Huge windows
Posted by Phil198603@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 63 comments
how come that nowadays windows became so much smaller compared to these ones! Went inside and it was basically just windows from side to side. love it.
chotchss@reddit
Probably the same reason windows are always rounded instead of square- structural. Smaller windows probably create less stress on the structure and thus less fatigue after thousands of pressurization cycles.
ArabihizLane@reddit
So every time you get a tiny window seat view on a modern flight, you're technically looking through a compromise between "passengers want to see outside" and "we'd like the fuselage to stay in one piece for the next 30,000 flights." Reasonable trade-off when you think about it.
Sawfish1212@reddit
Having the aircraft break up like the Comet is bad for business. And it wasn't like the Comet was their first Crack at pressurized aircraft...
ABoutDeSouffle@reddit
But I thought the windows (and rivets there) weren't the cause of the Comet crashes, but some RF antenna cutout?
Sawfish1212@reddit
Both had square corners. The antenna hole was weaker, but windows would have fatigued and cracked next
BrewCityChaserV2@reddit
It's a myth that square cabin windows were the Comet's downfall.
UncleWainey@reddit
Still, some modern airliners have much bigger windows than others. ERJ vs CRJ, for example.
assblast420@reddit
I guess the future would be replacing windows with screens and using some kind of camera array to mirror the outside.
axlegrinder1@reddit
Yeah, I mean, have you seen the size of the windows on Concorde?
chotchss@reddit
Hahah at that point it’s more of a suggestion of a window
axlegrinder1@reddit
Still would rather have it than not as a passenger!
rohepey@reddit
It had service ceiling at 25k, so different pressurisation requirements.
No-Sell-3064@reddit
Why would everyone not pick that ceiling to save costs or have better confort with the windows? Or is there a specific reason for FL350?
FFSBoise@reddit
It's also easier to catch the upper level winds for a great tail wind at 350.
FlightSimmer99@reddit
Airlines care more about fuel savings than passenger comfort
kennytherenny@reddit
They do, but flying at higher altitudes actually increases passenger comfort as well. There's less turbulence and flight times are reduced because the plane's able to fly faster.
_Neoshade_@reddit
That’s because we care more about price than the size of a window.
TitanicJedi@reddit
Not much to see on an overnight flight man. Happy to care more for price than window size.
Altruistic_Brick1730@reddit
Not much usually to see at 35k feet even in the light.
_Neoshade_@reddit
Price really is everything. If I could be in Europe tomorrow for $200, I’d do it every other weekend.
Affectionate_Spell11@reddit
That's got to be one of the best Autocorrects I've seen in a long time xD
qtpss@reddit
Beer after beer, the same ‘ol thing, this beer will be different.
Tupcek@reddit
huh? Hundred beers ago was like last month
WellTextured@reddit
It's less bumpy and easier to go faster higher up. Isn't that also passenger comfort?
carrickshairline@reddit
Airlines aren't in the business of making people comfortable. They're in the business of making as much as they can out of people.
Tupcek@reddit
most of them have pretty low profit margin.
carrickshairline@reddit
It's notoriously difficult to turn a profit in the airline business. The fastest way to become a millionaire is be a billionaire and start and airline.
Sandro_24@reddit
The higher you go the less air resistance and thus less fuel consumption
NewUser769283@reddit
Oh, so bizz jets at 450..... or even the U2 at even higher..... is not happening?
Walbabyesser@reddit
U2 isn‘t so much under economic pressure due to the military can use good ‘ol taxpayer money
flightwatcher45@reddit
Not with those engine and propellers.
NewUser769283@reddit
That's for certain.
m00f@reddit
Google "coffin corner" for some deeper reading on what happens when you get to U2 heights.
NewUser769283@reddit
Certainly aware of that.
Stall speed approaching overspeed.
So.... you sneeze, and your wings fall off.... or you drop X feet before recovering.
AngriestManinWestTX@reddit
It's a combination of a number of engineering, physical, and in some cases regulatory requirements I think, one of them being that a passenger plane has to be able to descend to safe altitude before passenger oxygen is depleted.
Sandro_24@reddit
Should have worded it differently. It's not feasible for larger aircraft, a large issue is also lift for them
Disastrous-Wall-6943@reddit
It's faster, smoother, and more importantly for airlines cheaper to go higher.
Bergwookie@reddit
And you can put more planes into the same airspace if you "stack them"
EasyAsAyeBeeSea@reddit
Why do you think that level is more efficient
BrewCityChaserV2@reddit
Love /r/aviation for downvoting a perfectly valid question.
yabucek@reddit
Drag is (roughly) proportional to air pressure. The higher you go, the less pressure there is, meaning less drag and less fuel burned.
hgwelz@reddit
That was a common ceiling for turboprops and piston aircraft of the period. Only the Boeing Stratocruiser had a significantly higher ceiling (its in the name).
Icy_Huckleberry_8049@reddit
Above 5000 feet everything looks the same and you really can't distinguish much from the ground below
AlarmDozer@reddit
Higher altitude so you needed a smaller failure point. Notice, it's a propeller driven craft, which means it likely didn't go nearly as high in altitude as today's craft.
gsmitheidw1@reddit
Pressurisation made it harder to have big windows particularly square ones.
Also and more critically - glass is heavy.
uglipenguin@reddit
the square window thing was largely a myth from the Comet 1. If you look at how huge the flight deck windows are on an L1011- also square, the shape is not important but how strong and well the window frames are designed.
FighterSkyhawk@reddit
Square windows drive stress concentrations that increase metal fatigue at the corners leading to cracks
Yes it could be designed with a square window, but material fatigue was not well understood until later (and still we can only roughly predict failure), things without sharp corners generally suffer from less fatigue issues due to lower stress concentrations, hence circular windows.
gsmitheidw1@reddit
Absolutely, and so much was learnt from the comet in terms of structural integrity. The L1011 was an engineering masterpiece way ahead of it's time.
But still at the time of the viscount, I suspect shape mattered more than subsequently.
Djinnmenken@reddit
This plane was pressurized but its service ceiling was much lower than current planes so the pressure difference was smaller.
martianfrog@reddit
I remember those windows from when I was an infant, hostess gave us a sweet, I liked that.
Glittering_Space5018@reddit
Pressure differential?
Gryphus1CZ@reddit
Lower cruise altitude meant lower pressure difference so less stress on windows. Modern airliners like 787 are having larger windows than 777 for example, so we are slowly getting bigger windows
lorefighter@reddit
Is it Speyer?
comptiger5000@reddit
Definitely. That Viscount is next to the Lufthansa 747-200.
Chaoshero5567@reddit
should be
VeraStrange@reddit
To be fair the Viscount was in a league of its own with window size. I can’t imagine other manufacturers wanting to make their aircraft like glass houses. Imagine if someone wanted to leave the blind up on the sunny side.
The view must have been amazing though.
Blue_Etalon@reddit
They had to make them big enough in case you have a "Goldfinger" explosive decompression event again. That guy barely made it out the first time.
Kanyiko@reddit
When it was designed, the Vickers Viscount's windows were originally conceived to double as emergency exits - all of them. They eventually realised this was overkill, but they kept the window's dimensions none the less.
Chaoshero5567@reddit
yoo speyer
bisccat@reddit
Beautiful plane
PamuamuP@reddit
Sinsheim?
Phil198603@reddit (OP)
Speyer
xdr567@reddit
Vickers Viscount has 26" x 16" windows, because the doubled as emergency exits.