Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Airframes

Old 25th Oct 2017, 23:11
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,058
Received 28 Likes on 22 Posts
Underfire,

I think the disagreement is about math, not engineering. No one's disputing that removing the windows makes the skin 25% lighter. And I think we agree that the weight of rest of the fuselage structure is static, or even decreases slightly without windows. But if the skin is 20%, or even 50%, of the fuselage weight, making the skin 25% lighter doesn't make the fuselage 25% lighter.

(I think you agree that even without the windows, a fuselage still has to have things like stringers and bulkheads. None of those go into the 1560 KG in the second formula.)
Chu Chu is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2017, 23:37
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 68
Posts: 4,357
Received 157 Likes on 75 Posts
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
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 ....
It's OK John, underfire just earned his way onto my ignore list. I guess 39+ years experience in aircraft and aircraft system engineering design just doesn't carry weight with some people.
tdracer is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 07:25
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,787
Received 196 Likes on 90 Posts
OK, some actual numbers:

The paper is based on the centre section of an A320 fuselage. Assuming that corresponds to the production joins, it's 5.98 m in length. The O/D of the fuselage is 3.95 m. So, assuming a generous skin thickness of 1.6 mm, the total volume of material is approximately 0.118 cu m.

Assuming around 2,700 kg/cu m for aluminium alloy, that gives a total skin weight for the centre section of 320 kg. For the entire 36.6 m fuselage, skin weight would be around 2,000 kg (the figure in the paper is 2155.4 kg, so we won't argue with that).

So clearly the numbers quoted in the paper for "weight of windowless/traditional fuselage" are the skin weight.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 10:35
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West of Offa's dyke
Age: 88
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is pretty clear from the article being criticised that the weight gains quoted are their estimate of the savings in their estimate of the skin weight based on their understanding of the static design loads on a typical central section of an A320 fuselage.
It is pointless to talk of percentage gains in fuselage weight when the baseline used is just a fraction of the total fuselage structural weight. Typically, fuselage structural weights lie in the range 21 to 23% of the aircraft empty weight. For an A320, that is a lot more than the 2155 kg quoted, so to talk of a 25% reduction in fuselage weight is a nonsense.
More to the point is that almost none of a typical transport fuselage is designed by the static loads. Depending on what part of the fuselage you are discussing, manufacturing (minimum gauge) limits, fatigue, damage tolerance and crashworthiness considerations dominate. Any actual weight gain will be the difference between the windowed design and the windowless weight that meets these more severe criteria, not the theoretical weight that satisfies the static load condition.
Nobody is disputing that removing the windows would save weight, although I am with tdracer in doubting whether it would be anything like the number claimed, neither would one suggest there was any real technical risk, but the commercial risks would be very large.
I'm not holding my breath waiting for an announcement that the next design to surface will be windowless!
Owain Glyndwr is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 21:08
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not opaque

Originally Posted by dixi188
As I understand it then, the 787 has bigger windows to see the world through, but the cabin crew can turn the windows off so you can't see through them?
No, the 787 windows, even when darkened to the max, still let light pass thru, allowing the pax to see the outside world in all its glory. Really a brilliant system.
EMIT is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 22:59
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 534
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fascinating discussion.

Perhaps more important is not the presence of Windows, but the shape of the hole they occupy? Especially the corners? Or the strength of the skin above? (deHavilland, Boeing).

Adios Comet, Aloha, Aloha.
Concours77 is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 23:02
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Age: 56
Posts: 945
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by underfire
Did you look at the formula?



Did you look at the formula?

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.
Read the article, total weight savings 750kg. According to the formula total airframe weight with windows 3000kg.
Empty weight around 40.000kg. Very heavy wings, engines and landing gear........
hans brinker is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2017, 23:42
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 534
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Removing Windows is a money saver, yep. But along with the glass and pertinent structure, a line could also remove all but perhaps twenty five seats; these for the remaining people who would purchase fares from this "lighter" line?
Concours77 is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2017, 06:35
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,882
Received 362 Likes on 192 Posts
Two days ago embarked on a 12.5 hour flight, midnight departure, about five minutes after take off CC came around asking for the shades to be closed, very politely, but with a measure of insistence. Asked why, it's so pax are not disturbed by the aircrafts external lighting, or raising/setting sun. Entirely new one on me.
megan is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.