Originally Posted by
Jackonicko
That's surprising. Not that it can take off inside 8,000 ft, but that it can actually operate from a 9,000 ft runway. The KC-767 can't do it with full fuel, nor could the variant offered to the UK.
Different engine, more thrust, lighter airframe (KC-46 is based on a 767-200, the others listed are -300)
Edited to add:
The 767 tanker proposed to the UK was using ex BA 767s powered by the RB211-524H. Quite frankly, the Rolls 767 was a dog - heavier engine, poor TO performance, lousy fuel burn - the engine simply wasn't a good match to the airframe (there was a reason why only 40 were built, compared to the several hundred each for both the PW4000 and the CF6-80C2). I suspect some of the negativity aimed at the KC-46 from the other side of the pond is based on the crappy specs of the proposed Rolls powered UK tankers.