The 757 was one of everyone’s favorite planes - for airlines, for air traffic controllers, for passengers, and for Boeing. It’s too bad Boeing doesn’t have a replacement for it at this time
@@NDSAviation1 I've driven past the exits to the airport. But what's truly amazing is how pilots and air traffic controllers keep track of the other planes that are coming and going at any given moment.
Yes, I live in the Atlanta area and used to travel weekly out of the ATL airport. I remember some of the pilots used to tell the passengers what number we were in line for takeoff. Could be up to 30 minutes.
@@knowsmebyname I sure experienced that the last time I was on a plane. When it picked up speed on the runway I was thrown back in my seat. I was hanging on very tightly.
I actually took the *reverse* of this trip as a young kid back in 1997 on a family trip. Unfortunately it was my only time ever being on a 767 (for all I know, it might’ve been this exact plane). The things I remember about that trip…the arrival into Atlanta was the craziest turbulence I’ve ever experienced and I’ve flown through the outskirts of hurricane systems in the past. It was just *so* violent on that particular day. We took a left traffic pattern into Hartsfield and I remember that specifically because my mom was totally freaked out and when we were on downwind, I said “there’s the airport…two more left turns and we’ll be on the ground”. The other thing I remember was the incredible taxi time in Atlanta. Man, that airport was just so congested back in the 90s. I’m sure it still is.
Thank you. This was a beautiful takeoff. Everytime I see Delta it goes: alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsylon... in my head 🤪😂I hopf you had a safe journey and enjoyed the flight 💛
LOL - it’s a bit entertaining. The title isn’t meant to be taken so seriously. Takeoff is just one of the most exhilarating parts of flying - as long as people still enjoy sharing in the flying experience, then I’m okay with people having some fun with my stupid titles
It’s always nice to fly a widebody domestically. You kind of just have to search for flights between an airline’s hubs. Like United frequently flies widebodies between routes involving SFO, LAX, DEN, ORD, IAD, and EWR. Delta often does between LAX, ATL, JFK, and DTW.
I just love airplanes I think it is one of man's coolest inventions . My uncle use to take my brother and I to the airport for breakfast on a weekend day to watch the airplanes I've read everything about how they run once studied the inside of a cockpit my first plane ride I think I was 3 in 1968 and the pilot showed me the cockpit you could even smoke on airplanes back then I didn't grow up with a father in my life my 3 uncle's loved me and did things with me I ended up growing up with my grandparents what a man my grandfather was I miss that man so much he's in my heart and I experience something when he passed that I know I will be with him again what a man he was
If I saw a DC3 flying around, or a B17 or something sure, I’d call that ancient….but a well maintained and updated 767-300? Not sure I’d call that ancient haha.
I’m trying to figure out where a lot of these comments nitpicking the title are coming from because never has the title of any of my previous videos been critiqued so heavily on what I felt was a minor detail. This was a short flight from Atlanta to Boston, and the sound pitch of the takeoff thrust was comparable to thrust sound on takeoffs involving the 767-300 with the same engine type on much longer flights. For a flight that short you’d expect the takeoff thrust to be de-rated to a much greater degree than you’d hear here. It may be a little harder to hear because of where I was seated relative to the engine. It’s a nuance I think is lost in all this. I try to take feedback as much as possible. If these comments are coming from a perspective that views all takeoffs as the same, then this would be lost on you and it’d be hard to appreciate the differences in takeoff experiences that you’d get only by paying attention to a lot of videos and by firsthand experience in flying as much as I have. If, however, these comments are coming from a sense that they’ve been clickbaited despite understanding the nuances of flying experience, then I might consider changing the title. But overall, if it’s a mere technicality in the title, don’t let it take away from the enjoyment I hope you get in these videos because you’d be missing the point of my posting of these videos entirely; it’d be missing the forest for the trees.
@@TheKvs777it does have an impact, albeit not directly. On average, flights on the shorter end of an aircraft’s range have lower takeoff thrusts because the aircraft requires less fuel to make the short flight, and hence the takeoff weight is lighter. Less weight = less power required to push the aircraft forward. That alone reduces the power necessary to takeoff. However, the lower weight also has an additional impact that helps to lower takeoff settings on top of that: lighter payloads have slower V1 and Vr speeds, so the aircraft is able to get airborne at slower speeds than if the same aircraft were really heavy. The lower velocity target permits a lower rate of acceleration which allows the aircraft to spare some power on the takeoff, on top of the power sparing that is already permitted simply by virtue of having less weight in fuel to carry. So yes, flight distance does make a difference in takeoff thrust setting.
I used to think 100% power was required for takeoff in peacetime, but I was disabused of this notion when a 777 pilot of my acquaintance explained that he doesn't take off with anywhere near 100% power in most cases. Apparently, derates reduce a lot of wear and tear on the engines, given the positively enormous thrust they are capable of (115,000 pounds of thrust per engine on the 777).
Where is the hell the world people are coming from? To my knowledge, from watching lots of aviation clips, these clips are incredibly decent ones, and noise canceling quite steady and the golden ones as it gets. A big fat thanks to who posted all these efforts to make all UA-cam viewers enjoyed and entertained. Thank you. ❤
A great video! I love flying into and out of this airport. It is my absolute favorite of them all! With its size, it is one of the best airports to be able to planespot at before boarding my own flight out. As I said, plenty of aviation action to watch! Also, I see this is a summer flight. I go on annual summer vacation to Central Florida from Southern CA. and fly into here to connect into Melbourne, Florida being I use Delta Airlines. This airport has some of the best restaurants in which to eat breakfast, lunch or dinner at. That's one of the chief reasons why I arrange to connect here before going to my final destination. Plus I love flying during the summer months to begin with! Superb job once again!
It's an interesting thing - it's hard to judge how heavy a plane is just based on how much runway it uses up. An aircraft may take up more runway either because it's heavy, or because it uses a very de-rated takeoff setting given the long runway. An aircraft may get airborne fast because it's light, or it uses a relatively high takeoff thrust setting for its weight, perhaps because of concern for something like a windshear shortly after takeoff. This takeoff didn't sound excessively de-rated - it actually sounded like a relatively high power setting for a flight that was only going to Boston. It may have been something to do with the weather that day, and that takeoff power may have been why it got off very quickly. I think that's a nuance that was lost on many people criticizing the title.
Modern commercial aircraft today are all piloted by computers. They can download the flight path from point A to B and the air plane dose it all from their. Pilots are trained to take over encase of emergency.
Thanks - I put time stamps and chapters in all my videos to make it easier to skip to what people are looking for. Are the chapters not showing up for you guys? If not, I’ll have to look into that. Not sure what it is about engine sounds. It’s a totally weird thing. I think because the experience of flying is a sensory experience in many ways. Obviously there’s the visuals of seeing the world from a different place than you normally get to see it; there’s also the feel of being pushed into your seat on takeoff; and there’s the sound of the machine that’s making all that possible. I think aviation enthusiasts just associate those sounds with the thrill of taking off
Thank you for sharing your flight here. Yes, the 767s are great aircraft to fly. I have flown down to San Paulo, BR on those aircraft a few times. And I have flown on those to Germany from the east! 😊
767 could be the basis for a new middle market plane. Size it in between -200 and -300, efficient new engines, updates to wings, avionics, and pax cabin. 2-3-2 economy seating would be big plus vs A321neo and XLR. Name it 760 or 770, and lower price than 787 series.
The 787 already serves a similar place in the market to the 767 (181 in extremely low configuration to 375 passengers). The 787 (242-335 passengers) is better seen as a 767 replacement as it fits right in the middle of the 767 capacity range, despite the fact that it’s often pitted against the A350, which is more of a 777 competitor by capacity. An ideal NMA would be something like the 757. There’s a gap between the larger 737 MAX 10 (188-204 passengers) and the 787 in the 200-240 seat area, which is right where the 757 sits. The only option in this part of the market is an A321neo, but the A321 is still not the best equipped to serve this part of the market - to me it is better seen as a counterpart to the larger 737 variants, and the capacity of 180-220 reflects that. With larger business class seats, it would likely skew toward the lower end of that range. There’s still a gap in the 200-240 seat range. Airlines are simply opting for the A321neo because there’s no better option. It’s not ideal though.
The only super thing about this clip is casting it to my tv and turning my sound system up! Even that didn’t make that “Strong”…. The plane lifted off at like the half way point, meaning it wasn’t even close to GTOW….🤦🏻♂️.
Starting around 13:30, when climb thrust is applied, we fly into a rain shaft. It kinda starts suddenly then ends suddenly shortly after. I’ll add that to the timestamps in the description
Lol these are relics from a previous era. They’re being phased out, but as an aviation enthusiast it means we have to take advantage of being able to fly on these before they’re gone for good. The 1980s and 1990s were kind of a golden era with the 747-400, 757, 767, and 777
Wow, it takes forever to get to cruising altitude and there's no sense of speed. We need to be traveling much, much faster than this in the 21st century. We flew faster in the 1960s for fk sakes!.
It takes about 20-30 minutes to reach cruising altitude. In terms of why we aren’t flying faster, it’s a combination of economics and physics. We do have engines that enable supersonic flight - they’re called turbojet engines, where all the air sucked into the engine is forced through the compressor and ejected at high speed. These turbojets are typically found on fighter jets, and famously, the Concorde. They’re most efficient at 1300-1400 mph (~Mach 2). Issue with these is they’re very noisy and they consume a huge amount of fuel relative to the amount of thrust that is produced. So we have turbofans, which are the engines you find on commercial airliners today. These days they have a high bypass ratio, where most of the air sucked in doesn’t actually go into the compressor, but is forced around the compressor. Only the air that goes into the compressor is accelerated to the highest degree; the bypass air is accelerated too but not to the same degree. The logic here is that the way increase thrust isn’t by moving air faster; it’s by moving *more* air. And it turns out it actually doesn’t take much more energy to move *more* air, as opposed to moving it faster, which takes a lot more energy. The benefit then of these engines is that they’re a lot quieter, and most importantly, they consume a lot less fuel while producing way more thrust than a turbojet. And it turns out that turbofans are most efficient at 500-600 mph, which is, not coincidentally, the speed more airliners fly at. Keep in mind, that when one says “X engine type is most efficient at Y speeds,” we’re talking along their own respective efficiency curves. Along a turbojet’s efficiency curve, it’s most efficient at 1300-1400 mph; along a turbofan’s efficiency curve, it’s most efficient at 500-600 mph. However, the most efficient point on the turbojet curve is still less efficient than the most efficient point on the turbofan curve. For airlines and passengers alike, fuel efficiency is more cost effective than time efficiency so there’s little incentive to make faster planes that use more gas-hungry turbojets.
@NDSAviation1 ridiculous! Fuel is abundant, and the environment is doing just fine. Get fake politics out of the airline business, and we will all man up , traveling the speeds we want to go wherever we want to go!
@NDSAviation1 Briefly, nobody cares about fuel efficiency. Fuel prices are political and artificially inflated. Get rid of leftists and rinos and kick that throttle up!!!. We need speed, not phony cost efficiencys
@@jerseyterry6951 that’s a bit oversimplified. I hear the desire for speed, but cost effectiveness is absolutely an important consideration. I’d argue is it *the* most important consideration. Just because you don’t care about fuel efficiency and cost effectiveness doesn’t mean no one else does. As a matter of fact, part of the reason economy class has turned into an overly cramped experience is because most passengers simply want the cheapest fares. This is part of the rise of the ultra low cost carrier. But in order to compete with bare bones ULCC’s, full service airlines have had to cut cost out of the services and increase passenger capacity to maintain profit margin when fares are forced to become cheaper. So the next time one wants to ask why economy class is such an unpleasant experience these days, we have nowhere else to look but ourselves because it is what we have told the airlines, through our wallets, is most important to us in purchasing flights: cost. Whether fuel prices are inflated or not, airlines and aircraft parts manufacturers aren’t the ones who set the fuel prices. They simply pay for the fuel. But fuel is probably the most significant expense for airlines. And at the end of the day, the airlines are companies that need to make money to keep themselves afloat and profit to pay their shareholders, and are thus governed by capitalistic market forces too. And if they pay more for fuel, that extra cost is passed on to us, the passengers, and there’s no sense in paying significantly extra if the returns aren’t proportional to the extra cost. And if flying is too expensive for passengers to want to fly, then it ultimately doesn’t matter how fast planes are - the market would bring the aviation industry to bankruptcy and there would be no planes at all. It’s all in the principles of economics and the capitalistic model that governs much of the aviation industry.
@NDSAviation1 I was in the airline business for over 25 years, so I appreciate the economic realities. The fact still remains that we haven't improved on the basic principles of commercial aircraft travel for over 65 years and 100 years for basic aircraft design. Except for avionics. The only thing that has gotten even worse than the lack of increased speed is the lack of new and innovative aircraft design, from structural to propulsion. The attitudes and comportment of the flying public is a perfect example of the lack of inthusasim or respect of the industry. Fuel is plentiful, the real problem is politics
Over half this video is the stultifying, bone-crushing BOREDOM of taxiing aimlessly around ATL. People, PLEASE STOP posting boring push-back and taxi. B o o o o o R ing!
Some people want the pushback and taxi though. As a content creator, you have to try to create something that will have something for everyone. My solution is to include it all, but also to include time stamps in all my videos so you can easily navigate to only the part that interests you.
@@NDSAviation1 I wonder who those people are. The same ones who watch grass grow? I understand your point, but for most of us, probably 99% of us, push back and taxi are just completely boring and incomprehensible. What's the attraction? Slowly meandering around looking at other planes? Watching cracks in the tarmac?
@@Sutherland2 the analytics for my videos show that a large enough percentage of videos watch those portions to keep them in. People have a diverse set of interests and reasons for doing things. There are some things others enjoy that I find mindnumbingly boring, and vice versa. Just because you can’t envision those or don’t enjoy those either doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with you, or anyone else in this case. However, I won’t tolerate talking down to or about other viewers on my channel. Like I said, I’ve included time stamps in all my videos to make it easy for anyone to skip straight to what they’re interested in. If those time stamps are still unacceptable to you, there’s not much I can do to help you individually. I’m glad you stopped by my channel, and I appreciate the feedback. I hope you’ll see things from my point of view.
I'm trying to understand what your comment is trying to say. Yes, all takeoff thrust settings are calculated by the FMC. That doesn't change the fact that a takeoff can sound powerful relative to other takeoffs on the same aircraft. If on a particular route, the weights are such that the average takeoff setting has N1% of 80%, then a day where the takeoff setting is 95% N1 would be relatively powerful. It's all relative. The fact that it's pre-calculated changes nothing. There is no need or place for such disproportionate anger on my channel.
![Delta Airlines MD-88 [N910DL] High Powered Takeoff | ATL](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0I8DPY5pydI/mqdefault.jpg)
B767-300 was and still a beast.
One of the best planes Boeing ever made plus B757-200.
The 757 was one of everyone’s favorite planes - for airlines, for air traffic controllers, for passengers, and for Boeing. It’s too bad Boeing doesn’t have a replacement for it at this time
They are great planes, the only problem now is the Lavoratories dont flush like they used to
@NDSAviation1 I flew on several 757s...nice comfortable plane!
Love the B767 and the sound the engines make!
Always nice to be able to fly some of the older widebodies - blast to the past in a way
The Boeing 767 is one of the best! Great sound, comfort and more. Nothing like it.
It's so cool to see the plane fly higher and higher, being able to see farther and farther. Beautiful views!
The feeling of leaving the ground is always one of my favorite parts of flying
Same here!@@NDSAviation1
Surely, one of the clearest and most professional presentations. You should be very proud, and pleased with your work here✈️!!!😊
Thanks! Really appreciate it!
Love the sound of those engines too and how they pin me into my seat on the takeoff roll. 767 was second favorite aircraft to fly in( after the 747).
I flew on this exact plane from slc to hnl in Aug 2001. 7 hr flight was comfortable
I do too! That's the best part of the flight!
Atlanta is one big ass airport. Holy cow.
Yeah - it runs very efficiently though and its taxiway system allows for multiple ways in and out of every alleyway to keep traffic moving
@@NDSAviation1 I've driven past the exits to the airport. But what's truly amazing is how pilots and air traffic controllers keep track of the other planes that are coming and going at any given moment.
Largest in the country.
@@georgemurphy2579busiest not largest (Denver is the biggest in the US) (Chicago has the most runways) :)
Wow I've never seen a taxi this long that airport is huge..
Yeah Atlanta airport is a huge airport!
Busiest airport in the world
Yes, I live in the Atlanta area and used to travel weekly out of the ATL airport. I remember some of the pilots used to tell the passengers what number we were in line for takeoff. Could be up to 30 minutes.
Love seeing and hearing them take off
So exciting to hear the mighty engines during tajeo
Wonderful video of Delta 767 take off out of Atlanta
That was a fast takeoff I could tell that 767 took less runway before rotation occurred nice video 👍
Prolly strong headwind helped too since there was a storm.
Good quality video of your Delta 767 ATL departure! Thanks for sharing.
Thank you!
Always an adrenaline rush....Bravo!
Awsome .. the take off is always the best bit when the pilot gives it some 💪
It amazes me how they get these off the ground.
Power
Science
@@carmelocali5074 I know all that but it's still amazing how it works..
@@knowsmebyname I sure experienced that the last time I was on a plane. When it picked up speed on the runway I was thrown back in my seat. I was hanging on very tightly.
If you want to really torque your mind, google the fuel capacity of a 747 freighter. Holy shit!
I actually took the *reverse* of this trip as a young kid back in 1997 on a family trip. Unfortunately it was my only time ever being on a 767 (for all I know, it might’ve been this exact plane). The things I remember about that trip…the arrival into Atlanta was the craziest turbulence I’ve ever experienced and I’ve flown through the outskirts of hurricane systems in the past. It was just *so* violent on that particular day. We took a left traffic pattern into Hartsfield and I remember that specifically because my mom was totally freaked out and when we were on downwind, I said “there’s the airport…two more left turns and we’ll be on the ground”. The other thing I remember was the incredible taxi time in Atlanta. Man, that airport was just so congested back in the 90s. I’m sure it still is.
Still is congested that Atlanta airport. But it does well for itself given its size and busyness
Thank you. This was a beautiful takeoff. Everytime I see Delta it goes: alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsylon... in my head 🤪😂I hopf you had a safe journey and enjoyed the flight 💛
Thought you were going all the way to Boston on the ground at one point 😅
Feels like that sometimes doesn’t it? Lol
Beautiful RR engines
Thanks for the awesome video, loved the views
So what if it doesn’t look like a super strong takeoff, it’s still fun to watch!!❤
LOL - it’s a bit entertaining. The title isn’t meant to be taken so seriously. Takeoff is just one of the most exhilarating parts of flying - as long as people still enjoy sharing in the flying experience, then I’m okay with people having some fun with my stupid titles
Nice CF6 Sounds!
This 767-300 is fitted with PW4060 engines.
@@Roboseal2the engine sound is not PW, nor do the pylons match
@@Roboseal2they’re also fitted with the GE engines.
Check air fleets... @@v1spotter
They are P&W engines !!!.
You don't see that very often - he cut over from 27R to 26L instead of just going straight there from the gate. Nice audio!
Took us on a tour of the airport lol
Always glad to see a widebody flight on a US domestic route.
It’s always nice to fly a widebody domestically. You kind of just have to search for flights between an airline’s hubs. Like United frequently flies widebodies between routes involving SFO, LAX, DEN, ORD, IAD, and EWR. Delta often does between LAX, ATL, JFK, and DTW.
@@NDSAviation1 I have seen some on the schedules, mostly from hub cities. I wish there were more even from smaller cities, and for shorter flights.
Love this video....made me subscribe. Thank you
Still going strong after nearly 25 years!
(Built Feb 1999)
Could easily go another 20 years
@@Jeff-sp7bg delta might keep this flying in probably 2030s
I just love airplanes I think it is one of man's coolest inventions . My uncle use to take my brother and I to the airport for breakfast on a weekend day to watch the airplanes I've read everything about how they run once studied the inside of a cockpit my first plane ride I think I was 3 in 1968 and the pilot showed me the cockpit you could even smoke on airplanes back then I didn't grow up with a father in my life my 3 uncle's loved me and did things with me I ended up growing up with my grandparents what a man my grandfather was I miss that man so much he's in my heart and I experience something when he passed that I know I will be with him again what a man he was
Sounds like you were surrounded by some good people in your life
Nice engine sound!
it amazes me how these ancient old airliners are still in service
If I saw a DC3 flying around, or a B17 or something sure, I’d call that ancient….but a well maintained and updated 767-300? Not sure I’d call that ancient haha.
Very true .@@JamesAMG
I would trust this plane more than the newer ones
Not in Europe. Here the Airlines have younger and more modern fleets.
@@joedi6339well that’s unfortunate.
I’m trying to figure out where a lot of these comments nitpicking the title are coming from because never has the title of any of my previous videos been critiqued so heavily on what I felt was a minor detail. This was a short flight from Atlanta to Boston, and the sound pitch of the takeoff thrust was comparable to thrust sound on takeoffs involving the 767-300 with the same engine type on much longer flights. For a flight that short you’d expect the takeoff thrust to be de-rated to a much greater degree than you’d hear here. It may be a little harder to hear because of where I was seated relative to the engine. It’s a nuance I think is lost in all this.
I try to take feedback as much as possible. If these comments are coming from a perspective that views all takeoffs as the same, then this would be lost on you and it’d be hard to appreciate the differences in takeoff experiences that you’d get only by paying attention to a lot of videos and by firsthand experience in flying as much as I have. If, however, these comments are coming from a sense that they’ve been clickbaited despite understanding the nuances of flying experience, then I might consider changing the title. But overall, if it’s a mere technicality in the title, don’t let it take away from the enjoyment I hope you get in these videos because you’d be missing the point of my posting of these videos entirely; it’d be missing the forest for the trees.
Don't sweat the Mom's basement aviators!
takeoff thrust derate has nothing to do with the length of the flight. What are you talking about?
@@TheKvs777it does have an impact, albeit not directly. On average, flights on the shorter end of an aircraft’s range have lower takeoff thrusts because the aircraft requires less fuel to make the short flight, and hence the takeoff weight is lighter. Less weight = less power required to push the aircraft forward. That alone reduces the power necessary to takeoff. However, the lower weight also has an additional impact that helps to lower takeoff settings on top of that: lighter payloads have slower V1 and Vr speeds, so the aircraft is able to get airborne at slower speeds than if the same aircraft were really heavy. The lower velocity target permits a lower rate of acceleration which allows the aircraft to spare some power on the takeoff, on top of the power sparing that is already permitted simply by virtue of having less weight in fuel to carry.
So yes, flight distance does make a difference in takeoff thrust setting.
I used to think 100% power was required for takeoff in peacetime, but I was disabused of this notion when a 777 pilot of my acquaintance explained that he doesn't take off with anywhere near 100% power in most cases. Apparently, derates reduce a lot of wear and tear on the engines, given the positively enormous thrust they are capable of (115,000 pounds of thrust per engine on the 777).
Where is the hell the world people are coming from? To my knowledge, from watching lots of aviation clips, these clips are incredibly decent ones, and noise canceling quite steady and the golden ones as it gets. A big fat thanks to who posted all these efforts to make all UA-cam viewers enjoyed and entertained. Thank you. ❤
A great video! I love flying into and out of this airport. It is my absolute favorite of them all! With its size, it is one of the best airports to be able to planespot at before boarding my own flight out. As I said, plenty of aviation action to watch! Also, I see this is a summer flight. I go on annual summer vacation to Central Florida from Southern CA. and fly into here to connect into Melbourne, Florida being I use Delta Airlines. This airport has some of the best restaurants in which to eat breakfast, lunch or dinner at. That's one of the chief reasons why I arrange to connect here before going to my final destination. Plus I love flying during the summer months to begin with! Superb job once again!
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it!
You're quite welcome!@@NDSAviation1
Yeah, I'd say that plane took off "light." I've flown smaller planes out of ATL on that same runway that lifted off later than that!
It's an interesting thing - it's hard to judge how heavy a plane is just based on how much runway it uses up. An aircraft may take up more runway either because it's heavy, or because it uses a very de-rated takeoff setting given the long runway. An aircraft may get airborne fast because it's light, or it uses a relatively high takeoff thrust setting for its weight, perhaps because of concern for something like a windshear shortly after takeoff. This takeoff didn't sound excessively de-rated - it actually sounded like a relatively high power setting for a flight that was only going to Boston. It may have been something to do with the weather that day, and that takeoff power may have been why it got off very quickly. I think that's a nuance that was lost on many people criticizing the title.
Boeing planes are so sweet!
I don’t think I’ve ever flown into ATL when it wasn’t raining.🌧️ 😮
how much gas did he use during the taxing
sound is amzing along with video .. what did you use for recording .
Just an iPhone 13 Pro Max! Happy you liked the video!
Modern commercial aircraft today are all piloted by computers. They can download the flight path from point A to B and the air plane dose it all from their. Pilots are trained to take over encase of emergency.
Are those Rolls Trents powering that bird?
This particular 767 (N175DZ) is powered by PW4060’s.
Nice downdraft at 13:29, better tell the tower.
Wow. Awesome taxi out ground tour of ATL. Great takeoff with weather.
What you’re really looking for is at 13 + minutes. What is it about that low growl of the compressor that just puts you in a happy place?
Thanks - I put time stamps and chapters in all my videos to make it easier to skip to what people are looking for. Are the chapters not showing up for you guys? If not, I’ll have to look into that.
Not sure what it is about engine sounds. It’s a totally weird thing. I think because the experience of flying is a sensory experience in many ways. Obviously there’s the visuals of seeing the world from a different place than you normally get to see it; there’s also the feel of being pushed into your seat on takeoff; and there’s the sound of the machine that’s making all that possible. I think aviation enthusiasts just associate those sounds with the thrill of taking off
@@NDSAviation1 Thanks ! I saw that after I commented. Good stuff 👍👍👍
Great video
Thank you!
@@NDSAviation1 You're welcome
Belo taxi com ruido dos motores e bela decolagem.
Thank you for sharing your flight here. Yes, the 767s are great aircraft to fly. I have flown down to San Paulo, BR on those aircraft a few times. And I have flown on those to Germany from the east! 😊
It sounds like a 747-400!
Yeah the 747 and 767 had pretty much the same engines. The RR, PW, and GE variants were pretty much from the same line, respectively
Nice video🤩
Thanks!
That howl is creepy.
Why did delta postpone the 763’s retirement from 2025 to 2030?
What rain?
It’s at 13:29. Check the time stamp. There’s a rainshaft shortly after takeoff. Hence the title *Into* the rain, not “in” the rain
Delta airlines is the best one
767 could be the basis for a new middle market plane. Size it in between -200 and -300, efficient new engines, updates to wings, avionics, and pax cabin. 2-3-2 economy seating would be big plus vs A321neo and XLR. Name it 760 or 770, and lower price than 787 series.
The 787 already serves a similar place in the market to the 767 (181 in extremely low configuration to 375 passengers). The 787 (242-335 passengers) is better seen as a 767 replacement as it fits right in the middle of the 767 capacity range, despite the fact that it’s often pitted against the A350, which is more of a 777 competitor by capacity. An ideal NMA would be something like the 757. There’s a gap between the larger 737 MAX 10 (188-204 passengers) and the 787 in the 200-240 seat area, which is right where the 757 sits. The only option in this part of the market is an A321neo, but the A321 is still not the best equipped to serve this part of the market - to me it is better seen as a counterpart to the larger 737 variants, and the capacity of 180-220 reflects that. With larger business class seats, it would likely skew toward the lower end of that range. There’s still a gap in the 200-240 seat range. Airlines are simply opting for the A321neo because there’s no better option. It’s not ideal though.
Seems like a pretty typical takeoff to me.
Question: Did Delta Airlines start off as a crop dusting service in the Mississippi river delta? Answer: Yes, it did, and hence the name. 😎
Almost thought we were taxiing to our destination 😂
It wouldn’t be the proper modern day flying experience without a long taxi!
I know is a P&W because of the “ vent “ right before the end of the exhaust !!!.
These planes have any fuel left time they get to runway from the taxi lol so far lol
The only super thing about this clip is casting it to my tv and turning my sound system up! Even that didn’t make that “Strong”…. The plane lifted off at like the half way point, meaning it wasn’t even close to GTOW….🤦🏻♂️.
Se que será pronto
Where is the rain?
Starting around 13:30, when climb thrust is applied, we fly into a rain shaft. It kinda starts suddenly then ends suddenly shortly after. I’ll add that to the timestamps in the description
Mi esposo vendrá en uno de esos aviones
Thuper Sthrong take off!
Acho que é o Primeiro 767-300 Da Delta que Vejo Com Motores CF6-80C2 ❤❤❤ Meu Motor Favorito Nos 767. 😊
This 767-300 is fitted with a PW4060-94 engine. Not a CF6, but yes they do sound similar...
Iron Bird❤
Talk about a long taxi
Super long taxi. But not as bad as JFK with its long lines for takeoff
Fuel ⛽️...engine s .speed and speed. And upyou. Go . 😮😅😊 flying. Then you land on the ground. That's. How 😊
Super strong take off NOT! Where was the rain?
The rain starts to appears at 13:32 when the aircraft flies into a rain shaft
The title states "Takeoff into the Rain!" not in the rain. The rain was clear after the takeoff as the title states..
👍👍👍👍👍
Yeah, that rain shaft looks like a pretty ugly cloud.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Those squeaky fuselage noises on the ground would give me pause. Plane should not make those kinds of noises.
I’ve never heard an aircraft make those noises before. And I’ve seen thousands of videos and have flown on hundreds of flights in my life.
Super strong ?really ?are you sure ? Is there another kind?
Minchia tre ore per decollare!
Normal rotation out of Atl.
Super strong? Really? Is there another kind? …. You sure it was SUPER strong? Just another takeoff appears like…. 😂
Yep 😂
Neo
DFG
Super strong take off in an Oldtimer? Haha😂. All American Airlines should buy new aircrafts, as European Airlines regular do.
Lol these are relics from a previous era. They’re being phased out, but as an aviation enthusiast it means we have to take advantage of being able to fly on these before they’re gone for good. The 1980s and 1990s were kind of a golden era with the 747-400, 757, 767, and 777
Wow, it takes forever to get to cruising altitude and there's no sense of speed. We need to be traveling much, much faster than this in the 21st century. We flew faster in the 1960s for fk sakes!.
It takes about 20-30 minutes to reach cruising altitude.
In terms of why we aren’t flying faster, it’s a combination of economics and physics. We do have engines that enable supersonic flight - they’re called turbojet engines, where all the air sucked into the engine is forced through the compressor and ejected at high speed. These turbojets are typically found on fighter jets, and famously, the Concorde. They’re most efficient at 1300-1400 mph (~Mach 2). Issue with these is they’re very noisy and they consume a huge amount of fuel relative to the amount of thrust that is produced.
So we have turbofans, which are the engines you find on commercial airliners today. These days they have a high bypass ratio, where most of the air sucked in doesn’t actually go into the compressor, but is forced around the compressor. Only the air that goes into the compressor is accelerated to the highest degree; the bypass air is accelerated too but not to the same degree. The logic here is that the way increase thrust isn’t by moving air faster; it’s by moving *more* air. And it turns out it actually doesn’t take much more energy to move *more* air, as opposed to moving it faster, which takes a lot more energy. The benefit then of these engines is that they’re a lot quieter, and most importantly, they consume a lot less fuel while producing way more thrust than a turbojet. And it turns out that turbofans are most efficient at 500-600 mph, which is, not coincidentally, the speed more airliners fly at.
Keep in mind, that when one says “X engine type is most efficient at Y speeds,” we’re talking along their own respective efficiency curves. Along a turbojet’s efficiency curve, it’s most efficient at 1300-1400 mph; along a turbofan’s efficiency curve, it’s most efficient at 500-600 mph. However, the most efficient point on the turbojet curve is still less efficient than the most efficient point on the turbofan curve.
For airlines and passengers alike, fuel efficiency is more cost effective than time efficiency so there’s little incentive to make faster planes that use more gas-hungry turbojets.
@NDSAviation1 ridiculous! Fuel is abundant, and the environment is doing just fine. Get fake politics out of the airline business, and we will all man up , traveling the speeds we want to go wherever we want to go!
@NDSAviation1 Briefly, nobody cares about fuel efficiency. Fuel prices are political and artificially inflated. Get rid of leftists and rinos and kick that throttle up!!!. We need speed, not phony cost efficiencys
@@jerseyterry6951 that’s a bit oversimplified. I hear the desire for speed, but cost effectiveness is absolutely an important consideration. I’d argue is it *the* most important consideration.
Just because you don’t care about fuel efficiency and cost effectiveness doesn’t mean no one else does. As a matter of fact, part of the reason economy class has turned into an overly cramped experience is because most passengers simply want the cheapest fares. This is part of the rise of the ultra low cost carrier. But in order to compete with bare bones ULCC’s, full service airlines have had to cut cost out of the services and increase passenger capacity to maintain profit margin when fares are forced to become cheaper. So the next time one wants to ask why economy class is such an unpleasant experience these days, we have nowhere else to look but ourselves because it is what we have told the airlines, through our wallets, is most important to us in purchasing flights: cost.
Whether fuel prices are inflated or not, airlines and aircraft parts manufacturers aren’t the ones who set the fuel prices. They simply pay for the fuel. But fuel is probably the most significant expense for airlines. And at the end of the day, the airlines are companies that need to make money to keep themselves afloat and profit to pay their shareholders, and are thus governed by capitalistic market forces too. And if they pay more for fuel, that extra cost is passed on to us, the passengers, and there’s no sense in paying significantly extra if the returns aren’t proportional to the extra cost.
And if flying is too expensive for passengers to want to fly, then it ultimately doesn’t matter how fast planes are - the market would bring the aviation industry to bankruptcy and there would be no planes at all. It’s all in the principles of economics and the capitalistic model that governs much of the aviation industry.
@NDSAviation1 I was in the airline business for over 25 years, so I appreciate the economic realities. The fact still remains that we haven't improved on the basic principles of commercial aircraft travel for over 65 years and 100 years for basic aircraft design. Except for avionics. The only thing that has gotten even worse than the lack of increased speed is the lack of new and innovative aircraft design, from structural to propulsion. The attitudes and comportment of the flying public is a perfect example of the lack of inthusasim or respect of the industry. Fuel is plentiful, the real problem is politics
Over half this video is the stultifying, bone-crushing BOREDOM of taxiing aimlessly around ATL. People, PLEASE STOP posting boring push-back and taxi. B o o o o o R ing!
Some people want the pushback and taxi though. As a content creator, you have to try to create something that will have something for everyone. My solution is to include it all, but also to include time stamps in all my videos so you can easily navigate to only the part that interests you.
@@NDSAviation1 I wonder who those people are. The same ones who watch grass grow? I understand your point, but for most of us, probably 99% of us, push back and taxi are just completely boring and incomprehensible. What's the attraction? Slowly meandering around looking at other planes? Watching cracks in the tarmac?
@@Sutherland2 the analytics for my videos show that a large enough percentage of videos watch those portions to keep them in.
People have a diverse set of interests and reasons for doing things. There are some things others enjoy that I find mindnumbingly boring, and vice versa. Just because you can’t envision those or don’t enjoy those either doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with you, or anyone else in this case. However, I won’t tolerate talking down to or about other viewers on my channel.
Like I said, I’ve included time stamps in all my videos to make it easy for anyone to skip straight to what they’re interested in. If those time stamps are still unacceptable to you, there’s not much I can do to help you individually.
I’m glad you stopped by my channel, and I appreciate the feedback. I hope you’ll see things from my point of view.
How old is this aircraft? Aren't these planes from like the 80's?
This particular aircraft (N175DZ) first flew on February 16, 1999
@@NDSAviation1 Thanks.
WTF does the title means? It’s a calculated takeoff, FFS!!!😡
I'm trying to understand what your comment is trying to say. Yes, all takeoff thrust settings are calculated by the FMC. That doesn't change the fact that a takeoff can sound powerful relative to other takeoffs on the same aircraft. If on a particular route, the weights are such that the average takeoff setting has N1% of 80%, then a day where the takeoff setting is 95% N1 would be relatively powerful. It's all relative. The fact that it's pre-calculated changes nothing. There is no need or place for such disproportionate anger on my channel.