767-X with GEnx - Analysis Summary and Comment
Last week, Flight Global discussed Boeing studies centred around re-engining a 767 with a GEnx derivative, dubbed 767-X. My guess is that this is just one of the options being considered for the market space at which the NMA is targeted, particularly given that the 767 assembly and supply chain remains active building a small number of freighters and the basic airframes for the USAF KC-46 aerial refuelling aircraft. As reported elsewhere, the 767-X represents a much lower initial investment, lower risk and would be expected get to market sooner when compared with a all-new NMA aircraft.
I have used my RAWAvCon design capability to make an initial assessment of what a GEnX derivative (GEnx2 from the 747-8) would do for a 767-300ER with winglets fitted. All analysis derived from public domain data.
The challenges are integrating the substantially heavier engines with direct and indirect weight increases pushing up the aircraft empty weight significantly. The physical integration of a 104" fan diameter engines (CF6-80A is 86.4") below the wing will also be a challenge without pushing the engine very close to the wing (drag challenge) and/or further forward (CG and pylon weight challenges).
The headlines from this quick analysis relative to the baseline 767-300ER aircraft are:
200nm design range increase with a given payload
Approximately 10% lower block fuel at typical mission lengths
Clearly, additional drag clean-up, structural optimisation and a bespoke engine may yield further 767-X benefits but the increasing work scope would push up development costs and possibly risk and development time. Reverting to a lower MTOW 767-300 airframe (still with winglets) would improve block fuel a little (lower airframe structural weight) at the expense of design range.
767-X vs A330-800 and A321XLR
A comparison with my RAWAvCon A330-800 and A321XLR models places that the 767-300X neatly between the two Airbus products. The 767-X has double digit block fuel deltas with each of the Airbus aircraft - better than the A330-800, worse than the A321XLR. However, these deltas are countered by the differences in cabin size. The A330-800 cabin floor area is substantially bigger than the 767-300X (more seating capacity - more revenue if seats filled) while the 767-300 has a substantial cabin area advantage over the A321XLR giving it a higher seating capacity - more revenue potential.
There are several other features, each with a clear trend from the A330, through the 767-300X to the A321XLR with both extremes being one of the Airbus products in all cases - design range, cruise speed and freight capability (A330 best) and Span (A321XLR smallest at the ICAO Aerodrome code C span limit, 767-X close to Code D limit and A330-800 at the Code E limit).
The competition would be focused on what size of aircraft is required and also whether the appropriate use of a A321 and A330 combination delivers advantages across a route network relative to the simplicity of operating a single 767-X aircraft type.
767-300X vs NMA
RAWAvCon NMA models have been created at both 225 and 275 (nominal) seating based on technology trends and public statements on its payload/range and expected TO thrust requirements and target operating cost improvements (in Wikipedia).
A comparison between the 767-300X and the smallest NMA shows the latter to have a double digit block fuel advantage with cabin floor area (between the A321 and 767-300X) - the NMA block fuel is even significantly lower than the A321XLR despite having a larger cabin floor area and more seats due to 2025 EIS engines, structure, systems and aerodynamics.
To summarise, the 767-X has some potential to compete with the Airbus products at much lower development costs and possibly an earlier EIS, but does not offer the clear block fuel benefits of an all-new NMA aircraft.
