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

Airframes

Old 20th Oct 2017, 11:32
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Thailand
Age: 76
Posts: 492
Question Airframes

Looking at an airframe would it be any cheaper to build if you built without windows?After all except for those next to the windows theres not a lot to see after you reach cruising height!!With all the entertainment channels could not an external cam show what was going on,if anything.
oldpax is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2017, 12:39
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,165
THe C5 Galaxy has a 75 seat passenger cabin without windows. Windows are expensive and heavy luxury the USAF decided its non-paying passengers could live without.
Mechta is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2017, 16:42
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mordor
Posts: 276
The recent trend is actually opposite - newer airplanes, like the 787/350 tend to have larger windows than the older designs
Sidestick_n_Rudder is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2017, 16:42
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 932
I always get a window seat when in the back - get claustrophobic otherwise (plus I enjoy the scenery). Glad I never had the "opportunity" to experience the C5's "flying movie theater." Talk about "self-loading freight!"

http://www.theaviationzone.com/image...-bin/mn_14.jpg

Build one without windows - and I'll fly with somebody else.
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2017, 17:53
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 902
Take the windows out, and I don't want to fly!

Part of the journey is experiencing the magic of being 6 miles up.
Simple!
WindSheer is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2017, 18:17
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 68
Posts: 399
Take the windows out, and I don't want to fly!
Totally agree, would be -very- breezy on the way up then a bit hard to breathe

This comes under the general category of consumer resistance, a related example is that having passengers face the rear would increase safety, whether train, airplane or automobile but simply will not happen.
MurphyWasRight is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2017, 21:29
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ft. Collins, Colorado USA
Age: 85
Posts: 168
Many moons ago BOAC wet leased a Seaboard and Western L-1049D Connie for service to Bermuda from KIDL. Being a convertible cargo-pax aircraft the interior was Spartan. BOAC had not noticed there were only about five window to each side behind the curtains but the passengers did. To continue the lease BOAC required S&W to get an L-1049E-01 which they did from Cubana. It was converted in stages to an all coach configuration.
After a spell sitting atop a gasoline station for some years it has ended up at Dover AFB masquerading as a C-121 in their museum.
Windows do count.
tonytales is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2017, 21:51
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,102
These days, everyone is so interested in the movies on their iPads, that they close the screens for 99% of the flight anyhow. Fewer/no windows would certainly make for a lighter & stronger fuselage. A series of OLED screens showing the view out the sides may be cheaper, lighter, and easy to implement.

OTOH, there would need to be SOME windows for the flight attendants to look for fire, etc during emergencies. Those in exit rows may be the ones privileged with windows...
Intruder is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2017, 21:51
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,271
I've done a number of flight tests where I was sitting in the belly of a freighter with no windows (747-8F and 767-2C). It's horrible - especially takeoff and landing where you feel the motions but have no outside references.
I'd never pay to fly in something without windows.
tdracer is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 01:11
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,698
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.
megan is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 02:01
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,271
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.
Not sure about the 737, but I know that on the 767 there are a few rows without windows because that's where the ECS ducts move air to the overhead vents.
tdracer is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 02:27
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,698
Thanks td, just had a look and its the same on the 73.
megan is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 10:56
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Cumbria
Posts: 228
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.
Homsap is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 13:08
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: On the beach with a cerveza.
Posts: 1,135
The desire for windows is a bit overblown - if you sit in the middle in first class or business class on something like EK then you cant see the windows at all as the seat structure is built up around you with the express intent of giving you more privacy.

You could always replace the windows with lcd screens and show a picture of the world outside....
Jet II is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2017, 17:55
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Lossy city
Posts: 45
Originally Posted by Homsap View Post
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.
Blinds ain't got to be up for any reason in the good ole US of A.

The 787 is a horror when it comes to windows since the FA's can now lock the windows into "dark" mode, at least they usually don't do that until cruise though.
triploss is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2017, 00:14
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Denver,Co USA
Age: 72
Posts: 329
I've spent plenty of time in the back of various KC 135, C 141, C130, and C5s. Never thought much about the lack of Windows, but I definitely prefer having them and leave the shades up.
Rick777 is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2017, 00:52
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 54
Posts: 36
I seem to remember that Airbus showed a design at the Paris Airshow with no windows, and had screens mounted where the windows would normally be. The screens showed the outside view from cameras mounted on the airframe.



Without the weight of the windows, and the reinforcement required around the openings, I think it was about a 25% weight difference, and was actually much stronger.
underfire is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2017, 04:41
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,271
I think it was about a 25% weight difference
25% of what? Because I can guarantee it wasn't airframe weight, or even fuselage weight...
The problem with view screens is unless you give every passenger their own camera that they can pan/scan, it's not going to be even remotely the same - you'll be looking at the camera view, which probably won't be the view of interest.
It's not as important at night (although I've seen some pretty cool stuff at night as well) but some of the most spectacular scenery I've ever seen has been out the window of an aircraft (and I used to go backpacking in the Rocky Mountains - in large part for the views). If I'm paying for the ticket, I'm not willing to give that up...
tdracer is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2017, 07:32
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: back of beyond
Posts: 93
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
The problem with view screens is unless you give every passenger their own camera that they can pan/scan, it's not going to be even remotely the same - you'll be looking at the camera view, which probably won't be the view of interest.

Pan/scan isn't an issue with an all-round camera and some software - think Google Maps/Street View.


Come to think of it, with Google Maps you don't even need the camera!
fizz57 is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2017, 08:39
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,300
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
25% of what? Because I can guarantee it wasn't airframe weight, or even fuselage weight...
In Jan Roskam's classic 1985 "Airplane Design" he quotes a formula, based on number of seats and max diff, for the weight difference between windows and windowless.

For a 150-seat aircraft, this comes out at around 200 kg.

Window sizes have grown since his book was written, so the weight penalty for newer aircraft will be a bit higher than that.
DaveReidUK is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.