It may have been discussed a million times, but I still have 2 questions. Why is 787-8 not an almost exact successor to 767-300ER (to the point that it was even rumored that the production of 767-300ER would be resumed). Why wasn't a successor to 767-200 developed as a part of 787 family, if I correctly understand that MOM is the same segment as 767-200.

Airlines wanted a more capable plane.

The 787-8 has a range some 1300nm more than a 767-300ER. The 787-8 has an OEW 30% more than a 767-300ER.

The idea behind the MOM is to produce a lighter plane with less range than the 787, and probably even less than the 767-300ER. A lighter plane will outperform the 787 and 767 on the shorter routes it is designed for.

How many threads do we need on this.

flyguy84 wrote:

How many threads do we need on this.

Id day about seven hundred & ninety seven....

eicvd wrote:

flyguy84 wrote:

How many threads do we need on this.

Id day about seven hundred & ninety seven....

Win.

Alexdk wrote:

It may have been discussed a million times, but I still have 2 questions. Why is 787-8 not an almost exact successor to 767-300ER (to the point that it was even rumored that the production of 767-300ER would be resumed). Why wasn't a successor to 767-200 developed as a part of 787 family, if I correctly understand that MOM is the same segment as 767-200.

It's worth noting that while 783 has been shelved, there's nothing preventing Boeing from dusting that off and incorporating a lot of powerplant PIPs and airframe lightening therein. So that's an option.

But it would still have to match the overall value (not just operating costs but acquisition and depreciation costs as well) of a very affordable 763.

Alexdk wrote:

Why is 787-8 not an almost exact successor to 767-300ER (to the point that it was even rumored that the production of 767-300ER would be resumed). Why wasn't a successor to 767-200 developed as a part of 787 family, if I correctly understand that MOM is the same segment as 767-200.

Airlines told Boeing they wanted bigger, more capable planes. The 787-8 is actually bigger than the 767-400.

Airlines are replacing 767s with larger, more capable A330s and 787s.

Airlines have all but stopped flying 767-200 passenger planes. There are very few (if any) left in service, and there was no great clamour by airlines for a 767-200 sized plane.

It's still far from clear exactly what mommy-plane will be, if the market is really there or if Boeing will even launch it.

flyguy84 wrote:

How many threads do we need on this.

More than we already have, apparently.

Alexdk wrote:

It may have been discussed a million times, but I still have 2 questions. Why is 787-8 not an almost exact successor to 767-300ER (to the point that it was even rumored that the production of 767-300ER would be resumed).

It was, but as scribmi noted, most airlines outside of the US had retired or were retiring their 767s in favor of A330s and wanted a larger plane. And the US airlines were all bankrupt so they could not afford it and therefore Boeing listened to the (non-US) airlines that could.

Alexdk wrote:

Why wasn't a successor to 767-200 developed as a part of 787 family, if I correctly understand that MOM is the same segment as 767-200.

No market at the time. Most 767-200ER operators had upgraded to the 767-300ER or A330-200 as the overall operating economics were much better.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

It's worth noting that while 783 has been shelved, there's nothing preventing Boeing from dusting that off and incorporating a lot of powerplant PIPs and airframe lightening therein. So that's an option.

Not really as the 787-3's 52m wingspan really crippled the aerodynamic efficiency compared to the current 60m span to the point the 787-8 is more economical at almost any stage length.

flyguy84 wrote:

How many threads do we need on this.

To be fair, until recently the Search function on this site was quite poor so trying to find a similar topic was extremely difficult.

Stitch wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

It's worth noting that while 783 has been shelved, there's nothing preventing Boeing from dusting that off and incorporating a lot of powerplant PIPs and airframe lightening therein. So that's an option.

Not really as the 787-3's 52m wingspan really crippled the aerodynamic efficiency compared to the current 60m span to the point the 787-8 is more economical at almost any stage length.

Yes there is that. I'm sure that would have to be significantly addressed. I was just thinking that an MOM only has to be better than a bogo 763. Albeit a lot better, given the cost differential.

In any case, you're probably right that it would be better off as a clean sheeter. But I still feel like there is an awful lot they can cheaply borrow from the 787 family.

Just for kicks, what kind of weight reduction/fuel savings would there be if Boeing made an exact CFRP 767 with applicable modern wing and smaller GEnX engine in the current-generations engine thrust range?

Yes, I did just pretty much say a 767 made out of CFRP instead of aluminum.

Suggest you head over to the thread discussing Boeing giving away the 777-200 replacement market to Airbus, there are some post there may be relevant. Example that the 787 should not have been done as engine tech etc was not there, a MAX or NEO of the 767 would suffice. A post in the face of all the others which said that the larger A330 made the 767 obsolete.
If the Mom is a wide body it is going to be about the size of the 767-200, it just whether it can be modified to be more economical than it was, plus loose some weight.

flyguy84 wrote:

How many threads do we need on this.

What is the purpose of posting such a comment? You want to shame the OP?