h a l f b a k e r yWhy did I think of that?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
login
|
|
|
If you didn't like planes without wheels, you are gonna hate this one. My parents both worked in aircraft design. They had a model of the Comet on their wedding cake. This was my Dad's proposal for Airbus.
The Comet failed because of fatigue failure around a 'window'. The 'window' was not something
you looked out of, but a term used for any large hole in the airframe. In this case it was a hole for radio communications. The Comet windows were replaced with rounder ones after the disaster, but the 'window' at fault was in the roof. So he had an interest in keeping the airframe as a simple tube. The windows are a line of perforations down the side of an aircraft. A plain tube would save weight and be stronger.
No-one was keen on this. Some people are afraid of flying, and flying in a sealed tube takes it up a notch. But this is a good idea from a mechanical standpoint, if other half bakers could find a way over the psychology.
The future might be hollow wing aircraft. Modern computer controls can make 'flying wings' stable and safe. This would give you an enormous space within. It could probably not take off if it was packed like today's tubes, so everyone would get enough legroom. But only the pilot gets to look directly out.
Discussion paralleling this concept
https://theaviation...ould-be-windowless/
[bhumphrys, Oct 01 2026]
Fully baked for freight
https://www.airplan...n-spotter-guide.jpg
[bs0u0155, Oct 02 2026]
Window Specs If Fitted
https://www.faa.gov...lar/AC_25_775-1.pdf
[bs0u0155, Oct 02 2026]
747 Combi
https://www.boeing-.../747-400m-combi.php
[bs0u0155, Oct 02 2026]
Preliminary Design For Windowless Airliner
https://link.spring.../s12008-020-00676-7
[bs0u0155, Oct 02 2026]
|
| |
It would indeed be an improvement over the current weak and heavy, and sometimes leaky, airframe structure. (link) |
|
| |
Aside from the structural benefits, in the case of an emergency passengers could be blissfully blinded from what is really going on outside. The monitors would continue to display the calming tropical scene while the stricken aircraft descends towards the raging ocean, frozen lake, Isla Muerta with its attendant dinosaurs, etc. |
|
| |
I don't see an idea here. People are flown on windowless aircraft routinely, the militaries of the world do it all the time. Large windowless aircraft do exist <link> in many forms including those derived from passenger jets like the 747, 767 etc. There are also mixed use aircraft like the 747-400M Combi <link>, these can be configured for variable ratios of freight and passengers, they retain the windows however. |
|
| |
Regulations (FAA) do not require passenger windows, but IF installed they must meet safety spec <link>. What windows ARE required for is exits - emergency or otherwise. This is to check that an exit isn't opened when there's a raging fire/hungry tiger outside. |
|
| |
So with that, there's nothing stopping anyone doing this, and I'm sure it's been looked at. What advantage do we get? |
|
| |
Taking a 747-8 and plugging the windows, which is an established procedure for freighter conversion. We get about 300kg saving across the whole aircraft - fuck all in a big* ship as they say, and you still have holes in the fuselage. It's done because they're tougher and simplify maintenance - and I bet they can sell the windows on. |
|
| |
Taking a 747-8F as a base is more interesting, there's no windows in the first place, the fuselage will be a lot simpler and lighter, but by how much isn't easy to work out. a 787-8f is ~10,000kg lighter empty than a 787-8, but it's missing a LOT of things needed for passengers and adds a nose cargo door - complex. It gives us a data point though, about 1/50th the fully loaded weight. |
|
| |
The P8 Poseidon vs matched 737 gives maybe a better comparison that's in the range of 1000kg lighter, but there's a weapons bay and fuselage strengthening - that's coming in at 1/80th max take off weight. |
|
| |
What does that get us in performance? If we assume the big number in a 737-800 we get a 1-3% change, so $100-300/flight for a middle of the road 737 flight. |
|
| |
Now, you might get fatigue-lifetime benefits IF the windows are the problem. Now, the decision to retire aircraft based on fatigue varies by aircraft. Early 737s fuselage lap joints, but later gens fixed this, now it's the "pickle fork" problem. A320s is often related to the main doors. |
|
| |
So, can it be done? Yes, why is no-one doing it? Greater effects can be achieved elsewhere:
Discourage luggage. V. easy to lose 300KG from 300 passengers if you limit the size and number of bags. |
|
| |
Move to composite structure, the A350 and 787 are ~20% lighter fuselages scaled to a 737-800 that's almost 6000kg, for a 747-800 that's almost 35,000kg. That's coming with other benefits: even at 20% lower weight, it's stronger so you can run higher cabin pressures. It's thermally less conductive, so you can run higher humidity. It's got better fatigue resistance - however surprises are always possible at this complexity level. This would be $200-1000/flight for a 737-800, $4000-20,000/flight in a 747-8. Starting to become significant. |
|
| |
Aero is another huge opportunity, wings have been moving to composite progressively for much longer than fuselages. The shape more than the weight more important here. On the 737, winglets gave 6% boost in fuel burn and the more advanced split winglets went a further 2%. A wing redesign between the 747-400>-8 was touted at 11% reduction of lift-induced drag, but wing development is a closely guarded secret. |
|
| |
Engines get you big wins, on the A320 classic to NEO it was about 15%, and it multiplies with aero and weight. |
|
| |
0.85 × 0.95 × 0.95 × 0.95 = 0.73, so a 27% saving from Engines, wing tips, composite fuselage, fuel weight removed. |
|
| |
So what's needed is a composite 737/A320 replacement, I'm sure it's coming. |
|
| |
A lack of windows might be enough to deter bookings in fickle passengers. |
|
| |
Actually, there's a whole paper on what a windowless short-medium range (where the biggest benefits would be) aircraft <link>. |
|
| |