Boeing 737 Max take-off
- Thread starter Blaze
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: andrewg
No matter if it's empty or full.....seeing a steep climb off the runway is impressive to me. Anytime I witness these large commercial aircraft I can't help but think how incredible flight is.
Yeah...but...
It MATTERS if it’s empty or full. It’s not like a car, that carries less than 5% of its gross weight in fuel.
Airplanes carry up to 40% of MTOGW in fuel. Another 20% in passenger/baggage.
E.G Boeing 747-400. MTOGW 875,000#. Max fuel 387,000#. Empty weight: 408,000# with seats and passenger equipment. Empty from the factory: 350,000#
So, light load an empty shell and you’ve got more than TWICE the thrust/weight of normal operations. A dramatic difference in performance. Akin to doubling the HP of a car. Like a 1,200 HP Corvette ZR1.
It’s going to be a lot more impressive than a normal Corvette.
This is a stunt plane, on a stunt flight, designed to impress. The 737 is still a dog in the airplane world. Even the Max.
No matter if it's empty or full.....seeing a steep climb off the runway is impressive to me. Anytime I witness these large commercial aircraft I can't help but think how incredible flight is.
Yeah...but...
It MATTERS if it’s empty or full. It’s not like a car, that carries less than 5% of its gross weight in fuel.
Airplanes carry up to 40% of MTOGW in fuel. Another 20% in passenger/baggage.
E.G Boeing 747-400. MTOGW 875,000#. Max fuel 387,000#. Empty weight: 408,000# with seats and passenger equipment. Empty from the factory: 350,000#
So, light load an empty shell and you’ve got more than TWICE the thrust/weight of normal operations. A dramatic difference in performance. Akin to doubling the HP of a car. Like a 1,200 HP Corvette ZR1.
It’s going to be a lot more impressive than a normal Corvette.
This is a stunt plane, on a stunt flight, designed to impress. The 737 is still a dog in the airplane world. Even the Max.
It’s a five decade old design. Same crummy cockpit. Still a dog...
Originally Posted By: Astro14
It’s a five decade old design. Same crummy cockpit. Still a dog...
You've made your opinions of the 737 clear in many threads and I know that you are far better informed on the relative qualities of the single aisle Airbus aircraft and the 737s than am I.
However, neither maker can supply the demand in this market on its own, so both lines will keep humming along for years to come.
The 737 may be the older design, but the single aisle Airbus isn't close to being a new one.
Both aircraft suffer from built-in limitations with the 737 burdened more by having been developed to fit a role it was not originally intended to fill.
At some point, both Airbus and Boeing must do a clean sheet single aisle.
As long as deliveries are brisk, neither has much incentive to do that.
There's also the question of what capacity and what range any such aircraft should be optimized for.
Too much of either and you end up with excess structural weight for shorter and smaller load missions while with too little you may not be able to meet the route planning needs of the carriers, especially since Airbus now has its very own little brother for the lower end of this market.
It’s a five decade old design. Same crummy cockpit. Still a dog...
You've made your opinions of the 737 clear in many threads and I know that you are far better informed on the relative qualities of the single aisle Airbus aircraft and the 737s than am I.
However, neither maker can supply the demand in this market on its own, so both lines will keep humming along for years to come.
The 737 may be the older design, but the single aisle Airbus isn't close to being a new one.
Both aircraft suffer from built-in limitations with the 737 burdened more by having been developed to fit a role it was not originally intended to fill.
At some point, both Airbus and Boeing must do a clean sheet single aisle.
As long as deliveries are brisk, neither has much incentive to do that.
There's also the question of what capacity and what range any such aircraft should be optimized for.
Too much of either and you end up with excess structural weight for shorter and smaller load missions while with too little you may not be able to meet the route planning needs of the carriers, especially since Airbus now has its very own little brother for the lower end of this market.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
It’s a five decade old design. Same crummy cockpit. Still a dog...
Yep....you're right I'm sure. Must be a complete POS with all those orders rolling in.
It’s a five decade old design. Same crummy cockpit. Still a dog...
Yep....you're right I'm sure. Must be a complete POS with all those orders rolling in.
Personally, I could not care less about an airliner that I will never fly and that looks like a torpedo with wings ....
But, what is that light twin with the T Tail at 0:33-34 ?
btw: it says zero g at the top of the climb - are those types rated for any negative g?
But, what is that light twin with the T Tail at 0:33-34 ?
btw: it says zero g at the top of the climb - are those types rated for any negative g?
Last edited:
We all know that Astro has no great fondness for the 737. Fine, I figure. He's a pilot so he MUST know, right?
Come to find out it's not so simple as to label one aircraft a "dog" or basically insinuate that the 737 is an antique.
After some minor searches on the topic I discovered there is NO clear answer as to what aircraft is preferred. Seems to depend on what said pilot was trained on and/or used to. 737's do, according to what I've read, have a more tactile feel with better feedback for the pilot. Sort of a more hands-on approach. Also better in a crosswind apparently. Is it a "dog"? Well, I suppose if you are flying out of the Peruvian Andes, heavily loaded, it might seem so. And we all do that frequently.
https://www.quora.com/As-a-pilot-do-you-prefer-the-Airbus-or-the-Boeing-cockpit-design
Come to find out it's not so simple as to label one aircraft a "dog" or basically insinuate that the 737 is an antique.
After some minor searches on the topic I discovered there is NO clear answer as to what aircraft is preferred. Seems to depend on what said pilot was trained on and/or used to. 737's do, according to what I've read, have a more tactile feel with better feedback for the pilot. Sort of a more hands-on approach. Also better in a crosswind apparently. Is it a "dog"? Well, I suppose if you are flying out of the Peruvian Andes, heavily loaded, it might seem so. And we all do that frequently.
https://www.quora.com/As-a-pilot-do-you-prefer-the-Airbus-or-the-Boeing-cockpit-design
If you talk to pilots and FAs, many actually prefer the Boeing to the Airbus.
Astro doesn't, which is perfectly okay.
There is much to be said in favor of envelope protection, but there have been accidents with Airbus aircraft where normal law kicked offline just when the crew was most in need of it.
Either a MAX or a NEO will do the job for any airline with operating economics that are pretty much even.
The carriers pay their pilots to safely operate flights, not to do route or fleet planning and acquisition.
Astro doesn't, which is perfectly okay.
There is much to be said in favor of envelope protection, but there have been accidents with Airbus aircraft where normal law kicked offline just when the crew was most in need of it.
Either a MAX or a NEO will do the job for any airline with operating economics that are pretty much even.
The carriers pay their pilots to safely operate flights, not to do route or fleet planning and acquisition.
Good manage of E...
I tend to prefer the Gulfstream family of jets...
A nice view from FL510 (51,000 feet) in our G650ER last week.
A nice view from FL510 (51,000 feet) in our G650ER last week.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
The 737 is still a dog in the airplane world. Even the Max.
From a passenger point of view, the A320 is a little wider (by about 7 inches) and therefore considerably more comfortable feeling, regardless of what Boeing says.
The 737 is still a dog in the airplane world. Even the Max.
From a passenger point of view, the A320 is a little wider (by about 7 inches) and therefore considerably more comfortable feeling, regardless of what Boeing says.
Last edited:
I don't prefer Airbus over Boeing, you guys are conflating some of my previous posts. The Boeing stock that I bought in the summer of 2008 at $44/share has been great for my portfolio. The 747 is my favorite airliner and I've posted many times on my appreciation for that incredible jet, including pictures of my bookshelf, with 747 Model and books on the airplane. I chose to be a 757/767 Captain over A320 Captain because, wait for it, I like the airplane better, even though my seniority would be better on the 'Bus...and I love the 757/767 as an airplane in addition to the places that I get to fly it.
I have no love for the 737, however.
The 737 was designed in 1964. First flew in 1967. First flew with UAL in 1968. The airplane has been modified, but it is a 50 year old design. The fuselage has been stretched, but you cannot remove the fundamental shortcomings of the airplane: short landing gear, cramped cockpit, narrow fuselage. You would call a 50 year old car an antique, and this airplane deserves the same appellation because the same frame (and limitations) underlies every
single model.
The airplane was conceived as a short-haul feeder for international flights. As a short-haul airplane, it's fine. But the short landing gear (to keep costs down) limits the airplane. It's the only modern airplane that doesn't even enclose the wheels inside - they're part of the skin and a missing hubcap renders the airplane unsafe for flight because it's part of the exterior. That short gear limits the body angle of the airplane on takeoff and landing, which limits the lift that can be generated without hitting the tail of the airplane. The more you stretch the fuselage, the worse this limitation becomes.
Good in a crosswind?
Yeah, the gear casters about 4 degrees. So, a pilot doesn't have to be as good to get a good landing in a 737...but the crosswind limits are the same as the A-320, and a bit lower than a 747/757/767, and the split scimitar winglets lower the crosswind limits slightly (ground clearance). So, good? yeah, but not better than any other airliner. And worse than many. It's better than some RJs, but that's like saying that your car out-performs some mopeds...
The cockpit
Miserable. Noisy. Cramped. With a trim wheel that has, and will continue to, whack pilots in the knee. A 50 year old anachronism, like the overhead panel that looks like a 707 engineers panel. Dated, confusing, and likely responsible for the death of everyone aboard Helios 552. If all you've ever flown is a 737, you probably love it. If all you've ever driven is a 1963 Corvair, with its swing axle suspension (also a 50 year old design), you probably think that's great, too...until you drive something newer. 777 flat panel displays? Sure, it's got those now, sandwiched in between the 1964 overhead panel, the trim wheel and the same ergonomics that were cheap and lousy 50 years ago.
Safe?
This is one of the largest travesties ever from a government agency: the FAA response to the discovery of a fatal design flaw in the 737 Rudder. The original 737 rudder design included an actuator that would go full deflection without warning or input. Imagine that you bought a car in which the steering would suddenly snap full left or right, with no warning. Safe? Yeah...sure... So, after two fatal crashes, in which the rudder of a 737 went hard over, rolled the airplane over instantly, and killed everyone on board, the FAA gave airlines 18 months to install new rudder PCU (hydraulic actuators). So, we have an airplane, the 737, with a design flaw that resulted in two confirmed fatal crashes, but they're OK to keep flying? How could this be?
Well...let me be blunt. It would have put a couple of airlines out of business, so, the FAA gave them 18 months. And 737s flew, from 1997-1999, with a rudder actuator that had killed, and might kill again. The airplane was simply uncontrollable if the rudder went hard over at certain flap/speed combinations. But you wouldn't want passenger safety to be put ahead of the economic interests of those airlines, would you?
Airbus design philosophy has come up in this thread, and I've discussed Air France 447 in detail. But this isn't design philosophy, this is design flaw, and it had two confirmed fatal crashes and still remains suspect in several other crashes. The roof ripping off the airplanes (737s) isn't a design flaw, by the way, it's happened, but that's a matter of fatigue, of bean counters pushing short-haul cheap airplanes to the limit of service life.
Performance limited?
Oh, yeah. I can't tell you how many times I've been stuck behind/below a Guppy. It's like having a highway full of 1964 Beetles that climb hills, in the left lane, no passing, at 40 MPH. They cruise at 60 on the flat, in the left lane, and no, you can't pass them. They cruise more slowly than other airplanes, and they climb more slowly. Newer versions are better, but for 5 decades, they've been the speed bumps of the air.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Is it a "dog"? Well, I suppose if you are flying out of the Peruvian Andes, heavily loaded, it might seem so. And we all do that frequently.
Or, if you're flying out of a SEA-LEVEL airport with 12,000' of runway.... You see, that stubby landing gear, that limits the pitch, is the reason that the 737 NGs that UAL was flying out of LAX (field elevation, 128') had to take off for Hawaii with 40 empty seats. Yep, the beancounters who buy airplanes bought the airplane sales pitch, only to find out that their brand-new airplane couldn't fly max range with full fuel and passengers from a sea level airport with long runways.
Gentlemen, if you can't get airborne with full fuel and a full passenger load from a sea level airport with 12,000 feet of runway, you've got yourself a DOG of an airplane. UAL has quietly replaced those dogs with a real airplane: the 757 on performance-critical routes from SFO and LAX to Hawaii. DEN-HNL is, of course, a 757 only flight...because when you need performance, the 737 will let you down every time.
Best-selling airliner?
Yep. No doubt. Good for Boeing, good for my portfolio. But beancounters buy airplanes, as I mentioned earlier. McDonald's has the world's best-selling hamburger. Not the best hamburger. Maybe not even good. But best selling, just like the 737.
For exactly the same reason...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues
I have no love for the 737, however.
The 737 was designed in 1964. First flew in 1967. First flew with UAL in 1968. The airplane has been modified, but it is a 50 year old design. The fuselage has been stretched, but you cannot remove the fundamental shortcomings of the airplane: short landing gear, cramped cockpit, narrow fuselage. You would call a 50 year old car an antique, and this airplane deserves the same appellation because the same frame (and limitations) underlies every
single model.
The airplane was conceived as a short-haul feeder for international flights. As a short-haul airplane, it's fine. But the short landing gear (to keep costs down) limits the airplane. It's the only modern airplane that doesn't even enclose the wheels inside - they're part of the skin and a missing hubcap renders the airplane unsafe for flight because it's part of the exterior. That short gear limits the body angle of the airplane on takeoff and landing, which limits the lift that can be generated without hitting the tail of the airplane. The more you stretch the fuselage, the worse this limitation becomes.
Good in a crosswind?
Yeah, the gear casters about 4 degrees. So, a pilot doesn't have to be as good to get a good landing in a 737...but the crosswind limits are the same as the A-320, and a bit lower than a 747/757/767, and the split scimitar winglets lower the crosswind limits slightly (ground clearance). So, good? yeah, but not better than any other airliner. And worse than many. It's better than some RJs, but that's like saying that your car out-performs some mopeds...
The cockpit
Miserable. Noisy. Cramped. With a trim wheel that has, and will continue to, whack pilots in the knee. A 50 year old anachronism, like the overhead panel that looks like a 707 engineers panel. Dated, confusing, and likely responsible for the death of everyone aboard Helios 552. If all you've ever flown is a 737, you probably love it. If all you've ever driven is a 1963 Corvair, with its swing axle suspension (also a 50 year old design), you probably think that's great, too...until you drive something newer. 777 flat panel displays? Sure, it's got those now, sandwiched in between the 1964 overhead panel, the trim wheel and the same ergonomics that were cheap and lousy 50 years ago.
Safe?
This is one of the largest travesties ever from a government agency: the FAA response to the discovery of a fatal design flaw in the 737 Rudder. The original 737 rudder design included an actuator that would go full deflection without warning or input. Imagine that you bought a car in which the steering would suddenly snap full left or right, with no warning. Safe? Yeah...sure... So, after two fatal crashes, in which the rudder of a 737 went hard over, rolled the airplane over instantly, and killed everyone on board, the FAA gave airlines 18 months to install new rudder PCU (hydraulic actuators). So, we have an airplane, the 737, with a design flaw that resulted in two confirmed fatal crashes, but they're OK to keep flying? How could this be?
Well...let me be blunt. It would have put a couple of airlines out of business, so, the FAA gave them 18 months. And 737s flew, from 1997-1999, with a rudder actuator that had killed, and might kill again. The airplane was simply uncontrollable if the rudder went hard over at certain flap/speed combinations. But you wouldn't want passenger safety to be put ahead of the economic interests of those airlines, would you?
Airbus design philosophy has come up in this thread, and I've discussed Air France 447 in detail. But this isn't design philosophy, this is design flaw, and it had two confirmed fatal crashes and still remains suspect in several other crashes. The roof ripping off the airplanes (737s) isn't a design flaw, by the way, it's happened, but that's a matter of fatigue, of bean counters pushing short-haul cheap airplanes to the limit of service life.
Performance limited?
Oh, yeah. I can't tell you how many times I've been stuck behind/below a Guppy. It's like having a highway full of 1964 Beetles that climb hills, in the left lane, no passing, at 40 MPH. They cruise at 60 on the flat, in the left lane, and no, you can't pass them. They cruise more slowly than other airplanes, and they climb more slowly. Newer versions are better, but for 5 decades, they've been the speed bumps of the air.
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Is it a "dog"? Well, I suppose if you are flying out of the Peruvian Andes, heavily loaded, it might seem so. And we all do that frequently.
Or, if you're flying out of a SEA-LEVEL airport with 12,000' of runway.... You see, that stubby landing gear, that limits the pitch, is the reason that the 737 NGs that UAL was flying out of LAX (field elevation, 128') had to take off for Hawaii with 40 empty seats. Yep, the beancounters who buy airplanes bought the airplane sales pitch, only to find out that their brand-new airplane couldn't fly max range with full fuel and passengers from a sea level airport with long runways.
Gentlemen, if you can't get airborne with full fuel and a full passenger load from a sea level airport with 12,000 feet of runway, you've got yourself a DOG of an airplane. UAL has quietly replaced those dogs with a real airplane: the 757 on performance-critical routes from SFO and LAX to Hawaii. DEN-HNL is, of course, a 757 only flight...because when you need performance, the 737 will let you down every time.
Best-selling airliner?
Yep. No doubt. Good for Boeing, good for my portfolio. But beancounters buy airplanes, as I mentioned earlier. McDonald's has the world's best-selling hamburger. Not the best hamburger. Maybe not even good. But best selling, just like the 737.
For exactly the same reason...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_rudder_issues
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: Astro14
The 737 is still a dog in the airplane world. Even the Max.
From a passenger point of view, the A320 is a little wider (by about 7 inches) and therefore considerably more comfortable feeling, regardless of what Boeing says.
Seating space has everything to do with the airline. Boeing doesn't cram as many seats as possible into any aircraft unless that is what the customer ordered.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
The 737 is still a dog in the airplane world. Even the Max.
From a passenger point of view, the A320 is a little wider (by about 7 inches) and therefore considerably more comfortable feeling, regardless of what Boeing says.
Seating space has everything to do with the airline. Boeing doesn't cram as many seats as possible into any aircraft unless that is what the customer ordered.
Astro14,
Now THAT post I can better understand why you've disliked the 737.
Good info and backing up your opinion with facts.
Now THAT post I can better understand why you've disliked the 737.
Good info and backing up your opinion with facts.
Now you know why I don't like it...
Let's talk about what it does well. It's reliable, inexpensive to buy, and with the engine upgrades, pretty decent on gas (the NG is about as good as the A-320. The MAX is close to as good as the A-320 NEO)...not the best, but better than many on fuel.
It's easy to work on (from a mechanic's perspective, but that's not something I've experienced first hand) and the fact that it's been in production for 40+ years means that the airlines that have bought the airplane have saved lots of money on spare parts, pilot training, mechanic training and flight attendant training. Fleet expansion, with different length/size airplanes, and newer generations of the airplane, is simple compared with the challenges of airlines with multiple aircraft types or the challenges (training, manning, spare parts, etc.) of adding a new aircraft type.
It's good for a small - mid size market, just like it was intended. Long thin routes are now possible with the improved performance of the NG and the Max.
I feel safe flying the airplane, now that its rudder PCU has been upgraded. It's still a challenge to land the stretch versions well - they have approach speeds that exceed even the 747 (so you don't hit the tail in the flare) which has led to over-runs and some landing mishaps, but in general, it's easy to fly.
I'll be happy if I can retire flying the 757/767 and never have to fly the 737, but the airplane has a place where it's very competitive...I just don't like it...and I really don't want to fly it...all the times I've been on the jumpseat have convinced me...
Let's talk about what it does well. It's reliable, inexpensive to buy, and with the engine upgrades, pretty decent on gas (the NG is about as good as the A-320. The MAX is close to as good as the A-320 NEO)...not the best, but better than many on fuel.
It's easy to work on (from a mechanic's perspective, but that's not something I've experienced first hand) and the fact that it's been in production for 40+ years means that the airlines that have bought the airplane have saved lots of money on spare parts, pilot training, mechanic training and flight attendant training. Fleet expansion, with different length/size airplanes, and newer generations of the airplane, is simple compared with the challenges of airlines with multiple aircraft types or the challenges (training, manning, spare parts, etc.) of adding a new aircraft type.
It's good for a small - mid size market, just like it was intended. Long thin routes are now possible with the improved performance of the NG and the Max.
I feel safe flying the airplane, now that its rudder PCU has been upgraded. It's still a challenge to land the stretch versions well - they have approach speeds that exceed even the 747 (so you don't hit the tail in the flare) which has led to over-runs and some landing mishaps, but in general, it's easy to fly.
I'll be happy if I can retire flying the 757/767 and never have to fly the 737, but the airplane has a place where it's very competitive...I just don't like it...and I really don't want to fly it...all the times I've been on the jumpseat have convinced me...
Last edited:
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
I love these statements … I take commercial flights all the time and it makes zero difference to me if it’s a B737 or A320 … they are single aisle short hauls getting me to LAX or wherever the nice ride awaits …
Originally Posted By: 4WD
I love these statements … I take commercial flights all the time and it makes zero difference to me if it’s a B737 or A320 … they are single aisle short hauls getting me to LAX or wherever the nice ride awaits …
And if you were denied boarding on a 737 to Hawaii?
Then, I imagine, you would care...because that's exactly how the 737 was performing in actual service LAX-HNL. Booked full, but then 40 people had to be denied boarding on a 180 seat airplane that couldn't take off from sea level with enough fuel to get to Hawaii.
Not quite what the airplane salesman promised the beancounter in the brochure...and a large part of the reason that United canceled the orders for 75 737 airplanes last year. They weren't able to meet performance expectations.
I love these statements … I take commercial flights all the time and it makes zero difference to me if it’s a B737 or A320 … they are single aisle short hauls getting me to LAX or wherever the nice ride awaits …
And if you were denied boarding on a 737 to Hawaii?
Then, I imagine, you would care...because that's exactly how the 737 was performing in actual service LAX-HNL. Booked full, but then 40 people had to be denied boarding on a 180 seat airplane that couldn't take off from sea level with enough fuel to get to Hawaii.
Not quite what the airplane salesman promised the beancounter in the brochure...and a large part of the reason that United canceled the orders for 75 737 airplanes last year. They weren't able to meet performance expectations.
Not to derail this thread, but is it normal for a G650 to travel at FL51? And on a further side note, do the owenrs of the plane make passengers take their shoes off or am I seeing things?!?
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
In 28 years of nonstop (mostly) international travel … never denied boarding ever
However, my comments had nothing to do with you but the 7” of width comparison etc …
As you know from the B757/B767 … sometimes not having the room to cram too many seats works out nice as it can in Business Class (have you seen that seat maze BA puts in th B777)
However, my comments had nothing to do with you but the 7” of width comparison etc …
As you know from the B757/B767 … sometimes not having the room to cram too many seats works out nice as it can in Business Class (have you seen that seat maze BA puts in th B777)
Originally Posted By: CincyDavid
Not to derail this thread, but is it normal for a G650 to travel at FL51? And on a further side note, do the owenrs of the plane make passengers take their shoes off or am I seeing things?!?
Normal is FL470-490. Service ceiling is 510. Yes, that's silk carpet, no shoes. Feels great between toes.
Not to derail this thread, but is it normal for a G650 to travel at FL51? And on a further side note, do the owenrs of the plane make passengers take their shoes off or am I seeing things?!?
Normal is FL470-490. Service ceiling is 510. Yes, that's silk carpet, no shoes. Feels great between toes.
- Status
