NG/EADS threatened a NO BID the first time around with KC-X unless the bid specs were modified to allow the larger aircraft.
Maybe Boeing is doing the same now.
Boeing could also modify their KC-X bid to include lower cargo hold fuel bladders (which is how the KC-10 can carry more fuel than the KC-30)to address the “more is better” ammended SRD. Boeing doesn’t use the lower hold for pallets anyway (but NG/EADS does, which is why they can carry so many more.)
I’ve read elsewhere (Steve Trimble’s Dew Line) that Boeing cannot offer a 767-300 or 767-400 fuselage because the longer length means a shallower takeoff rotation to avoid tail strike, and that translates to longer than the specified 7000’ takeoff requirement of the SRD.
I’ve read elsewhere (Steve Trimble’s Dew Line) that Boeing cannot offer a 767-300 or 767-400 fuselage because the longer length means a shallower takeoff rotation to avoid tail strike, and that translates to longer than the specified 7000’ takeoff requirement of the SRD
Now there is a little tid bit that I haven’t seen before. Kind of points out that the two engine solution does have its negative side, unless you blow out the takeoff distance requirement, and if you can tail strike for certain it will be struck by someone somehow.