Why did Boeing get rid of top cockpit windows in the 737?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 860
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
European pilots, at least, wouldn't know a circling approach if it ran over them
I have done quite a few, BHX being one
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iflytb20:
The 707 had a tube in the aft ceiling of the cockpit that could be opened and have a sextant inserted.
IIRC they were used in the 707/727 days for taking star sights. Since the 737 shares the same fuselage, the eyebrow windows got carried forward.
Folks,
The real answer is really quite simple --- the forward fuselage of the KC-135, B707, B727 and (at least) early B737 were common, (and the eyebrow windows were a Mil Spec. requirement) all out of the same jigs.
There was never a FAR 25 requirement for the eyebrow windows - that was an excuse for an answer from somebody who didn't know, but would not admit they didn't know.
Source - Boeing in briefings in Seattle.
Said eyebrow windows in a B707 were not used by navigators, the aircraft had a port for a periscopic sextant. The most common one, apparently widely used by both military and civil operators, was made by Kollsman. Even at piston speed, the hand held sextants (still bubble) did not produce easy results.
Unlike competent navigators, some of my efforts at doing a star fix produced results that excited much mirth from the rest of the crew.
http://www.prc68.com/I/S5807.shtml
The real answer is really quite simple --- the forward fuselage of the KC-135, B707, B727 and (at least) early B737 were common, (and the eyebrow windows were a Mil Spec. requirement) all out of the same jigs.
There was never a FAR 25 requirement for the eyebrow windows - that was an excuse for an answer from somebody who didn't know, but would not admit they didn't know.
Source - Boeing in briefings in Seattle.
Said eyebrow windows in a B707 were not used by navigators, the aircraft had a port for a periscopic sextant. The most common one, apparently widely used by both military and civil operators, was made by Kollsman. Even at piston speed, the hand held sextants (still bubble) did not produce easy results.
Unlike competent navigators, some of my efforts at doing a star fix produced results that excited much mirth from the rest of the crew.
http://www.prc68.com/I/S5807.shtml
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ledsled
The real answer is really quite simple --- the forward fuselage of the KC-135, B707, B727 and (at least) early B737 were common, (and the eyebrow windows were a Mil Spec. requirement) all out of the same jigs.
The real answer is really quite simple --- the forward fuselage of the KC-135, B707, B727 and (at least) early B737 were common, (and the eyebrow windows were a Mil Spec. requirement) all out of the same jigs.
I don't buy the idea that they were for visual manoevering, because some twit made them curved to fit the fuselage. So they are lenses, and therefore impossible for doing visuals.
When I first jumped into a 737 I thought they would be great. But as soon as I looked out through 4 & 5 the airfield disappeared into the distant horizon. Utterly impossible to do visuals with them.
Thing that gets me, is that a team of skilled artisans have been diligently making these complex windows for 50 years, and nobody has ever used them. They would have had more productive lives on a pension, sunning themselves on a Hawaiian beach.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would a curved window have to be a lens? There are more than enough airliners flying around with curved windows, like the 747, 787 to name some boeing variants.
I found the eyebrow windows quite helpful when doing a visual to the opposite side. Granted, the field of view wasn't great, but it was better than without them. Always wondered how boeing could get away with so tiny main windows in the first place.
I found the eyebrow windows quite helpful when doing a visual to the opposite side. Granted, the field of view wasn't great, but it was better than without them. Always wondered how boeing could get away with so tiny main windows in the first place.
Originally Posted by Silverstrata
and therefore impossible for doing visuals.
Agree, they are very useful, if you are on the 'high side' looking into the turn maneuvering to final you couldn't ask for more.
It is a very limited application but useful nonetheless, rest of the time they were a pain !!
It is a very limited application but useful nonetheless, rest of the time they were a pain !!
I'll chime in to add that I too found them helpful when conducting visual approaches, especially those with a close in turn to finals and the runway was out the other pilots side.
When our 737-300s had theirs removed, they replaced them with just an uninsulated blank. So if you had a reasonable time in the cruise it was akin to having an open freezer just above your head. In the end they required more paper stuffed up them than the original windows!
When our 737-300s had theirs removed, they replaced them with just an uninsulated blank. So if you had a reasonable time in the cruise it was akin to having an open freezer just above your head. In the end they required more paper stuffed up them than the original windows!
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sextants versus sextants
But these [Tamaya etc.] are maritime sextants. Useless on an aircraft.
Aircraft sextant are not in production anymore, anywhere. All there is are leftovers from WWII and into the '60s.
Aircraft sextant are not in production anymore, anywhere. All there is are leftovers from WWII and into the '60s.
Sunglasses ... I found these essential when above cloud, even though FL120 was my lot as both machine and driver were normally aspirated. My problem was the glare reflected upwards from the cloud as well as the direct rays. I wouldn't go without my trusty pair of polarised which filter out all but horizontal rays.
Many years later I found that UV rays can cause cataracts, when the eye lens becomes clouded and hardens. UV radiation is more intense at altitude and like X-rays has a totaliser effect: the exposure clock goes on ticking once you start, and you can't wind it back.
Today I have a nice pair of plastic lens implants as well as sundry other replacement parts, but I suggest the original components are better. Of course I'm only telling you what I myself was told about such things over half a century ago, but paid little heed
Many years later I found that UV rays can cause cataracts, when the eye lens becomes clouded and hardens. UV radiation is more intense at altitude and like X-rays has a totaliser effect: the exposure clock goes on ticking once you start, and you can't wind it back.
Today I have a nice pair of plastic lens implants as well as sundry other replacement parts, but I suggest the original components are better. Of course I'm only telling you what I myself was told about such things over half a century ago, but paid little heed
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew quite a long time without sunglasses, but as i grew older i noticed that i could cope less and less with the glare, especially in or close to clouds. So i second that opinion. However, polarized glasses are a very bad idea in a glass cockpit airplane, better check them out before finding out that all those nice screens are now black, or only half of them show anything useful.
And of course a regular yearly check at your friendly ophthalmologist is not a bad idea either.
And of course a regular yearly check at your friendly ophthalmologist is not a bad idea either.
Quite so, Denti, I found that my scrip polarising glasses pretty well block digital display in my cars. There were no glass cockpits in my flying days, my No 2 TX/nav still had valves!
The 1970 issue Service flying helmet had a tinted visor with a clear section across its base so the user could see instruments etc. It might be possible to order a similar design in glasses, like bifocals.
The annual C of A with your optician is really essential as you say. He/she can often spot something going wrong as the birthdays fly by at mach 2
The 1970 issue Service flying helmet had a tinted visor with a clear section across its base so the user could see instruments etc. It might be possible to order a similar design in glasses, like bifocals.
The annual C of A with your optician is really essential as you say. He/she can often spot something going wrong as the birthdays fly by at mach 2
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As below MDA says, the straight blanks were a pain. They got very cold in the cruise and developed a layer of ice crystals from exhaled water vapour.
This would then melt in the descent and the now liquid water would drip with laser like accuracy into the crotch. A walk through the terminal a little later with a wet crotch was always a great end to the day
This would then melt in the descent and the now liquid water would drip with laser like accuracy into the crotch. A walk through the terminal a little later with a wet crotch was always a great end to the day
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reeeeallly ??? a curved window is a lens and useless????. There's probably only been a very few automobiles models manufactured during your lifetime which *didn't* have curved windshields (The VW Beetle and the Jeep CJ series are the only ones I can think of off the top of my hear) So, chances are good that at some point you have driven a car with a curved window. Did you roll down your window and stick your head out while driving to avoid the lens distortion?
The more highly curved windshields of aircraft are a bit of a problem.
On the Learjet, the windshield has a strong curve, and no wipers, simply relying on airflow and coating to keep the view clear. At night even in clear weather you get a very disconcerting effect of the real runway lights and an angled reflected image. In heavy rain and not aligned with the runway it's a real bugger.
On the Learjet, the windshield has a strong curve, and no wipers, simply relying on airflow and coating to keep the view clear. At night even in clear weather you get a very disconcerting effect of the real runway lights and an angled reflected image. In heavy rain and not aligned with the runway it's a real bugger.
Speaking of curvature, I have two pairs of glasses with progressive lenses.
One pair is curved, slightly wrap around style which is fine during daytime but I find the runway and approach lights distorted at night, particularly if they are very bright.
The other pair have relatively flat lenses and have hardly any distortion at all.
One pair is curved, slightly wrap around style which is fine during daytime but I find the runway and approach lights distorted at night, particularly if they are very bright.
The other pair have relatively flat lenses and have hardly any distortion at all.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, polarized glasses are a very bad idea in a glass cockpit airplane, better check them out before finding out that all those nice screens are now black, or only half of them show anything useful.
