Windowless planes?
 

The 787 Dreamless has windows that can be dimmed all the time. Is this leading to a trend in which there won't be windows at all? Virtual windows at every seat but no actual view out? After all, on a 2-4-2 economy arrangement, only two seats in every ten have a view out.

A major step to make the pax experience even more joyless.

Dimmable windows (though they have to be kept clear for takeoff and landing) are a long way from no windows.

Just look at the stick that airlines like Ryanair get for having just one windowless seat row. :O

Yes, dimmable windows sold to the airlines as a 'maintenance free' solution to those 'pesky plastic' window blinds that passengers keep breaking....And the reality is of course anything but. They do go wrong often failing with a horrible yellow tinge across the whole window assembly and cost a LOT more in both the replacement cost and the man-hours to replace an electrically dimmable window assembly. Hence you haven't seen other aircraft rushing to install them. With regard to windowless airframes, manufacturers and airlines have realized there would be a lot of passenger push back on that plus there's no real advantage as modern composite airframes are very strong and are not affected by having windows.

Is that why largely-composite aircraft like the A350 have bigger windows for greater pax enjoyment? And why surely having dimmable windoes for the A350 would be a retrograde step?

Is there any way to get this thread read in Boeing and Airbus headquarters? Perhaps we could stand outside with posters and placards, shouting 'we want our windows?' We'd probably be mistaken for a pro-Microsoft group.

The A350 and 787 both have noticeably larger windows than earlier aircraft did (and if you want to see truly tiny windows, check out Concorde).
777X - as part of the general fuselage redesign - is also getting larger windows compared to the original 777. As long as aircraft fuselages resemble long tubes, windows won't go away.
Now, if at some future point we move to a blended wing-body type passenger aircraft, then windows become impractical (and will be replaced with some sort of video screens). But baring that, not going to happen.

The windows are actually purely psychological. You can't open them, break them or use them to evacuate. So logically, but not psychologically, they could simply be replaced by displays. However, should electrical supply fail, passengers will become really scared. Also, I'm not sure that there'd be any weight savings. And the things will probably fail more often. So never going to happen !

A hypothetical question. If Concord(e) were to be rebuilt using composite design would this allow larger windows, or would Mach 2+ sustained flight not allow such materials to be considered for the fuselage ?
​​​​​​​

I brought this up yesterday in the other thread, however my comments about windowless aircraft were a little tongue-in-cheek. That said, nothing would surprise me anymore!

Wouldn't that be 2 seats in every 8 ? (pedant mode off)

I think that even the pax sitting in the middle section of widebodies would rather have windows. Enough people already don't like being 'in a tin can'. I place the idea along with single pilot stuff.

Of course, if the pax want to pay as little as possible - that is what they will get offered. Except that, if they did not fit windows - I cannot see ANY financial discount being given to the pax!

Windows historically served a dual purpose:
Enjoy the flight and see which side not to evacuate on.
Holes in a fuselage requires stronger window frames etc etc.
There will surely be weight savings going windowless and using displays and outside cameras.
If you’re talking total electrical failure and RAT deployment you could add some backup batteries every 5-6 rows or something.

Heres a though, pilot doesn’t need to sit upfront anymore.
With fly by wire could be moved to the forward lower cargo hold. Just behind the E&E and nose wheel. 240° vision with cameras, IR also.
Somewhat similar to this.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....54b092aa0.jpeg

Next step, remotely piloted aircraft.

B2N2
At the risk of thread drift, I would suggest that cargo ships maybe the first to go this way though that maybe sometime away. Also after the inevitable collision that also maybe re thought.

Cheers
Mr Mac

Back to no windows.
73 Airconditioning packs have never been great so most airlines on US domestic flights will ask you to close the blinds when you get to the gate.
80-90% of pax do not even bother opening them.
Now for the last 30 years Boeing has been in the business of revamping old designs rather then clean sheet.
As stated before I’d use cameras for window displays, these will be dimmable by the pax and have an FA override.
Pilot(s) down below.

My understanding was the window size on the Concorde was due to depressurization concerns (i.e. a window blowing out).
Given the current regulations regarding that sort of thing, it's pretty hard to imagine any commercial passenger aircraftgetting certified to cruise at 60k or higher. At that sort of altitude, simple oxygen masks are inadequate - you need something to 'force' breathing, and depressurization regulations say you must assume a pretty large hole - much larger than just losing a window.

It was my understanding that the windows were so small as fuel lines were spiraling along the fuselage to cool the fuselage and preheat the fuel.
Can’t find a reference now though.

Thanks gentlemen. Well I suppose any 'hole' in the fuselage at that height and speed would be bad news. Catastrophic depressurisation, blood boiling and so on would ruin everyone's day pretty quickly.

My understanding ... was about the enormous pressure differential and the need to reduce the area experiencing that. Also, I'm guessing, so much was unknown at that time and the limits of materials available.

No firsthand knowledge, but I'd be pretty skeptical of that one. First off, the fuselage walls don't get that hot - it's the total temp that's a concern, not the static temp that the fuselage sidewalls see. The wing leading edges and the aircraft nose are the parts that get hot.
But mainly, the failure modes of running fuel through the fuselage sidewalls would be atrocious (and very, very hard to certify - just running that fuel line from the wings to the tail for tail mounted APUs is cert challenge).

I don't see future passengers accepting windowless aircraft.

With 90% keeping the shades drawn and immersed in PED’s the entire flight I don’t see why not

* maybe clarify, it would be windowless but you’d have a slightly curved display screen showing the outside world from a camera feed.
”Looks outside”