fuselage without windows 1

[dutchguy]

To all,

I am an aeronautical engineer (stress engineer) working in the netherlands, wondering if there is someone who is interested in designing an aircraft which has a fuselage without windows (which off course has a great advantage when it comes to weight reduction). Furthermore is there anyone who can give me further information about this topic ?

Thanks in advance,

Andre Paulus

 

[WKTaylor]

dutchguy..

Many military style transport aircraft have NO windows... and also accomodate interior seating for troops or civilian PAX [C-130 & L100 for example]. Many commercial aircraft converted-to, or purpose-built for, cargo-only use deliberately omit the "window-belt"... or fill-in the windows with thin metal plates. This not-only saves weight & maintenance... but also simplifies the structure.

Problem: Animals in cargo react "best" when unable to perceive an uncertain outside world. HOWEVER, PAX in these "blind" aircraft are generally along for a "free" ride, or have no other flight alternative... and have no say-so in comfort. I, for one, have flown many USAF cargo acft with only a few "porthole" windows sparcely located along the PAX areas. I am "ok" with this... but found myself "yearning" to look-out... even when the exterior world was featureless [even at night, over featureless oceans, etc].

A large physcological "comfort" factor for passengers is the ability to look outside [scan-around, day/night] of the metal tube they are squeezed-into for several hours. Even window placement [too-low/high, too-small, off-seat-row, etc) can be a very annoying/unnerving factor for many passengers. Video-screens MAY replace windows... someday... but there is a substantial "price" for video also. A windowless blended wing design studied by Boeing was great for cargo... but has unresolved PAX phycological factors.

Hmmm, perhaps a discussion with wide-body acft interior designers could shed-light on this issue.

Regards, Wil Taylor

 

[aerodog]

Aircraft without windows? You touched a nerve within Boeing?

There was a group within Boeing - St. Louis (formerly McDonnell Douglas)who proposed a blended wing design for Boeing's next generation airliner. The design offered 32% lower per seat fuel flow and 25% lower manufacturing costs.

Boeing management (Seattle) with their "not invented here" attitude said the BBW did not have windows and instead opted for the very high risk, mostly composite 7E7 which gains most of its performance improvements from the next generation power plants.

One of the big features Boeing is selling on the 7E7 is "mood lighting" in the cabin. As if when we are in Travelocity booking our flights, we skip over the lower cost flights and search out one that will offer "mood lighting".

Boeing is projecting 200+ orders for the Dreamliner by the end of this month. They have a lot of work to do in the next 3 weeks.

Thus far, most of the orders are from countries who will build part of the aircraft. For instance, All Nippon Airways was the launch customer...Japan is slated to build the 7E7 wing. Most airlines including Singapore Airlines which was a main marketing target is sitting on the sidelines with a wait and see attitude.

Has Boeing lost its way? Just check the Airbus vs Boeing sales figures.

For more information on the BBW check

http://www.aerotalk.com

and click on BOEING BLENDED WING also check DREAMLINER OR NIGHTMARE?.

 

[SuperStress]

As I understand it, the biggest problem with the Blended Wing-Body concept has to do with evacuation, not lack of windows, or Seattle's "not invented here" attitude.

There's no way you can evacuate everyone up through the ceiling and be clear of the airplane in 90 seconds. (Airplane has to be evacuated with landing gear extended or retracted)

Unless the FAA is willing to modify or grant waivers to FAR 25.803(c), I don't think you will ever see a large, commercial BWB transport.

SuperStress

 

[Wittenborn]

Good thought, SuperStress.

Never thought of the evac. logistics.

Regards,
Grant
Aerospace Engineer

 

[GregLocock]

Has anybody ever done a cost benefit analysis of the evacuation regulations? (ie how many lives do they save per year*$4million-additional operating costs of world airlines)

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[Wittenborn]

Or how many lives are saved per second of allowable evacuation time...


Regards,
Grant
Aerospace Engineer

 

[GregLocock]

Yes, that is more to the point.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[SWComposites]

It doesn't matter what cost/benefit analysis shows; as soon as someone is killed in an accident the lawyers will get ahold of the study and use it to prove that the manufacturer and airline is liable because they knew there was a "safer" design solution but the manufacturer/airline put profit over safety. That is why you will never see a cost/benefit study related to safety.

 

[Wittenborn]

That's true. There is never a cost/benefit study relating to safety.

Yet somehow the government still manages to place a monetary value to each person on board...



Regards,
Grant
Aerospace Engineer

 

[GregLocock]

Other industries use safety related cost benefit studies. Are you sure the aircraft industry does not?

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[Wittenborn]

Cost/benefit is always a player in military applications.

However in the civilian world, cost/benefit doesn't matter, because all bets are off in the courtroom. So why bother?

Hate to be so crass, as I'm sure they've been done before, but the harsh reality is that you can't lose a life in an airplane. It'll cost you if you do.

Regards,
Grant
Aerospace Engineer