h a l f b a k e r y
Number one on the no-fly list
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
| Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Some of the newer airliners come from the builder with integrated seat-back video. Some air carriers are fitting these same aircraft with external cameras (Emirates may have been the first) so that every person on board can have a "window seat".
Yet the manufacturer still carves a series of holes
in the side of the fuselage, which weakens the structure; then puts in a substantially heavier piece of plastic. Great effort is then expended to assure that it doesn't leak or fall out. Finally, another piece of plastic is fitted so that the passenger adjacent to the window can veto the idea.
So - don't cut the hole. Don't put in the window, or the shade. Save the money. The plane is now safer, lighter, less expensive, more fuel efficient... and my "window seat" can give me a view from the FRONT. (or the bottom. Or either side...)
the best place on an airliner to have a window...
http://www.sasfligh...toilet/Dscn0054.jpg
[mihali, Sep 25 2002, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Short name, e.g., Bob's Coffee
Destination URL.
E.g., http://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
But . . . but . . . you couldn't wave out the window. |
|
| |
<Responding to now vanished [Mephista] anno on making the entire airplane from glass, re [UB]'s "Glass House">
So do you mean that, from a distance, my plane would look like a pair of wings being led through the air by a pair of potties, with a batch of seated people behind?
</Response> |
|
| |
Lurch: I was thinking more like a dotted outline, like Wonder Woman's jet.. |
|
| |
[bris] - at the risk of me seeming a hypocephalic damfool - <puzzled>huh?</puzle> |
|
| |
You've probably never seen a crackpipe. They're all glass and perhaps a little aeronautical in appearance, if you squint. Okay, so it was very weak. |
|
| |
You could take off from the' See- through runway ' |
|
| |
[bris] - <hand cranked neuron sputters to life, belching clouds of smoke> Thanks, I'm on track now, sorry for the delay. From posts I had seen on other sites, I feared the Airbus word might invite flaming... I think I'll go hide while our EU friends come on line. |
|
| |
<Responding to now-vanished [blissmiss] anno on obsolescence of business suits for female air travelers> |
|
| |
[bliss] - the airlines wouldn't miss the chance for an advert - just be sure to be seated over the logo. |
|
| |
</Responding - p.s., you're missed, [bliss]...> |
|
| |
[But . . . but . . . you couldn't wave out the window.] |
|
| |
Why not make the external skin of the aeroplane out of some form of plasma screen display. This would let you project any images you like on the outside. Give everyone on the inside a camera; they could then wave at it and have the image displayed on the outside. |
|
| |
Airlines could save a lot of money by just simulating the entire flight while in reality the passengers are riding a bus. |
|
| |
I've seen a couple of passenger planes from Cuba without windows, however, I doubt it was done for the reasons above. |
|
| |
//Airlines could save a lot of money by just simulating the entire flight while in reality the passengers are riding a bus.// |
|
| |
Begin the simulation at the "airport" and passengers could in many cases reach their destinations as quickly as by boarding an aircraft. |
|
| |
[D-R] - That would be great for airlines doing code-sharing, too... |
|
| |
I just read somewhere that the drive/ride time actually favors driving for distances under 500 miles. For overseas, however, I think you will have to simulate a lot of holding pattern. |
|
| |
Didn't UPS convert some of their cargo planes to passenger config for weekends, OUAT? |
|
| |
I like this - it would give airlines a lot more flexibility about how they arrange seats inside the aeroplane. Also, if they can't see out, passengers are less likely to be opposed to sitting in rear-facing seats (which are safer in the event of a crash). |
|
| |
//Also, if they can't see out, passengers are less likely to be opposed to sitting in rear-facing seats (which are safer in the event of a crash).// |
|
| |
During takeoff and ascent, rear-facing seats are very uncomfortable. If the entire seats (not just the backs) were constructed so as to recline it might not be so bad, but put 3" blocks under the rear legs of a chair and tell me if you'd like to sit in that for an hour. |
|
| |
In a plane crash, I would have thought safety is relative - Its either minor, and no-one is bady hurt, or its not minor and there are few survivors. |
|
| |
How about window shaped LCD screens instead of windows, cameras mounted on the outside of the aircraft show the usual taxiing and take off. After takeoff, when the aircraft is above the clouds computer control lengthens or shortens the day/night cycle, ensuring that the right time of day/weather etc are displayed on the screens during approach and landing at the end of the flight thus reducing the effects of jet lag. |
|
| |
This is a great idea! But I also like what DenholmRicshaw said. |
|
| |
//Give everyone on the inside a camera; they could then wave at it and have the image displayed on the outside.// |
|
| |
For an extra fee, they could show you "outside the aircraft" video from a flight to someplace more interesting than where you're really going. |
|
| |
Assuming reliable display systems, great idea; the cockpit could be similarly reinforced. Are there any structurally adequate materials that can change opacity when subjected to a particular light wavelength, a la sun-darkened eyeglasses? If so, one could make windows in various spots just by projecting infrared shapes on the wall, &c. |
|
| |
This is one of the reasons "Blended-Wing-Body" aircraft haven't been developed and built yet. It's not a question of technology, but a question of what the passengers want. The airlines don't seem to think the passengers want a windowless plane, and they certainly won't buy a plane that they don't think they can fill. |
|
| |
but a big part of fear of flying is the claustrophobia you get when that big door closes. no windows would make it even worse. although a camera showing what the pilots see out of their window would maybe alleviate it and also give you the illusion that you are in some control. like a backseat driver. does anyone else feel they have to stay awake during a flight to make sure the plane stays up? |
|
| |
[misare] - not true, humans well restrained can survive very significant crashes and there are very few crashes that kill all passengers no matter how servere. |
|
| |
I don't know... Windows can give passenger sunlight if it is needed... If the plane use only lightbulb, passenger might get irritated... Also, windows might make the airplane lighter, and therfore can carry more passengers... |
|
| |
don't they make you open the window shades during take off and landing for safety reasons? |
|
| |
[Simon7788] windows actually make the plane heavier. If they had a suitable backup lighting system then you wouldn't need the shades up at landing. |
|
| |
[PiledHigherandDeeper] I don't know if what you said is ture about windows making it heavier (since I think that they uses light material than normal glass windows)... but doesn't windows also prevent any crack porpagation due to fatigue and pressure? |
|
| |
I thought this was part of the Boeing flying wing design. |
|
| |
The aircraft manufacturers might use material that's lighter than standard window glass, but the whole assembly is most definitely heavier than the little slab of aluminum that it replaces. Add to that the extra reinforcing that's needed around the window to prevent cracks from forming and propagating (remember, the fuselage skin is a structural member), and windows are definitely a big weight penalty. There's a reason the cargo airlines don't put windows on their planes, and it's got nothing to do with the cargo not being able to see. |
|
| |
If the windows were in fact lighter and stronger than what they replaced, we'd see airplanes with many more, possibly bigger windows. The 7E7 is slated to have bigger windows than any previous model. |
|
| |
Even with seat-back video, I still wouldn't want to fly in a plane with no windows. |
|
| |
Windows don't inhibit crack propogation, but the frames supporting them do. Any hole in the pressurised fuselage has to be strengthened significantly (even if the window material happened to be lighter). The frames around doors were tough as old boots once apon a time (with weight penalty to match), but now they use truss framework to reduce the weight without reducing the strength (updated design principles, not materials). Have a look in a book like "Airframe Structural Design" by Niu to see how complicated (and heavy) a cabin window is. |
|
| |
I don't know about this one. If I was on an 18 hour flight, I would get awful tired of the same scenery over and over again. Then again, the four hours over the ocean wouldn't be much better. Then again, if I was ever on an 18 hour flight, I doubt the windows would be enough to keep me happy anyways. I think the jet-jag reduction that [Micky Dread] mentioned is a very good idea. With computers as advanced as they are today, you could easily fool passengers into believing they are looking at real scenery. + |
|
| |
Fish for not understanding aircraft structural design. Windows don't weaken anything. Double fish for not grasping the real beauty of flying. |
|
| |
[zigness] have you read any of the annotations that clearly explain why windows do make the plane heavier - fish to you for being obtuse |
|
| |
But they didn't have video screens then. I'd feel much better about having legroom on an airplane, but this is clearly not a design consideration. Put a few windows in 1st class for the people who feel they need them. |
|
| |
I appreciate your quality-driven attitude toward design. I like my window. But our current market is driven toward cost minimization. They've already taken all of the legroom they can. Every time I fly they have managed to book every seat. They are in the process of removing food service from all but long flights. Give the market another decade and I bet you'll see an economy airline ask Boeing for a windowless airplane, both for cost of manufacture and fuel. |
|
| |
So can we agree that the answer is "it depends", mainly on how much not putting in windows saves? If it's a few cents a flight, nobody's going to care. If it's even $20 a flight, people will. |
|
| |
Windows:
a) Increase weight (to simply keep the same strength)
b) Complicate the structure
c) Increase drag (and fuel comsumption)
d) Sometimes crashes and rewards you with a blue screen (Or was that a different Windows?)
Ban windows! Eliminate windows! Just sedate the passengers so they sleep the flight off, they will not care about looking outside while sleeping.
Like it. Bun. |
|
| |