Re-Engining Old Aircraft: Can It Be Done? Should It Be Done?

[@AnotherPointOfView944]

Re-engine the Wright Bros "Wright Flyer" with a couple of CFM56s.

[@svrsakura]

The engines would fly further than the flyer 🤣

[@Fra93TheGrande]

Lol 🤣🔥🛩️🔝

[@DirectorBird]

Nah, get some Ge90's on that bad boy

[@ahmadtheaviationlover1937]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@composimple364]

Cfm Leap

[@rodrigogoncalves6165]

You forgot the re engining of the B52s with Rolls Royce engines

[@shero113]

I was thinking the same - also, it's interesting (and would make a good video) as to why they went with 8 not 4 engines. Apparently the work to convert to 4 was too much.

[@rodrigogoncalves6165]

@@shero113 i think using 4 engines would affect the aerodinamics, so they would have to redesign the aircraft

[@cyrilmeynier5688]

@@rodrigogoncalves6165 it's also about rudder sizing. The rudder must be sized to compensate the imbalance created by one engine failing

[@힐만94]

it only focused on jet engines.. they didn't event mention convair props or dc-3 engine conversion from piston to turboprop

[@Renilo_A]

If i were to re-engine an aircraft, i would re-engine the 757. The pencil need justice

[@f9mike]

totally agree with you. a re-engined 757 should have been done 10 even 15 years ago

[@steinwaldmadchen]

757 for a fact is just too heavy to be efficient, and new engines are not going to help. That explains even MAX10 sold better than it.

[@xander1052]

@@steinwaldmadchen It's a sportscar of an aircraft and you do have to remember that the MAX10 is from an era where airlines are massively expanding and upgrading their fleets.

[@Zvkstudios18]

Re engine the 757 with the new PW GTF engines, problem solved

[@steinwaldmadchen]

@@Zvkstudios18 You may notice that even A321CEO and 737-900 is 10% more efficient than 757 without newer engines. Similarly 757 with GTF will still be behind A321NEO with GTF without expensive changes to the aircraft itself.

[@gumnaamaadmi007]

The C-5 aircraft were upgraded from four General Electric TF-39 engines to General Electric CF6-80C2s. This was part of the Super Galaxy upgrade.

[@kingsharkoon]

That is technically the same engine tho.

[@markymarknj]

@@kingsharkoon yeah, it's just a newer version; the TF-39 was based on an early version of the CF6, whereas the CF6-80C2 is the apex of the CF6 development. I imagine that the USAF kept the engine, as it would be easier to fit it to the C-5 vs. a newer GE90.

[@aviationalpha757]

Boeing should have chosen to redesign the 757 to conquer the mid range market and rival the A321

[@thetruthbehindplanes]

when the 737 was selling so fast,and the 757 wasnt,there was no need to

[@kuckoo9036]

Boeing offered an improved 757 to airlines years ago but no one at the time showed interest and received no orders. And while the B752 was _kind of_ successful, the B753 was a commercial failure. Also, the 757 was more expensive to build than the 737. Finally, the 737NG family turned out to be a massive success for Boeing and became the best-selling single-isle airliner. So Boeing had two single-isle airplanes of similar capacity and performance, but one did well while the other did not, the poorer of the two saw a market not favoring it and cost more to build. All of this pretty much conspired against the 757, despite it being an objectively better airplane. Now, with everything that has happened since (market changes, MAX issues, etc), in hindsight it is easy to look back and say "it would have been better to go with the 757 instead of the 737" - and I agree. But in many industries, strategic decisions are made that don't have an effect years, or even more than a decade later, and things can and do change in that time that are difficult or impossible to anticipate. This doesn't excuse Boeing's mismanagement of the MAX program, but if they knew at the time how things would have developed they likely would have gone with the 757 instead.

[@thetruthbehindplanes]

​I like 757,and I just love uts fuselage,but cancelling it was the right thing to do.

[@FloppaAppreciationSociet-ds7zf]

The 757 was cancelled because at the time there was no demand for it, unlike the 737 NG that was selling like hot cakes. The simple fact that there were many, many more pilots with existing 737 type rating, then there were with 757/767 type rating, made it far more appealing to the airlines. This was also the reason Boeing had to build a 737 MAX, instead of a 757 MAX, or an all-new aircraft altogether as they originally intended. With the major efficiency gains from the CFM LEAP and P&W 1000G engines, even Boeing loyalist became interested in the A320neo. To avoid losing customers, Boeing offered existing 737 operators the only thing Airbus couldn't: commonality, similar efficiency gains, but without the added cost of re-certifying all your pilots for a new type. This would not have worked with a 757 MAX, because then the airlines would have to bear that cost anyway, it had to be the 737. In a way Boeing and the airlines both fell victim to the 737's success.

[@nntflow7058]

Nobody wants it, hence why Boeing cancelled the project.

[@aviation259]

I hope the next topic will be discussing about adding winglet to an aircraft and its development

[@jamesx4952]

I’d love to see the Trent XWB on the A340

[@Tpr_1808]

That would make it inefficient. Trent 500s are okay to go to older variants

[@herbertmoshesh7448]

Yes Trent xwb or genx on the A340

[@RandomCommenter.4114]

Imagine an A340-300 with CFM LEAP or PW1100G.

[@steinwaldmadchen]

A330NEO is kind of it. Remember there's no substantial difference between A330 and A340 (except so-called A340NG) except engines and additional weight supporting structures.

[@ishiddddd4783]

@@steinwaldmadchen yes, but people mention the XWB engine on an A340 to have the long A340 fuselage with 2 big engines instead of 4 smaller ones

[@sainnt]

I'd love a re-engined 727 with a glass cockpit and modernized interior. A bit noisy, but one of the most beautiful aircraft ever built.

[@bobflicks6104]

And evidently the most unstable on approach.

[@sainnt]

@@bobflicks6104 They fixed that by correcting the flaps settings on takeoff and landing.

[@guillermojuliolons4367]

EXCELENTE AVION VOLE VARIOS AÑOS, RESULTADO INOLVIDABLE

[@FloppaAppreciationSociet-ds7zf]

That unfortunately would not be possible. One of the reasons Boeing gave for its discontinuation was that there was simply no room to fit a more modern high-bypass engine into its tail.

[@sainnt]

@@FloppaAppreciationSociet-ds7zf It's just a wish. Hypothetically speaking.

[@khoanguyenavia]

Get the Trent XWB on the A340s or the GE90 on the An-124

[@opalrx7]

Not bad :D

[@fury4539]

I see a lot of comments talking about re-engining the 757, some even say with the Leap-1 Honestly I'm not sure, but I believe it would be a bit underpowered compared to its current engines, and so far engines for it aren't an issue, it's the avionics and the software that needs updating on the 757. Of course if Boeing ever kept the 757 in production, we might see new modifications to the intial design, such as new engines like the Trent 700 found on the A330 Neo, maybe new more efficient wingtip profiles, perhaps also foldable for smaller airports a concept found on the 777X and of course new interior designs for cockpit controls (with updated software and avionics) and passenger/cargo cabin.

[@steinwaldmadchen]

757 is overbuilt for the task it is designed - shorthaul people mover. That's why the arrival and A321 and later 737-900 ate its cake to a point it is no longer viable. Hot high performances and transatlantic capabilities are nice but they're niches.

[@neilpickup237]

I think the time to re-engine the 757 has well and truly passed. Even had there been a suitable replacement, many 757s would still have been retired over a decade ago. Many of those currently flying are only doing so because the airlines had little choice but to continue running them, hoping that Boeing would have something suitable before they wore out. Even if a suitable engine became available tomorrow, I doubt if there are sufficient 757s with enough life left in them to justify a re-engine program's development costs. So it has been a case of trying to find 757s on the secondary market with life left in them to justify the rebrand, or, once the A321neo and it variants became available, use them.

[@scpatl4now]

@@steinwaldmadchen If it's such an "undesirable" plane, why is Delta still flying 131 of the type and United still flying 61. That's pretty good for a plane that you think was a niche aircraft. Obviously, this is a desirable plane to be flying...even though it stopped production in 2005

[@steinwaldmadchen]

@@scpatl4now The fact that in the 90s Airbus managed to steal half of 757's delivery with A321-100 an obviously inferior aircraft compare to even later A321CEO, is telling. Boeing also sold ~500 737-900/ER despite it is worse than A321. There are some airlines that value 757's better performance, just not enough to sustain the production. That's why for a fact it is a niche. It's just not universal.

[@ishiddddd4783]

​@@scpatl4now US based airlines will keep flying those planes until they can't with how much demand they have and A321Neo delivery times, and the MAX 10 nowhere in sight, otherwise, it's also why icelandair is retiring their own 757s for A321Neos.

[@k.b.tidwell]

I know it's not a commercial design, but your title seemed inclusive to the B-52 bomber. What history! Old can be new again.

[@jdf1stats]

I saw your video on reengining the 757, I really think it could work! Actually, I'm gonna watch it again! 😁

[@taylorham4life]

Would love to see FEDEX/UPS start the trend.

[@steinwaldmadchen]

@@taylorham4life Arguably A321 suits their need better given it can be fully containised. 757 or any other Boeing narrowbodies can only be bulk loaded on the lower deck.

[@frank_av8tor]

737 Max never had unsafe behavior due to the engine plcaement, it was different fron NG series at high Angles of Attack, but not dangerous. MCAS was meant to provide similar handling to that of the NG series, that's all.

[@ghostrider-be9ek]

not exactly - at low weights, with rear biased CoG and high power levels - the MCAS system was indeed there to prevent stalls from excessive pitch-up (eg. go around) due to the new, higher, and forward placement of the engines

[@ZeDestructor00]

@@ghostrider-be9ek which isn't inherently unsafe - you just need to know about it, and react accordingly (or have the software fake it)

[@ghostrider-be9ek]

@@ZeDestructor00 yes it is, and aircraft have crashed (russia) because of this effect

[@htimsid]

@@ghostrider-be9ek Which type/model of aircraft crashed in Russia?

[@ghostrider-be9ek]

@@htimsid I dont recall, was it a boeing or one of their domestic products? it was a medium sized aircraft

[@Steve-yg1pi]

Re engined 727 with upgraded Pratt and Whitney jt8 engines. Build 727s again so there will be new airframes for the new engines. The airframe and cockpit could have the newest design and avionics installed.

[@robk3005]

I would re-engine the flying pencil....aka the B757. A pair of engines currently used by the B737 Max would probably be a great fit for the airframe. Another re-engine I'd love to see would be to place a pair of GE9-X engines on a B747 airframe, however that would really change the aircraft and require extensive R&D and recertification.

[@finalascent]

Counter-suggestion - find a way to add a 747-style "hump" to the 777?

[@joshuacoats-evenhouse9771]

Thr 757 could have new life if it was done 10 years back. But im afraid the airframes are all too old at this point for it to be worth it...

[@Tpr_1808]

Other airlines are forced to retire them since some have metal fatigue or corrosion

[@EuropeanRailfanAlt]

The first re-engine would probably be the KC-135 re-engine. But the most popular/well known are definitely the A320neo and 737 MAX

[@magical_catgirl]

I was on an AA ANC-DFW flight last year operated by an A321neo. Another passenger nearby asked the flight attendant what the "neo" meant (having seen it on the safety card). The flight attendant didn't know.

[@OhhDaarBenJePerry]

The NEO or MAX are not a re engine of an old plane. Putting CFM56 on a DC8 of KC135 is a re engine of an old plane. Same as with the re engine of the B52 or the C5 galaxy.

[@APerson-fj6yx]

@OhhDaarBenJePerry Yes! The A320Neo and 737 Max series have fuselage changes as well as wing changes

[@JuanGarcia-vb3du]

The 757! Lets do this!

[@litz13]

The DC-8-60 (and higher) was re-engined with the CFM56, incidentally salvaging the CFM program in the process. The engine would later on be mounted to the 737 and A320 and the rest, as they say, is history.

[@michaelsteiger8509]

The 757 uses an specific thrust class engine. Because it would be built in small numbers, the cost goes up incredibly. Even thought the 757 outperforms all planes in its class (Large narrowbody) , the airliners buy the 737-8/9/10 and 321 that can just barely do 90% of a 757s capabilities due to cost . I know, we all know this but some might be new at this .

[@fotonovella]

The Canadair CL-215 water bomber started as a piston prop amphibious plane, using Pratt & Whitney R-2800-83AM radial engines. In response to customer requests, Canadair upgraded it to more powerful turboprops, using Pratt & Whitney Canada PW123AF. The current owner of the now-rebadged CL-415 licence, De Havilland Aircraft of Canada, has created an even more advanced model, the CL-515, but without a change to power plant.

[@xander1052]

Let's re-engine Concorde with upsized versions of the Snecma M88 so we can have a turbofan supersonic jetliner.

[@Fra93TheGrande]

The KC-135 with CFM56 engines is my favorite 😍✈️🔥🔝 Anyway I'd love an A380 Neo

[@wrichikbiswas]

I'd like to see the A380 get the GE9X (777X) engines. If it's being phased out for cost reasons, new engines may be able to keep it in the air for a while longer.

[@rafaelwilks]

For optimum fuel efficiency for the 72K pound thrust range, a custom-designed derivative would be pretty awesome - GE could call it the GE8X 😎

[@nerd2814]

​@@rafaelwilks I think a downscaled Trent XWB would suffice

[@HesJustSteven]

They would rip themselves off the wings, too powerful. The A380 actually is already the most powerful passenger jet out there.

[@HesJustSteven]

@@rafaelwilksif only GE went all in but I doubt they had so much interest in the A380 programme hence collabing with PW to make the GP7000

[@Tpr_1808]

​@HesJustSteven they couldn't use GE90 or Genx derivatives because they had exclusive contracts with Boeing. So it would cost more to make something different

[@brmolnar]

Basler re-engined WWII DC-3's with a Turbofan. But some of this was done because of the special use case for DC-3's and the fuel becoming more difficult to acquire. I believe these are still used in remote Canada and Antarctica.

[@jimpern]

I still think that there are enough 757s flying with plenty of airframe life left that would do well with the same engines as on the A321neo. I would think that relatively little modifiation to the existing airframe would be needed.

[@romandelasalle]

What about the DC3 re-engine?

[@Gameflyer001]

That's essentially what the P3-Orion is; an upgraded and reengined DC-3.

[@taylorham4life]

@@romandelasalle a company years ago modified a DC-3 by stretching the fuselage adding turboprop engines as well as a streamlined nose cone

[@harryspeakup8452]

@@Gameflyer001 No it isn't. The Lockheed P-3 has absolutely no design DNA in common with the pre-war Douglas family. It is loosely based on one of Lockheed's own airliners, the L-188 Electra

[@Gameflyer001]

@@harryspeakup8452 yep, you're correct. There was a military variant of the DC-3 that employed more advanced turboprops.

[@aryapatel1932]

Basler is making reengined versions called the Basler BT-67

[@sarkplex]

Side note: ROHR Inc is nowadays part of Collins Aerospace.

[@leezinke4351]

What about MD-80/90?

[@ronparrish6666]

We got a few DC3,s in Canada with new turbine engines and they stretched them also

[@cats400]

I was hoping those would be included in this video :(

[@americanrambler4972]

A new (old) airplane to ad to the list is the Boeing B-52. A new engine program is now underway. This will extend its service life to approaching 100 years.

[@pg41226]

What about the dc3 with upgraded turbo engines?

[@surferdude4487]

Most of the value of the aircraft is in the engines. for reengining to make sense, the airframe would have to be fairly new and the engines would have to offer a huge increase in efficiency or essential increase in performance. This doesn't happen very often.

[@altezzaguynz]

The Convair cv580 was a very successful re engine of the Convair cv340/440 swapping out the radial R2800 for the Allison 501 turboprop

[@Bellakelpie]

You could also go back to the re engining of Convair 340 and 440 aircraft with Allison 501 turbo props to give us the Convair 580 , or RR Dart turbo props, to give us the Convair 640. Or even the DC 3 turbo prop conversions to give the DC3T.

[@iceman9678]

KC135 I was on didn't have reverse thrusters. 🤕

[@MarkPoullos-v4f]

I would choose to re-engine long haul aircraft; because they typically have much fewer pressurization /depressurization cycles verses the number of operational hours. A good case may be to re-engineDC-10's or 747's with two GE-9X's instead of four.

[@joaquimfonseca2047]

EXCELENTE CANAL...

[@russellstrom8234]

How about the 2 wing engines on a L-1011?

[@LaczPro]

757-200 with LEAP-1Bs. Is there any other answer?

[@t4N9410oR]

Considering the successful military re-engine of the KC-135 to use the CFM56, I'd have liked to see the B707-400 get the CFM56 engines as well.

[@TravelWithKabirCD]

A380 hands down. Given the upturn in aviation and travel, the issue of constraints will continue to grow. Aircraft like that will be needed!

[@Alex77au]

I'd love to see the development of the low bypass turbofan for passenger aircraft.

[@davidnoticiero6728]

I always wondered by DC9 and successive MD narrow body variants were never re-engined, always thought they were perfect to convert to modern day short haul use

[@APerson-fj6yx]

It’s quite expensive to re engine an aircraft, redesigning the pylon and engine nacelle, not to mention McDonnell Douglas was kinda dying

[@android584]

The CFM 56 engine must be too good if no re-engining was suggested of old planes that already have them.

[@apexqc04]

il-86, total rebuild with maybe CFM LEAP, perfect holiday jet. Brings it's own stairs.

[@Wheninflight]

I think of Boeing was to redesign the 757 with newer engines, it would be firm competition to the A321NEO. While the MAX 10 does have similar capacity, it cannot compete on range. It would also also help FedEx and UPS with their aging fleets.

[@ChristinaK1024]

MCAS wasn't the issue with the 737MAX. The issue was Boeing didn't tell anyone about it's existence or develop pilot training for what to do when it fails. They did this so airlines wouldn't have to pay for pilots to undergo additional simulator training. That decision cost 300 lives. Oh, and MCAS' initial implementation was absolute trash, with no redundancy or comparison logic for the angle of attack sensors. That doesn't mean the idea of MCAS was a bad one though.

[@jeromes5141]

NEO on the A340 would be great.

[@MirzaAhmed89]

No, that's pointless. No one is flying four engine aircraft any longer.

[@sgdemobushunter7394]

The a350 has already replaced the a340

[@r12004rewy]

​@@sgdemobushunter7394agree but the 340-600 is still a better looking aircraft :)

[@jantjarks7946]

Replacing four of the five APUs with engines might make sense. 😉

[@GeneralVonQuack]

Yes, imagine the PW1100G on the -300...

[@SalmanMentos]

I wanna see the boeing 377 re-engined with PW150A

[@FanRailer]

A380 with the Trent xwb or 7000.

[@chrisg9627]

BAe almost pulled it off with the Avro RJX, there were only two prototypes built, and being an Airbus partner they were "leaned on" to halt development of what would have been a far more efficient aircraft than the Avro RJ.

[@jimsvideos7201]

If I found a more-or-less benevolent genie with a penchant for aero engineering I’d get a second Spruce Goose, but with turboprop powerplants putting out maybe 5000 HP apiece. Why? To have the best RV anyone, anywhere, has ever seen.

[@RandomCommenter.4114]

- A340-300 with CFM LEAP 1A or PW1100G - 737-800 with IAE V2500 - A380-800 with RR Trent XWB or GE9x - 747-400 with RR Trent 700 - A340-600 with EA GP7000 or RR Trent 900

[@kirantamby-littiere6113]

genx and trent 1000/ 7000s would be more adapted for the a380neo

[@APerson-fj6yx]

The IAE V2500 on a re-engined 737-800? That’s a pretty old engine. The GE90 is way too big for the A380, same with the XWB. It’s current Powerplant is sufficient enough

[@frutdafruit]

@@APerson-fj6yx fact: the Trent XWB-97 was tested under the wing of an A380

[@SN57ONE]

GE90 for the A350-1000 would be great. Then the GE9X is reserved for the -2000

[@TomDrez]

It really feel to me that we're reaching the end of an age to ask that seriously, it's not necessarily stupid, but there's some form of nostalgy there

[@zlm001]

Thanks.

[@alicelund147]

A380 should be profitable to re-engine. Rolls-Royce Trent 900 was offered already 1996. Maybe with an upgraded Trent XWB that at the same time could be for a A350neo., or just as an upgrade to current Trent XWB for A350/reengine A380.

[@hampshirewanderer5078]

I'd reengine A319ceos with Leap 1B engines. The 1Bs are only slightly different in diameter to existing A319ceo engines, can provide a similar thrust rating, and use less fuel.

[@nicholasjohnson6724]

I reckon the A300 and 767 re-engined would have been awesome !!!!!

[@PVZBlover]

A350neo with the GE9X as an option

[@Tpr_1808]

It's an exclusive contract

[@steinwaldmadchen]

GE9X is only marginally more efficient. Maybe Ultrafan or anything GE / PW compete with that.

[@artrandy]

There's no point designing an A350Neo right now, its already a 'roaring' success with its RR XWBs, and virtually sold out until the early 2030s. They've just upgraded the engines, and Im sure small improvements will continue, but they just don't have the facilities to build a Neo version. So, by the time a Neo is developed, as it surely will after 2030, the GE9X will be an antiquated power plant, not the go to power plant. RR are currently transferring technology from the Ultrafan to existing XWBs, and I see that continuing for the development of a RR engine for the Neo. I know some American fans see the success of the A350, and think GE would like a slice of that pie, but GE refused to power the A350-1000, and Boeing declined a RR alternative engine for the B777X, so drove these two European manufacturers together, and they're doing pretty well. I expect this relationship to last beyond 2030..............

[@sergeylosinskiy1213]

It's another re-engine program is ongoing in USAF. B-52 with 8 RR BR710 type engines. All military types already re-engined. There are no engines nor resources nor justification to re-engine current civil planes. New turboprop is needed badly for 70-120 pax class

[@Radicalist-Manifesto]

The Indian Air Force (IAF) retrofitted the Fairchild C-119 Packet aircraft by fitting it with Westinghouse J34 turbojet engines mounted in a dorsal pod. This modification enhanced the aircraft's performance, particularly in high-altitude operations, allowing it to carry heavier loads and improve efficiency. The C-119, known for its cargo capabilities, was crucial during missions in challenging terrains like Ladakh, where it successfully transported troops and supplies at altitudes exceeding 16,000 feet.

[@dre9813]

How about a 757 with GE90 engines or 747sp with the GE90

[@perrytheplatypus8802]

The 767 is an obvious choice for the KC-46 but I doubt this will happen for only 100-200 max examples

[@EduardGenardAndalis]

Boeing 757 = PW1000G-based PW enngine, RR “Trent 600 (III)”, or GEnx/LEAP-based engine (or yet, change the wings into CF composites, etc.

[@smp_rc_2002]

the A380 with either Trent XWB or the GEnx engines

[@shero113]

Old airframes or old airframe designs? The two are quite different. I'd love to see a new build 747, with twins, or even a triple (that was planned at one time). However, re-engine an extant airframe? Probably not worth it.

[@r4raced4doom2]

BAE 146/Avro RJ with quad CF34s WITH thrust reversers.

[@ad-hv6sz]

nah try adding an IAEV2500 or CFM56

[@neilpickup237]

Up until now, an engines successor has invariably been larger and heavier than its predecessor. This has been in the main due to proportionally larger front fans to increase the bypass ratio. Now, assume that the bypass ratio could be increased by having a smaller and more efficient core. This would not only increase the engines' efficiency but also reduce its weight. There is also the possibility of reducing the size of the engine. The engineering required to replace an engine with something no heavier and no larger is far simpler.

[@trekrider8184]

737 with a single GE9x in the tail

[@user-yt198]

Do you mean one engine instead of two? That will never be certified.

[@thetruthbehindplanes]

@@user-yt198 and in the tail?the pitching up would be crazy!

[@lamaatmahmood238]

😂

[@filledwithvariousknowledge2747]

It would literally fly like a rocket then with correct modifications for the straight through design and would struggle to stall

[@thetruthbehindplanes]

@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 it would also be pretty unefficient!

[@deanjohnson7819]

I would replace the CFM56 on the A340s and switch them to what they were originally going to be fitted with, the IAE Superfan.

[@opalrx7]

Re-engined A380 would be awesome :D

[@HesJustSteven]

Re-engine the 757 with a newer Rolls-Royce Trent engine, to deliver the same 43,000 pounds of thrust as the RB211 did, call it Trent 400? If the PW1000G fixes its reliability problems, maybe Pratt & Whitney could offer a higher thrust variant of that for a re-engined 757.

[@EduardGenardAndalis]

Can be also called as “Trent 600 (III)”

[@SN57ONE]

PW1200G?

[@rscott2247]

Maybe the L1011 ?

[@Jenci]

Re-engine the Antonov An-225 with six GE9X would be stupid overpowered :D

[@ua462hd]

I think a re-engined B767-300ER - maybe with Trent700 (330 neo) or GENx (787/747-8) would be a good idea. In fact the 767 F is still produced. If Airbus goes neo - why should Boeing not do a similar thing?

[@SN57ONE]

If the 737 was a bit taller, it would have exactly the same engine as the A320. It would probably also be powered with IAE V2500s

[@athrunzala3358]

757 with the Leap-1B

[@fury4539]

I see a lot of comments talking about re-engining the 757, some even say with the Leap-1 Honestly I'm not sure, but I believe it would be a bit underpowered compared to its current engines, and so far engines for it aren't an issue, it's the avionics and the software that needs updating on the 757. Of course if Boeing ever kept the 757 in production, we might see new modifications to the intial design, such as new engines like the Trent 700 found on the A330 Neo, maybe new more efficient wingtip profiles, perhaps also foldable for smaller airports a concept found on the 777X and of course new interior designs for cockpit controls (with updated software and avionics) and passenger/cargo cabin.

[@athrunzala3358]

@@fury4539 yes the avionics need an upgrade. Yes the 757 has issues outside of engine upgrades like for instance it's wake turbulence and wing design. Yes the Leap-1 maybe underpowered for the 757 but I believe a modification to it's thrust rating and we can see a Leap-1 D. We cannot look past the fact that fuel efficiency plays a role in it's retirement those PW and RR engines just can't match right now

[@TazziedoesWT]

At a few business jet events around the world where Boeing has a stand and is a part of, they always get into conversations and ask the pilots of these business jets what would be the best business jet… silence happens and the Boeing exec always says “re-engined 757”. Everyone can see it other than the McDonald Douglas higher ups.

[@VLC-Construction]

Thing is, if we're going to talk about reducing our climate impact, sure, we might do that by retiring older airframes for brand new aircraft, but it's not like the NEO is an A320 made with new composite fuselages, it's the same 20th Century design - I know, it's approved by the FAA and EASA - that has a new wing and bigger engine, when a weight saving in the centre could be the improvement of fuel efficacy that's needed to meet global targets.

[@YATRADIARIES...]

I would re engine the boeing 757 WITH rolls royce trent 900 engines or genral electric genx 2b engines

[@rafaelwilks]

Either option would result in the most powerful 757 of all time

[@grandnagus5851]

There had been talk about a A380NEO, so there is my answer, since it's a quad engine aircraft, and the demand is high, go with that plane.

[@sjvillar2796]

An A340-NEO with Trent XWB engines or an MD-11 with GEnX or Trent engines

[@theodorbean2604]

Airbus a340 with RR Trent 970 or XWB. Would be a monster

[@nowee_playzz4931]

747 with geNX’s!

[@EpicThe112]

C-5 Galaxy from GE TF39 to GE CF6-80C2s B-52 PW JT3D to RR BR715s

[@thunderamu9543]

Boeing also had to modify the landing gear struts on the 737 MAX.

[@stradivarioushardhiantz5179]

Would be great if several aircrafts re-engined; 1. DC-8-73 = 4x PW1900G 2. A340-600 = 4x GEnx-2B 3. 747SP = 4x GEnx-2B 4. 767-400ER = 2x GEnx-2B 5. An-124 = 4x GEnx-2B 6. C-5M = 4x GEnx-2B 7. C-141 = 4x PW1500G 8. P1 = 4x PW1700G 9. C-17 = 2x Trent-XWB-84 10. IL-96-300 = 4x PW1135G 11. A340-300 = 4x PW1131G 12. Avro RJ100 = 4x PW308C 13. S-3 = 4x AE3009 14. IL-76MF = 4x PW1131G 15. (Future) An-225 = 4x Trent-XWB-97 or 6x GEnx-B 16. Tu-154 = 3x PW1500G 17. SSJ100 = 2x PW1900G 18. CH-47 = 2x T408 19. CH-46 = 2x PT6C 20. SA-321F = 3x PT6C 21. S-64 = 2x T408 22. 214ST = 2x CT7C 23. C-160 = 2x PW150 24. Martin Mars = 4x PW150 25. Be-200 = 2x PW1900G

[@Sacto1654]

The MD-80 series should have been re-engined with the Pratt & Whitney PW6024 engine starting in 2007.

[@RandomCommenter.4114]

Imagine an A340-300 with CFM LEAP or PW1100G engines

[@pinksnowbirdie2938]

MD-90/MD-95 (717), I think the PW1000G would be a great candidate for that If the MD-90 can handle the IAE V2500 surely they could get the PW1000G to work lol

[@Gracie289]

Bring back the best airliner built, the 757!!! There is your Middle of the Market plane. The sports car of aviation - what a rocket and so comfortable...no wonder pilots love it.

[@tw25rw]

I'd like to see 747-400s flying again, though the a380 is probably easier.

[@shrimpflea]

747-400s are still flying

[@tw25rw]

@@shrimpflea hardly any. Certainly not in major airlines apart from LH. If you fly into BKK, you see a load of old TG widebodies parked there waiting for a home. I'd love to see them in service. I think it's only economics that keep them grounded.

[@filledwithvariousknowledge2747]

@@tw25rw747’s as a whole now are in limited pax service whilst 2 thirds still left are freighters of some kind (purpose built or conversions before Boeing stopped doing them)

[@tw25rw]

@@filledwithvariousknowledge2747 yes, but I'd like the opportunity to travel in them. But none run on routes I would travel. I'd pay extra to fly on a 744.

[@AeroMan56]

757 and A340 deserve a re-engine the most, for cargo the A300 needs a new engine because there is no plans to retire it from DHL or UPS

[@PRAY1211]

I would re-engine my 2 favourite aircrafts, the Airbus A380 and the Antonov An-225 Mriya with either some trouble -free GE 9Xs or some Rolls-Royce Ultrafans...

[@TysonIke]

For anyone saying re engine the 757 here’s why not. - the 757-200 airframe is far heavier than the A321neo despite being the same internal length. This means with new engines it will lose its high thrust and still be less efficient. The 757-300 would need a whole new engine type designed and built as it needs more power than the A321neo and Max-10, but less than any modern widebody engine. Plus their are not many -300s

[@jeffroalpha700]

I would re-engine the 757 with GE90-115B’s. The thing was always grossly underpowered! 😂

[@JetBlastPone]

Not a commercial aircraft, but Boeing C-17A(RE) would be cool in my opinion

[@thetruthbehindplanes]

re engine c 17 with ge90 115b!and fit a afterburner on🤣plus thrust vectoring!

[@JetBlastPone]

@@thetruthbehindplanes all of that are unnecessary, Moose only need a more fuel-efficient engines

[@thetruthbehindplanes]

That was a joke

[@TigerAviation12]

*New engines for every Boeing aircraft* [ My opinion] 707: LEAP-1A 717: CFM56 727: CFM56 737: LEAP-1A with the fuselage the same height as the A320 747: An engine the same size as 777 cabin that create 165,000 lbs of thrust 757: CFM56 767: GEnX 777: GE9X 787: GEnX I also will change the yoke to the sidestick and have the same autopilot panel on every plane.

[@makomadsen1602]

Some aircraft have a limitaions f.eks boeing 737 to 70000 cycles and then it makes not ecomical to re engine.

[@zlm001]

I want a 787 with 777 engines please. Better yet, why not an a350 with 777 engines?

[@jamesau4296]

Of course I would want Pw4000 mounted 777 to be swapped with Trent XWB or GENX(772) or GE9X(773), But then given the engine supply speed, why not completely replace the 777 with A350 or 777X?

[@jamesau4296]

For sure , the airframe is cheaper per volume than the engine

[@jamesau4296]

And nowadays it’s more like designing an airframe based on engine dimension than the other way around.