Love the humid mornings when you see the decompression of the air into the inlets of the engines causing the fog and condensation of the humidity as well as the “wing fluff” when the wings really start making a bunch of lift. High initial climb on this to get to a higher altitude quickly so they can pull back the engines to climb power and obey the noise abatement laws. The noise area is so close to the airport that they have to get to 500’AGL in a hurry so they can pull back the engines in time. That’s likely also the reason for the higher takeoff power setting so they have the excess thrust to make that steep initial climb away from the runway. Cool video, great sounding engines, awesome airplane, regardless of what the clueless media has to say.
As always, I greatly appreciate you sharing your video with us, and thank-you for including the landing. No apologies are necessary, unless you have somehow found a way to control the sun (then we have to talk) or carry a small bottle of Windex for cleaning windows. Nice shirt. Wow!!! Having just viewed the 777 takeoff, the MAX almost sounds like a toy. As a passenger, were you able to discern any better takeoff and climb performance over earlier variants? As it rotated and became airborne, I did notice that the vapor formed much further back on the wing than I've witnessed on older wing designs. This to me indicates a much more efficient airfoil. The wingtip definitely flexes more than earlier variants. However, I did not see any wing warping as I did on your earlier 777 video. As one who vividly remembers the -200 days, with the wing studded with vortex generators, etc., the MAX has much improved flight performance. Despite it all, no variant after the -200 had the cool blow-in doors (aux. air intakes), or the cool way the triple slotted flaps deployed. But the issue that has everyone on the edge of their seats in eager anticipation to know... Just what does a new airplane smell like? Is it at all like a new car? But you might want to hold off answering that, or no one will want to comment on anything else. I'm guessing that no one tries hitting the numbers on a landing any longer. The pilot seemed to have hit the pavement authoritatively on the longer main gear. However, they did not seem to cushion the impact/touchdown very much. Thank-you again for the video and including the landing. Until your next post, stay safe and happy landings.
@@maxenroute Hi Max, I’m about to fly from EWR-PHX in a week, and I was wondering if it’d be worth it to switch from my current 739 flight to a 737 MAX 8 later flight? How was your experience with the aircraft? Did it have PTVs?
@@gobbledygook5786 I don't think personally. I'd go with what's most convenient for your schedule. However, if you're flexible, the cost to change is zero, and it's a new type for you, then go for it.
@@maxenroute I accidentally booked my original fare in regular economy and not basic, so they wanted to charge me 140 bucks to change it. I was like “Yup, I’d rather die!”
I thought so too when I first saw it. I did some calculations from the video as the aircraft passed the aiming point markers, counting each frame at 1/30th of a second per frame. I found that the aircraft passed the 150-ft length of those markers in 0.6-seconds. This gives a ground-speed of about 170mph or 147kts. Although it's not crazy it is pretty high for what would be, say, a flaps-30 approach, where VREF would maybe be in the 130-135kt range. Maybe the plane was super heavy, the pilot chose a flaps15 approach or there was a strong tailwind component that day.
@@hotshot4512 Not for me it's not, it's also bad for the engines. No article I've read suggests that the fan operates well when it spins faster than the speed of sound.
Boeing and the FAA REALLY don't want anything to happen again, as their reputation would be scrutinized to an even worse degree than before. Right now it's probably one of if not the safest aircraft out there due to the special attention it received.
I’m no fan of the 73 (of any type), but at this point, the 73MAX is the most heavily scrutinized aircraft ever made, due to Boeing and the FAA’s hideous safety lapses with MCAS. Scrutinized not just by US regulators, but a large number of foreign agencies. It might seem counter intuitive and paradoxical, but the MAX’s previous safety issues have actually made it, in real manifest (and documented) terms, one of the safest aircraft you can fly. Additionally, all of Boeing’s programs have been under intense scrutiny, so I’m extremely confident you won’t see another safety issue with the MAX (or any current Boeing program) for a very long time. I’ll also add that Boeing’s programs previous to the MAX (the 75, 76, 77 and 78) have outstanding safety records. That said, as a (admittedly non-current) 320 type-rated pilot, in the single isle space Airbus has long made the vastly superior product (more efficient, more modern, more ergonomic, more comfortable), and I don’t personally like flying on the 73 as a passenger, because I find it small, cramped and dated feeling (even with Boeing’s modern swoopy interior design language). Overall, Boeing really needs a clean-sheet single-isle replacement for the 73; the core airframe is just too old and requires too many compromises to keep up with the 320Neo (which is where the trouble started with the MAX). Boeing’s previous management (and the board that oversaw said management) bears significant responsibility for the lives of those lost through the two MAX 8 crashes, not just because they allowed systemic failures in the design and implementation of the MCAS system, but because they chose to spend the equivalent of a clean-sheet program on a stock-buyback plan, instead of funding a new airplane. As a result of their actions, 300+ people are dead, and decades of Boeing’s (previously well deserved) reputation are permanently tarnished. However, I still stand by my practical assertion that, as of right now, from a pure mechanical and systems standpoint, you’re probably as safe, or safer, on a MAX, as you are on any other plane in the sky.
@@princenoah21 You’re far more likely to die in a car wreck on your way to the airport, than to be involved in any incident with a commercial aircraft. And while the MAX has (as of right now) a relatively terrible record of 3.08 fatal crash rate per million flights, that number is likely to go down dramatically, as it’s still under a million flights total. The MAX’s direct predecessor, the 737NG, is the second safest single isle airliner family, with 0.07 fatal accidents per million flights (with over 100 million flights total), with the Embraer E170/E190 (0.03) in first place. My beloved 320 is in 3rd place (0.09), which is still incredibly safe. When you factor in the sheer number of 737NG’s in service (many thousands), it’s an incredibly safe plane. Even factoring in the MAX crashes in the 737 family as a whole, across 737’s extraordinary 54 year service history, you get 0.24, which is solidly above average safety (better than the DC-9/MD-80 family). It’s very likely you’ll never see another crash of a MAX attribute to a fault in the plane’s design, given the remediations in place (and extreme scrutiny around said remediation), which I reviewed last night. These include: proper redundancy in sensor inputs and flight computers for MCAS, changes in the behavior of MCAS to allow immediate pitch up override, clear annunciation of the system and any faults in the system, required pilot simulator training in the effects and overriding of MCAS. There’s at least a dozen other related and unrelated changes to the plane, after all the international regulatory review. Finally, the great tragedy in all this is that the MAX didn’t even need MCAS, there was nothing inherently wrong with the MAX8 or 9’s airframe that required MCAS - it just handles differently, compared to the NG-800 and 900, and MCAS was intended to hide the difference for marketing reasons (and media reports to the contrary are factually incorrect). In fact, this is where the core MAX problem started - MCAS’ core design was as a non critical system that wasn’t required for safe operation of the plane, which is why the original design didn’t have redundant sensor inputs. Had pilots simply been trained properly, and the system been easily defeatable, or had Boeing simply accepted that more pilot training would be required of airlines (and FAA had forced such requirements as a different type) and the whole damn system was deleted, none of this would likely have happened (but any of those options would have made the plane harder to sell versus the 320 Neo, whose more modern design didn’t require wing and engine placement changes to accept the bigger, more efficient, CFM-LEAP engines that are used on both Neo and MAX). With all that said, I’d fly on a MAX today without much concern (other than it being a miserably cramped experience with insufficient overhead storage). However, you should pick the 320, when possible, because you’ll have better seat pitch, more overhead and underseat storage, bigger restrooms, faster turnaround - but I don’t think, right now, you’re any safer on the 320.
I usually hear the LEAP run slower in take offs... I think this is the most powerful and loudest LEAP takeoff I've ever seen... Really great
Yes. This was a TO/GA/full thrust takeoff, I believe
Sounds like the average united 737 takeoff to me 😂 I remember when I was on a 737-9max and it used almost 8700 feet of runway
@@Roboseal2high temperature and the amount of flaps can lead to that too
th-cam.com/video/pTnCBWdpp8k/w-d-xo.html
That Max 8 sure is a feisty little jet, isn't it.
Well said
Love the humid mornings when you see the decompression of the air into the inlets of the engines causing the fog and condensation of the humidity as well as the “wing fluff” when the wings really start making a bunch of lift. High initial climb on this to get to a higher altitude quickly so they can pull back the engines to climb power and obey the noise abatement laws. The noise area is so close to the airport that they have to get to 500’AGL in a hurry so they can pull back the engines in time. That’s likely also the reason for the higher takeoff power setting so they have the excess thrust to make that steep initial climb away from the runway. Cool video, great sounding engines, awesome airplane, regardless of what the clueless media has to say.
A Max ride and a RW29 landing.....NICE! I really liked this!
As always, I greatly appreciate you sharing your video with us, and thank-you for including the landing. No apologies are necessary, unless you have somehow found a way to control the sun (then we have to talk) or carry a small bottle of Windex for cleaning windows. Nice shirt.
Wow!!! Having just viewed the 777 takeoff, the MAX almost sounds like a toy. As a passenger, were you able to discern any better takeoff and climb performance over earlier variants? As it rotated and became airborne, I did notice that the vapor formed much further back on the wing than I've witnessed on older wing designs. This to me indicates a much more efficient airfoil. The wingtip definitely flexes more than earlier variants. However, I did not see any wing warping as I did on your earlier 777 video.
As one who vividly remembers the -200 days, with the wing studded with vortex generators, etc., the MAX has much improved flight performance. Despite it all, no variant after the -200 had the cool blow-in doors (aux. air intakes), or the cool way the triple slotted flaps deployed.
But the issue that has everyone on the edge of their seats in eager anticipation to know... Just what does a new airplane smell like? Is it at all like a new car? But you might want to hold off answering that, or no one will want to comment on anything else.
I'm guessing that no one tries hitting the numbers on a landing any longer. The pilot seemed to have hit the pavement authoritatively on the longer main gear. However, they did not seem to cushion the impact/touchdown very much.
Thank-you again for the video and including the landing. Until your next post, stay safe and happy landings.
Wow! Crazy high Vertical Speed takeoff, gotta keep it under 250 somehow 😉
I still love watching this. That jet goes up like a rocket.
That roar on them new CFM’s tho 😍😍
I Love The MAX With Those Beautiful Leap Engines.
Agreed!
@@maxenroute Hi Max, I’m about to fly from EWR-PHX in a week, and I was wondering if it’d be worth it to switch from my current 739 flight to a 737 MAX 8 later flight? How was your experience with the aircraft? Did it have PTVs?
@@gobbledygook5786 I don't think personally. I'd go with what's most convenient for your schedule. However, if you're flexible, the cost to change is zero, and it's a new type for you, then go for it.
@@maxenroute I accidentally booked my original fare in regular economy and not basic, so they wanted to charge me 140 bucks to change it. I was like “Yup, I’d rather die!”
Never seen a 29 landing at EWR before! Nice one.
i live right next to newark airport and the planes that land on runway 29 go over my house . they’ve been having landings on there a lot recently
They are paving a runway
I was hoping to see more that 29 approach. THX.
That’s super rare 10/10
Thanks Levi
Great takeoff! What seat number was this?
Very interesting and cool to hear the buzz saw on a Max
Both of the LEAP-1A (Airbus A320neo) and LEAP-1C (COMAC C919) just sounded like the CF6
The engines look like a mini version of the Trent 1000/GEnX hehe
The roaring of that LEAP engine was insane.
This makes me wonder how the MAX 10 engine would sound like at full speed.
I just experienced that in a Southwest flight.
th-cam.com/video/pTnCBWdpp8k/w-d-xo.html
3:31 that’s the fastest landing i have seen in the world
Then watch the landings in Honduras
I thought so too when I first saw it. I did some calculations from the video as the aircraft passed the aiming point markers, counting each frame at 1/30th of a second per frame. I found that the aircraft passed the 150-ft length of those markers in 0.6-seconds. This gives a ground-speed of about 170mph or 147kts. Although it's not crazy it is pretty high for what would be, say, a flaps-30 approach, where VREF would maybe be in the 130-135kt range. Maybe the plane was super heavy, the pilot chose a flaps15 approach or there was a strong tailwind component that day.
@@mikep.5517 No way, I thought it was 170 or 180 kts
Ayee bro keep doing it. Clarity over 50.000 ft
Thank you brother
Although the takeoff was mostly checkered shirt.. lol. The landing on runway 29 was definitely awesome!
Love those CFM Leaps!
That's MAX's MAX POWER!!
Damn I never heard the CFM-LEAP buzz!
I was on a 772 and land on 29 and had room to spare. 777-200 has good brakes.
Flew one before to Newark, we landed on runway 4R
The CFM LEAP is definitely the most powerful engine I know. Its pretty loud too.
u heard of the GE90 or GE9X?
@@notacommunisttt Yes but even though they are also powerful, they are not as loud as LEAP.
@@macart5429 oh they are definitely louder than the LEAP
Why is nobody talking about how fucking fast that this amazing aircraft is going .omg rocket takeoff. So fast .love these planes
Note that the engine of the 737 MAX 8 don't emit buzzsaw noise like the engines of the 737-800 do.
1:00 it definitely does, just not as overpowering as on the CFM56
@@hotshot4512 I know, I don't like buzzsaw and that's why I like the LEAP engine sound better because it emits less buzzsaw than the CFM56-7B.
@@ChrisZoomER but buzzsaw is the best part :(
@@hotshot4512 Not for me it's not, it's also bad for the engines. No article I've read suggests that the fan operates well when it spins faster than the speed of sound.
Yes it does it’s just not as loud
That was so cool.
Is it just me or was that takeoff insanely steep??
TH-cam: boeing 787 vertical take off
I think it's just you, seems standard to me
It looks very steep since it turned slightly to the left
Sure used a lot of runway for takeoff...
Parabéns pelo vídeo... 👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿❤️
Awesome
This was a runway 29 landing.
You’re right. My bad. Updated!!
Super!
Sounds like Rolls Royce Trent 700 taking off
Wow! That’s was a MAX take off…
IAH
Not bad 😎
Very rare I had it for KIAH - KEWR very uncommon on a route like that
They run that at least once a day.
Isn’t that a hard landing tho?
The 737 is very difficult to land smoothly. But any landing is a good landing if you can walk away from it uninjured.
@@petercdowney you gotta be a mediocre pilot to think like that. A good landing is one you wouldn’t need to call maintenance afterwards XD
@@brawnyjavierMaintenance wouldn’t need to be called for this 😂
Next time do not wear a metal link watch :(.
I'm still extremely skeptical about the MAX, after the two crashes and the regulators lying to us about it.
Boeing and the FAA REALLY don't want anything to happen again, as their reputation would be scrutinized to an even worse degree than before. Right now it's probably one of if not the safest aircraft out there due to the special attention it received.
@@hotshot4512 I still don't trust Boeing. Especially after their new CEO took power.
I’m no fan of the 73 (of any type), but at this point, the 73MAX is the most heavily scrutinized aircraft ever made, due to Boeing and the FAA’s hideous safety lapses with MCAS. Scrutinized not just by US regulators, but a large number of foreign agencies. It might seem counter intuitive and paradoxical, but the MAX’s previous safety issues have actually made it, in real manifest (and documented) terms, one of the safest aircraft you can fly. Additionally, all of Boeing’s programs have been under intense scrutiny, so I’m extremely confident you won’t see another safety issue with the MAX (or any current Boeing program) for a very long time. I’ll also add that Boeing’s programs previous to the MAX (the 75, 76, 77 and 78) have outstanding safety records.
That said, as a (admittedly non-current) 320 type-rated pilot, in the single isle space Airbus has long made the vastly superior product (more efficient, more modern, more ergonomic, more comfortable), and I don’t personally like flying on the 73 as a passenger, because I find it small, cramped and dated feeling (even with Boeing’s modern swoopy interior design language). Overall, Boeing really needs a clean-sheet single-isle replacement for the 73; the core airframe is just too old and requires too many compromises to keep up with the 320Neo (which is where the trouble started with the MAX). Boeing’s previous management (and the board that oversaw said management) bears significant responsibility for the lives of those lost through the two MAX 8 crashes, not just because they allowed systemic failures in the design and implementation of the MCAS system, but because they chose to spend the equivalent of a clean-sheet program on a stock-buyback plan, instead of funding a new airplane. As a result of their actions, 300+ people are dead, and decades of Boeing’s (previously well deserved) reputation are permanently tarnished.
However, I still stand by my practical assertion that, as of right now, from a pure mechanical and systems standpoint, you’re probably as safe, or safer, on a MAX, as you are on any other plane in the sky.
@@smakfu1375 I would hope so, but I'm still extremely concerned after all that.
@@princenoah21 You’re far more likely to die in a car wreck on your way to the airport, than to be involved in any incident with a commercial aircraft. And while the MAX has (as of right now) a relatively terrible record of 3.08 fatal crash rate per million flights, that number is likely to go down dramatically, as it’s still under a million flights total. The MAX’s direct predecessor, the 737NG, is the second safest single isle airliner family, with 0.07 fatal accidents per million flights (with over 100 million flights total), with the Embraer E170/E190 (0.03) in first place. My beloved 320 is in 3rd place (0.09), which is still incredibly safe. When you factor in the sheer number of 737NG’s in service (many thousands), it’s an incredibly safe plane. Even factoring in the MAX crashes in the 737 family as a whole, across 737’s extraordinary 54 year service history, you get 0.24, which is solidly above average safety (better than the DC-9/MD-80 family).
It’s very likely you’ll never see another crash of a MAX attribute to a fault in the plane’s design, given the remediations in place (and extreme scrutiny around said remediation), which I reviewed last night. These include: proper redundancy in sensor inputs and flight computers for MCAS, changes in the behavior of MCAS to allow immediate pitch up override, clear annunciation of the system and any faults in the system, required pilot simulator training in the effects and overriding of MCAS. There’s at least a dozen other related and unrelated changes to the plane, after all the international regulatory review.
Finally, the great tragedy in all this is that the MAX didn’t even need MCAS, there was nothing inherently wrong with the MAX8 or 9’s airframe that required MCAS - it just handles differently, compared to the NG-800 and 900, and MCAS was intended to hide the difference for marketing reasons (and media reports to the contrary are factually incorrect). In fact, this is where the core MAX problem started - MCAS’ core design was as a non critical system that wasn’t required for safe operation of the plane, which is why the original design didn’t have redundant sensor inputs. Had pilots simply been trained properly, and the system been easily defeatable, or had Boeing simply accepted that more pilot training would be required of airlines (and FAA had forced such requirements as a different type) and the whole damn system was deleted, none of this would likely have happened (but any of those options would have made the plane harder to sell versus the 320 Neo, whose more modern design didn’t require wing and engine placement changes to accept the bigger, more efficient, CFM-LEAP engines that are used on both Neo and MAX).
With all that said, I’d fly on a MAX today without much concern (other than it being a miserably cramped experience with insufficient overhead storage). However, you should pick the 320, when possible, because you’ll have better seat pitch, more overhead and underseat storage, bigger restrooms, faster turnaround - but I don’t think, right now, you’re any safer on the 320.
Aku
Hati ingin dibantu siapa yang boleh tolong iu
Bila
Badan saya
Aku