Me too!

Cactus Dronography I think it’s a 900

Cool! You should post some of your videos. Here are some photos I took at MIA. Some were taken from my driveway! I live 7 miles from FLL. photos.app.goo.gl/Wu5SxTTjmp3TXKAv7

As someone who flies all the time, it's more relaxing than scary!

Cockpit Scenes I took this (poor quality) video from my window, landing on EWR runway 29 (6800 ft) in a 747! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/msCJYKRhzavcm5c.html

Can't remember where we were going, but probably somewhere in Florida. Glad you like EWR, but I don't think many people agree with you on that :)

I agree, but I'm older. I'm an RN and would rather use mercury thermometers and sphygmomanometer! lol

The size of the airplane has little to do with the takeoff length or the landing speed. You must have been in the early version of the -900. It was a very flawed aircraft design. They basically just stretched a -800 with the same wing and flap system. It is a much heavier airplane because of the stretch job, so of course it's performance is poor. I hated flying the aircraft. The newer -900 versions like the 900ER were much better with a redesigned flap system and more powerful engines. That was my favorite 737 version to fly. The takeoff run in all 737 models will be long because we always use reduced thrust to save engine life. That means we only use enough takeoff power to just get off the runway using almost the entire length. This is SOP.

The 737 NG uses a lot of runway when heavy. Also, all takeoffs are calculated with reduced thrust. This is a typical takeoff at EWR.

screen height at the end of TODA would be achieved in case of engine failure

@@CockpitScenes yup - heard AS pilot ask for the entire runway in august i was on b6 to orlando and damm he took the entire runway

yeah and newark has long runways

I posted a Newark 747 and 777 takeoff on KZfaq, and they used less runway than the 739!!

all calculated

@@piotrkuler2474way calculated, they do that crap every where

I agree 100%. However, I seem to be in the minority...

Plenty of airlines still use them since these older aircraft are leased throughout the country/world.

@@starlight122012 Which ones though?

@@CraZy291 Iran Air, Alba Wings, Aerolíneas Argentinas, Belavia, Boliviana de Aviación, Canadian North, Jet2.com to name a few. I could list Cargo Carriers that still use them, but I suspect passenger carriers are more relevant

@@starlight122012 Iran Air doesn't even operate 737s, nor does Canadian North the NG. Jet2 has the normal display layout, judging from cockpit photographs. So does Aerolineas (see Mr Fabio on youtube, he flies the 737). So not that many after all...

But the livery is already UNITED

Bryan Liu I mean to be fair it’s continental’s livery with United’s name. The tug is probably just a leftover from EWR being continental’s hub

@@jr13227 gotcha

Continental I think that's the buggy pushing him off says

@@davidreeves8388 It's United, according to the ATC. EWR probably still has some ground equipment though that still uses Continental logos.

Probably around 155kts.

The B739 is an absolute slug. Small wing for the size of that airframe and not the most powerful engines, and the end result is ultra long takeoff rolls at high airspeeds on the regular. Especially on these high load factor Caribbean runs COA/UAL did with them. The high airspeed though gives it outstanding 2nd segment climb performance around sea level at places like Newark. They were absolutely rocketing in the V/S on the EWR2 loop. A lot of the B739ERs elect to use the full length of 22R with a de-rate.

@@ELcinegatto87 The B739 was a terrible airplane. Beside the long takeoff run, the approach speed was crazy fast - usually just below max flap speed. The scariest takeoff I ever made was LAS-EWR in 100+ temp and a full load of PAX. We had to takeoff east. If I had lost an engine, I don't think we would have made it. It was also the hardest 737 to land well. The 900ER was a totally different animal. It was actually my favorite 737 after the -700. TO and landing speeds were much lower, and it was very easy to make great landings. I can't overstate how different it flew from the regular 900.

@@CockpitScenes Interesting facts, it is so cool to learn them from a pilot.

Wow thats amazing. How you know all that?

I didn't understand that last part, but yes, you could reject at the V1 point.

Yes, Army - Vietnam.

Yeah it is.

It's in the video description.

@@the_listamin Thank you, i see it now

I don't remember, but it is the departure for RW 22R going south.

EWR 8 now

Cockpit Scenes interesting. So are all the 737 at your airline set up that way?

Must be an older video. Displays can be changed via a software upload.

For clarification, my understanding is that the displays were set up like this because the airline was still operating “classic” 737’s, 300, 500, etc. Once all of the older aircraft were retired, the displays would be switched back to the full “ng” mode.

@@Spyke-lz2hl Correct.

SOP

United/Continental

Boeing 737-800

@@CockpitScenes United

At least 10 yrs ago.

@@ELcinegatto87 Definitely not. All planes painted for United with the globe livery would have been painted for Continental Airlines.

ecoRfan Continental tug at 1:46

The 727 is worse...

@@CockpitScenes I’m sure you’re right! I haven’t been on a 727 in a long long time. I remember taking off from JFK in a 707-320 (I’m 65), and I thought it would never leave the ground.

The derated thrust they’re using (89.9% N1) poses less ware on the engines while requiring more runway for takeoff roll... the heavier aircraft could be utilizing less of a derate and therefore more thrust.

@@wotan10950 They were even bigger ground hogs when they had the early pure jets with water injection in the late 50s/early 60s. AAL and PAA had em. Some great photos of those early 707s in the late 50s with the short tail blowing tons of jet black smoke on the climb out with the water injection turned on still stuck in ground effect. The addition of the fan was a huge boost in thrust but it wasn't ready at the time of the 707 launch. Jet technology moved fast in those days. GE elected to put the fan on the rear of their engine for the Convair Coronados. They used to cruise around a .92-.94 mach and do LAX-JFK in around 4 flat with a nice big tailwind.

Standard 737NG displays set up for round dials - still the best to use. New is not always better...

@@CockpitScenes Thanks! I see them very rarely.

If I'm not not mistaken, that PFD option for 737 NG was not a very popular one, but for US-based airlines were only used by Continental *and then United because of the similarity between 737 classics that they had. Now no more "round dials" PFD option planes are left in the UAL fleet

@@DmitriyKopylenko I think SW might have used it for a while also. I also heard they could not use VNAV descent because of the large classic fleet. I think the analog display is superior because it gives you so much more useful information. You look at dial positions rather than having to read and interpret numbers. The problem is that the young kids never developed a proper scan.

@@CockpitScenes Ahh, thanks for the clarification about SWA. As a "sim pilot", I also prefer round dials representation 😀

This video is only a departure from EWR. Can't remember the destination. You can guess the airline.