Airframes
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Dallas
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twas back in the day when IFE consisted of one large screen for the entire cabin to watch movies. Had travelled half way round the world to find myself at thirty plus thousand feet on a gin clear day over the Grand Canyon when along comes a CC demanding the window shade be pulled down in order to show some B grade Hollywood trash. Was appalled that everyone seemed to prefer the trash to the magical vista to be seen outside. Why the heck didn't Boeing put a window at row seven, or there abouts, on the 738 LHS. Had it a few times and not a happy traveller.
I almost always get annoyed stares from pax sitting next to me.
Same on trains in the UK.
I use "X country" trains from Bournemouth to the Midlands now and then, and the windows cover two rows of seats. I like to have a South side seat (with the sun) passing Southampton docks to see the shipping, and usually the other row sharing the window wants the blind down so they can see their screen.
Bloody annoying!
When flying as pax I also want to see the great outside.
Went to Florida with the kids a few years ago, and booked RH window seats for the outward journey to give the youngsters a geography lesson all the way down the East coast of North America.
How are you going to do that without windows?
I use "X country" trains from Bournemouth to the Midlands now and then, and the windows cover two rows of seats. I like to have a South side seat (with the sun) passing Southampton docks to see the shipping, and usually the other row sharing the window wants the blind down so they can see their screen.
Bloody annoying!
When flying as pax I also want to see the great outside.
Went to Florida with the kids a few years ago, and booked RH window seats for the outward journey to give the youngsters a geography lesson all the way down the East coast of North America.
How are you going to do that without windows?
Pan/scan isn't an issue with an all-round camera and some software - think Google Maps/Street View.
Maybe if we gave all the passengers one of those F-35 helmets - of course so much for any cost/weight savings.
Window sizes have grown since his book was written, so the weight penalty for newer aircraft will be a bit higher than that.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
25% of what? Because I can guarantee it wasn't airframe weight, or even fuselage weight...
The window assembly, associated reinforcement, and extra strength for each member, vs a thin layer of aluminum?
How can you guarantee it is not 25%? Did you read the Airbus information?
How are you going to do that without windows?
Airbus also patented the pilot in the cargo holds, aviating by screens and cameras. Likely a much better view than the current windscreens, an probaly much more roomier flightdeck.
One uses screens in the sim, so what is the big deal?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: back of beyond
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're the one who said "The problem with view screens is unless you give every passenger their own camera ....."
I'm just pointing out that the technology exiats.
As for me, I think the idea is ghastly - I always take a window seat. But I don't think the beancounters (or Mr. O'Leary) will take that into account if it is ever offered as an option. Hell, they'll probably put it on pay-per view.
How can you guarantee it is not 25%? Did you read the Airbus information?
Boeing has been building jetliners for 60 years without windows (except for the flight deck and exit portals) - KC-135, 747F, 757F, 767F, 777F. Their fuselage structure is optimized for the lack of windows. Yes, it saves, weight, but the number is small single digits (the previous post quoting 200kg for 150 seater is ballpark). Once you add in a couple large view screens for each row, plus cameras, associated wiring and controls, it's probably close to a push.
Last edited by tdracer; 24th Oct 2017 at 00:30.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing has been building jetliners for 60 years without windows (except for the flight deck and exit portals) - KC-135, 747F, 757F, 767F, 777F
Now going back, I did say saving 25% on the fuselage structure? Thinner elements, no bracing and no windows? Not to mention ease of construction...
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
thanks for that link!
The formula and calculations they give amount to about a 28% weight savings in the fuselage structure, including the windows vs screens
As already cited, a mass reduction in any system of the airplane implies lower fuel consumption. Than the total weight is even lower and, for example, lighter landing gear could be sufficient to carry the plane weight. This process could improve weight savings of about 25%.
TD, now about your guarantee.....
thanks for that link!
The formula and calculations they give amount to about a 28% weight savings in the fuselage structure, including the windows vs screens
As already cited, a mass reduction in any system of the airplane implies lower fuel consumption. Than the total weight is even lower and, for example, lighter landing gear could be sufficient to carry the plane weight. This process could improve weight savings of about 25%.
TD, now about your guarantee.....
The only non-window-related weight considered in the formulas above is the weight of the skin itself. (In the paper, the formula for skin weight is the formula for the surface area of a cylinder times skin thickness times density.) So the paper is really saying that the weight of a skin without windows is 25% less than that of a skin with windows. It doesn't take into account frames, bulkheads, or anything else that makes up a fuselage.
There are probably some structural savings that the paper doesn't take into account. But the total savings can't be anything like 25% of the weight of the fuselage as a whole. I don't think TD's going to be called to make good on his guarantee.
There are probably some structural savings that the paper doesn't take into account. But the total savings can't be anything like 25% of the weight of the fuselage as a whole. I don't think TD's going to be called to make good on his guarantee.
Thread Starter
I recently travelled on an A-380 ,not a window seat.I may as well have been on a coach travelling through a long tunnel for 12 hours!So except for those next to a window the majority do not see a thing so get rid of them I say !If weight reduction and strength are improved then it has to be a good thing.I also flew many times facing the rear and it never bothered me!!
TD, now about your guarantee.....
Still stands - 25% skin weight is no where near 25% fuselage weight.
Oh, and did you take a gander at their "small scale validation model"? Validating a structural design change with a 3d printed chunk of plastic?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still stands - 25% skin weight is no where near 25% fuselage weight.
So the paper is really saying that the weight of a skin without windows is 25% less than that of a skin with windows. It doesn't take into account frames, bulkheads, or anything else that makes up a fuselage.
What exactly do you think Window metal frame and near hole reinforcement are? Structural elements perhaps?
Perhaps if you READ the article, you will comprehend where the 25% comes from, or you could continue to blindly argue your point when provided with facts to the contrary.
What exactly do you think Window metal frame and near hole reinforcement are? Structural elements perhaps?
The formula you so proudly point at doesn't account for all that other stuff, except in a secondary manner (yes, lighter skin means some of the other structure gets lighter, but not by 25%). While the aircraft skin is a structural element - it's not the primary structure.
Two good reasons to have windows is from a safety point duriing an evacuation in daylight hours, in the even of no electrical power, as I think was the case in the A320 landing in the Hudson river, it is alot easier to evacuate and for the crew to check the aircraft, Secondly, it is easier for fire and rescue crew to locate fire and people, that is why the blinds are in the up poistion for take off and landing.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The formula you so proudly point at doesn't account for all that other stuff, except in a secondary manner (yes, lighter skin means some of the other structure gets lighter, but not by 25%)
Note: the weight of the windowless fuselage vs the weight of the fuselage without windows.
What is your experience in the structural design of an aircraft fuselage?
Have you designed the structural components of a wing? of a winglet?
keep trying to defend your postion, it is rather amusing watching you flail on the hot pavement.
Isn't another reason so that rescue crews can see in from the outside?
Moderator
Might we maintain our cool a bit, chaps ? Play the ball and not the player ?
Although I don't know him, I suspect that tdracer actually is very well placed to make the comments above ....
Although I don't know him, I suspect that tdracer actually is very well placed to make the comments above ....