next 3 years that would be perfect. I want to bring twin aisle comfort back to US domestic travel but doubt Boeing will hurt their cramped 737 dominance in the US.
AFAIK its not the GENx 787 engine thats supposed for the 767X -- its the GENx-2B used on the 747-8.
I agree that updating the 767 would be much less expensive to produce than a new design, and the supply chain comments are spot on. However, what do the airlines that have essentially already retired their 767s and drawn down their spares and equipment holdings do? Most iterations of the so-called 797 show a twin-aisle 7-abreast layout, but in a cabin narrower than the 767, so it would not be as comfortable for economy passengers. It is intended for long, thin routes, but is only suitable for the thin bit but not the long bit. The 767-300/300ER is too big for MoM but a 767-200ER looks about right. However, it will be very difficult to match the trip costs of the larger single-aisles, or the seat costs of the bigger widebodies with just a composite wing and new engines alone. It really needs a composite fuselage
I think you make a great case for the 767X. It will cost far less, and be almost as capable. The US carriers in particular have many aging 757's and 767's that need to be replaced, so they could easily replace them with the 767X. Since it would likely have longer range than the current 767 and be cheaper to operate, it would be able to replace longer transatlantic 757 routes economically.
The 797 should be developed as a 737 replacement since the MAX program has turned into such a disaster. They could develop a stretched, longer range variant that just one-ups the A321XLR and helps close the mid market gap. This variant could replace shorter transatlantic 757 routes.
what to do after 797 will it be 808 or what?
your guess is as good as mine...
In my view, 787 almost playing 767x role. Then why we need modified 767 again. Airlines are looking for all new jet
Because the 787's got much to much range to make it consistently viable on medium-haul routes. They maximize profitability at the ultra-long haul range of the spectrum
We have heard a lot of that with the 737max and all know how that turned out.
It would be a safer bet to just build a 797 with the right size since if they don't airbus might.
797 or 767x is Boeings answer to A321xlr and lr just like max was to the A320neo family
but boeing shelved the 767-X in 1988 in favour of the 777. Also what about re engining the 767-200ER which has a smaller body
...one of the major advantages of an NMA is it is targeted at lower capacity long range routes that would not even fill a 767. The other, As I recently learned, it would have a composite fuselage (like the 787) which would allow for a much improved cabin environment. For long flights this would be far more desirable particularly as it is a single aisle aircraft. A composite fuselage is also less vulnerable to corrosion and able to handle more pressurisation cycles. The 767-X on the other hand would still be using the same materials the older versions are built with. If I had the choice of flying direct from say Milwaukee to Munich on an NMA or having to connect to a 767, 777, 787, A330 or A350 at Chicago, New York or Boston, I'd take the NMA. amd skip the inconvenience of the plane change.
As available slots at major hubs and gateways become more difficult to obtain, nearby mid sized airports become more attractive and this is what an NMA is targeted towards.
What hurt 757 sales was the fact when it entered service, even though the 200 had intercontinental range, overwater operations were severely limited which made it unattractive for the growing Asian airline market. By the time ETOPS was relaxed to where the range of the aircraft was the limitation, the 757 was out of production. Boeing considered building a new technology replacement but cancelled the project in 2011 in favour of pushing development of the 737 (with as we have seen, not so favourable results).
I didn't realize the B767 was still in production! Who is getting these jets? Fed Ex/UPS?
Yep, I beleive UPS has most of the outstanding orders
The 767 is my favourite plane model.
The 767 in my opinion is exactly what the 797 is supposed to be anyway.
It would make better business sense to go ahead on the 767x with new technology and start working on a 737 replacement that would cover the entire range up to where the 757 left off. Single aisle planes are dominating the market now and most definitely into the future, so why not put capital and resources into something that will most definitely be a sure thing.
As far as long haul travel, the 767 is my favorite plane just because the passenger has the highest percentage of being placed in a window seat or a aisle seat over other widebody jets.
Great explanation. I've been confused as to why Boeing does many things these days. This makes good sense to me. Also, why hasn't Boeing made some noticeable efforts to do damage control on the 737MAX thing. I've been so proud of Boeing growing up, but lately, not so much. Come on Boeing..
Well because damage control probably wouldn't be all that effective - the best defense at this point evidently is silence
You know your stuff, Coby. Thanks for sharing, bud. Are you a Duke alum? If so, I know why you're so smart. All my Dukie friends are very bright! Cheers.
You bet!
Should Beoing reconsider 787-3?
Thats exaxtly what I think as well, a 787-3 with a bit more range than the originally planned version. But they would need to get that thing lighter.
I believe I read somewhere that the 767X was the designation for the 777 they were proposing. Also, an old drawing was the body of a 747SP-esque body in tri-jet layout. It’s been over 10 years since I’ve seen it, so I could be wrong!
I mean in the past. This book had black and white photographs and drawings, so this was when the 777 hadn’t existed yet.
haha yes it's true that the 767x was originally intended to be an even further stretch of the 767, but from an engineering perspective having such a long fuselage was becoming a challenge. So they made the beefy 777 instead
Coby - great stories.
A quick question - Given your premise of the 767 still being in production (and now for much longer with the KC46), and it representing a cheaper option to re-model, why wouldn't Boeing consider re-igniting the original 767-100 concept, which was cancelled/aborted because it effectively sat in the same market space as the 757.
A new wing and engine combination could effectively solve the 757/MoM/NMA, provide the twin aisle layout that pax really want for longer routes, and stay well beneath the bottom of the 787 market. If the aircraft was pitched into the 767-300ER bracket, surely it completely loses size parity with the 757, outgrows many of the 'thin' city pairs that were the captive market for the 797/NMA, and ends up playing partly in overlap with the 787-8 market?
I thought the Boeing 787 program was to replace the Boeing 767 program. Arguably the 767-100 or the 787-7 could have been an ideal replacement for the 757, but due to lack of demand from customers neither aircraft left the drawing board, The 757 is a very unique and special aircraft but sadly due to a decline in orders, Boeing delivered the final 757 in November 2005 to Shanghai Airlines - the 1,050th 757 built - ending the 23-year production run and closing and dismantling the production lines. Back in 2005, nobody could have predicted how a disease was classified as a pandemic and then politicized with whole countries under lock-downs for extended periods of time. This has resulted in financial worries and concerns for nearly all airlines, with new aircraft orders being delayed in delivery or canceled altogether, with many airlines downsizing by early retirement of aircraft due to age or fuel consumption, even entire fleet types have been eliminated to maximize the benefits from the savings of fleet commonality. Sadly with all the best efforts made, we have seen too many airlines close their doors forever and even today many still have serious financial worries and are facing bankruptcy. I can not see Boeing introducing a next-generation to the closed 757 production line or that of the 767 which has been kept alive by a few freighter orders and the tanker order for the military, once those orders are filled the 767 Production line will close. I believe what you might see from Boeing in the not-to-distant future is an extended range offer to its 737 MAX 7, 8, 9 and 10 family and "IF" Boeing can figure out a way to improve the operational costs on the smaller 787-7 and demand still exists, then we could see it being built. I cant see Boeing doing anything to shoot itself in the foot with its existing family sales. Right now Boeing needs to work on getting its Dreamliner production lines back up and running and getting the 737-MAX 10 Certified along with the 777-8 & 9, followed shortly thereafter by the 777X Freighter.A 757 NG would eat into their 737 MAX family sales just as a 767 NG would eat into their 787 families of aircraft sales. Offering an extended range option for their 737 MAX family or putting the 787-7 back on the table with improved operation cost, if possible would enhance these programs. Long term looking forward it needs an all-new design replacement for its 737 Family, not just taking advantage of composites but also engines power ideally by electric or hydrogen so zero emissions. Let us see how quickly battery and engine technologies can be advanced to help make this possible.
Why not use the 767-200? It's short right? Or make it between the length of a 757-300 and 767-200
Re-engining the 737 worked out so well for Boeing. I can see why they are not jumping up and down to do that again.
The difference with the 737 was that they had already bumped up against the limit of how big the engines could be on the 737 by the time the NG came around (note that is why the bottom of the engines are flat) and with the MAX, they could not fit even bigger engines in the same place so they moved them to a place that altered the flight characteristics of the plane.
The 767 has much room to work with on the other hand.
But why not just keep developing the 787 line, instead of reengineing the old 767 -- which the 787 was designed to replace?
Great job, well done, thanks
Thank you :)
Very informative. Very interesting to learn that 757 and 767 have the same type rating, even though the 767 is a wide body jet.
It seems like Boeing run the risk of having too many aircraft types, and they possibly could do with rationalising their line somewhat. At the moment there's a gap between the biggest 737 and the smallest 767, that the 757 fitted that niche perfectly. However, the 757 was discontinued because there wasn't much need for that niche, so starting on a new long term project runs the risk that the niche will close up before the project is complete. The 767X probably makes sense as a relatively short term project to give airlines a smallish long range aircraft. However, if they could produce a longer range version of the 737 that would probably suit airlines who need long haul on niche routes.
I think in the long run, the 797 makes sense, but I think they should be looking at an aircraft that can replace a couple of their older models. Is it time to design a successor to the 737? If the 797 was designed to add more effeciency for short haul routes than the 737 will ever achieve, but also have long range variants, they could probably produce a single family of aricraft that could replace the 737, 757 and 767 (which already overlaps substantially with the 787).
737 to 757 to 767 is such a large range that it is probably impossible to efficiently cover. I'd expect future 737 class aircraft to be slightly larger given the existence of A220 (and maybe Embraer E2) now, though, but even getting into 757-300 territory is pushing the limits a bit.. Much like how A321XLR and any hypothetical A322 concepts involve a number of compromises
@@AmbientMorality However, with the 321XLR, Airbus comes close. It can certainly match the 757 for capacity and range, and is not too far off the smaller versions of the 767. The Airbus range seems much cleaner, with three families where Boeing have five overlapping families.
The supply chain stuff is interesting. New engines, new wings, those all integrate into the supply chain relatively quickly. Then a few years down the road they start looking at tweaking the materials for the fuselage. Next thing you know the 767 is lasting decades longer than people expected.
Just start to follow you on Instagram!!!
I don't get why they don't just shrink the 787's fuselage and then redesign the wings if needed. It could then in theory be under the 787 Type rating or alternatively call it the 797 and get a separate type certificate.
I really like to see this 767x in the sky.....soon
I have to ask Coby, as it's been bothering me so much. Was your name Coby explain's before? I swear it was, or am I just dumb?
Haha nope, always been Explanes!
Isn't the real problem the A330 neo? The neo is already available.
You jumped from 5k to 8k subscribers in under a month. Applause dude. Go Auburn.
Roll Devils :)
@@cobyexplanes Thanks. I also run an aviation channel. I recently did a video on the 777X.
Link here:
Go Tigers.
@@garretthaggar6816 Keep up the good work!
767-300 with newest engine, composite airframe, (if possible) 787 windows and the wings in the style of the 777-X and an updated flight deck. THAT WOULD BE MY DREAM. The 767-300 is my favorite plane I was so sad when it was being retired. Please Boeing do this!
The 767 is definitely slept on, honestly one of my favorite jets to fly
Him: why Boeing shouldn't build the 797
Me: he's a party pooper
I hope you’re correct about the 767. I like it in the 200 or 300ER variant and much prefer the 2-3-2 economy configuration for any flight over 4 hours. Add the GEnext Engines, carbon composite redesigned wings, updated flight deck/cockpit, and Dreamliner interior upgrades and you have the best long-distance 200-240 passenger hauler in the business. Fits right above the 737-10 Max and below the 787-8 Dreamliner. Perfect! Efficient! Long Range! Low Cost!
While I know the 767 was picked for the new military re-fueling plane, I had no idea it still had actual commercial order backlog. Very interesting. And as someone who always loved the 757 and really wanted to see Boeing re-engine it, the 767 makes way more sense.
Why do freighters take so long to develop after the passenger version? One would think it's just some extra reinforcement for the deck and a big door on the side? What's so complicated?
They should re-engine them like the 737 . That worked out well .
@Temple of Ridicule True, Boeing should move away from endlessly stretching and upgrading old airframes. They are losing public trust just as fast as they are losing cash... New airframes, build and designed like the original 777, 767 and 757 is what they need. That stretched up 777X is a legacy from the bad Boeing era, a new airframe wouldn't need fucking folding wingtips, they know it, and most of the public know it, thats why they are taking more time, I don't believe they want to kill anymore people... time to get their shit together...
It is amazing how things have changed. Now airlines do not even want a lot of the planes they have on order now.
A330 kills B767. So updated a330 (A330neo) already kill updated b767 ( B767X)
Not sure I'd say the a330 "kills" the 767, the 767 has sold extremely well in its own right
@@cobyexplanes You are right. They serve slightly different markets. The A330 is slightly larger than a 767, and slightly smaller than a 777. It sits right between the two.
@@cobyexplanes the 767 sold well before the arrival of the A330ceo.
Also you have vastly underestimated the resources and efforts to launch the B767X.
@@chingweixion621 Obviously it will cost a tremendous deal to build the 767x. In relative terms, though, the program could cost less than half that of a 797 which amounts to potentially tens of billions of dollars in savings
The 757 and 767 airframes have aged to their retirement points. The 797 would be a common middle ground between the 2 airframes.
We just have to wait for boeing next decision, for now it will be the 777-9 maiden flight
Cant wait :)
I still think Coby is Sheldon's twin brother ...
The idea should be (in any plane built today) to include modern and efficient engines and new aviation technologies that can make flying more enjoyable. If that means building a 797 or revamping the 767, them be it. But Boeing should not remain static.
agreed
Any future Boeing aircraft will be based on the 787 tech and cockpit layout.
All this time I thought you were bald. I learned something new today. I say go ahead with the 767-X. She's an extremely capable platform and already known by a huge portion of airline pilots.
Why would it not be viable to run the two projects concurrent? That way the 767X could be a stopgap for the 797, and the proceeds from the 767X project could help finance the 797 project.