If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Airbus files patent for new windowless cockpit. What could possibly go wrong?   (yahoo.com) divider line 23
    More: Interesting, patent office, Chesley Sullenberger, aircraft manufacturers, Sulu, cockpits, Starship Enterprise, airplanes  
•       •       •

918 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 Jul 2014 at 1:43 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



23 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-08 12:54:48 PM  
Just another reason why I'll never be a fan of Airbus products.
 
2014-07-08 01:46:08 PM  
Why put windows on a plane when you can put cameras there for 10 times the price?
 
2014-07-08 01:50:43 PM  

DubtodaIll: Why put windows on a plane when you can put cameras there for 10 times the price?


In fairness the fuel savings will more than compensate. Until of course the cameras malfunction and the pilots are flying blind.
 
2014-07-08 01:54:01 PM  

brimed03: DubtodaIll: Why put windows on a plane when you can put cameras there for 10 times the price?

In fairness the fuel savings will more than compensate. Until of course the cameras malfunction and the pilots are flying blind.


You assume the pilots are flying the plane. Typically take off and landing are assisted if not automated, as well as cruising on auto pilot.
 
2014-07-08 01:59:47 PM  

brimed03: DubtodaIll: Why put windows on a plane when you can put cameras there for 10 times the price?

In fairness the fuel savings will more than compensate. Until of course the cameras malfunction and the pilots are flying blind.


I seriously doubt a pilot window has a serious effect on the aerodynamics of the plane. Some sure, but significant?
 
2014-07-08 02:03:17 PM  
Ignoring the practicality there, haven't windowless cockpits essentially been pitched since the 70s and 80s? Shouldn't there be a mountain of prior art for that?
 
2014-07-08 02:06:19 PM  

DubtodaIll: Why put windows on a plane when you can put cameras there for 10 times the price?


Actually, a windowless cockpit would likely be cheaper, because windows are huge structural weaknesses as well as being heavier than structural aluminum.
 
2014-07-08 02:08:05 PM  
Repeat: 8323712
 
2014-07-08 02:10:24 PM  

DubtodaIll: Why put windows on a plane when you can put cameras there for 10 times the price?


From a previous article:

The first advantage is aerodynamic, since flight deck windows require interrupting the ideal scalpel shape of the nose, Airbus wrote. Also, big windows and the reinforcement required for them add weight to the aircraft.

Putting the flight deck at the front of the cabin takes valuable space away from the cabin, "thereby limiting the financial profits for the airline company exploiting the aircraft," Airbus wrote.


Short version: Decreased fuel use, more passenger fares.
 
2014-07-08 02:14:59 PM  

Fubini: DubtodaIll: Why put windows on a plane when you can put cameras there for 10 times the price?

Actually, a windowless cockpit would likely be cheaper, because windows are huge structural weaknesses as well as being heavier than structural aluminum.


gajitz.com
Why don't they just use transparent aluminum?
 
2014-07-08 02:17:20 PM  
Windows are only one planes because:

1. The FAA is always about 20 years behind the time and makes decisions based on instinct rather than data. They think windows are key to safety (one of the reasons the Concorde had a drop nose), yet, collisssions still happen on the runway because pilots don't follow the directions of the tower, or the tower drops the ball -- not because of visibility issues.

2. Passengers are just as irrational and wouldn't fly on a plane without windows.
 
2014-07-08 02:17:44 PM  
They fly like Asians, unable to see over the dash?
 
2014-07-08 02:21:15 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Repeat: 8323712


Yes, and it's like the third repeat today. Someone needs to fix the greenlight roulette wheel.
 
2014-07-08 02:37:29 PM  
Hey, that's one way to deal with the shining-lasers-at-cockpits issue. Brightness on the display can't go higher than 100%, no matter how much light hits the camera. If they somehow manage to dump enough power into the camera lens to damage the sensor (and that's a bit of a reach), well, it's a lot easier and cheaper to add redundant cameras than to add redundant pilot eyes.
 
2014-07-08 02:40:01 PM  

NeoCortex42: Fubini: DubtodaIll: Why put windows on a plane when you can put cameras there for 10 times the price?

Actually, a windowless cockpit would likely be cheaper, because windows are huge structural weaknesses as well as being heavier than structural aluminum.


Why don't they just use transparent aluminum?


You mean sapphire?

/
 
2014-07-08 02:41:04 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: Repeat: 8323712


It was a fun thread, we're just gliding down memory lane (without windows).
 
2014-07-08 03:24:18 PM  

Sasquach: NeoCortex42: Fubini: DubtodaIll: Why put windows on a plane when you can put cameras there for 10 times the price?

Actually, a windowless cockpit would likely be cheaper, because windows are huge structural weaknesses as well as being heavier than structural aluminum.


Why don't they just use transparent aluminum?

You mean sapphire?

/


How would adding a stripper to an airplane make it any better?

Wait.... What the hell am I saying?!
 
2014-07-08 04:31:18 PM  
Why not go all the way to making flying planes a video game. Pilots will be trained to turn the plane off and back on again to solve all mechanical issues.
 
2014-07-08 05:01:16 PM  

worlddan: ArcadianRefugee: Repeat: 8323712

Yes, and it's like the third repeat today. Someone needs to fix the greenlight roulette wheel.


It's Two Times Tuesday on Fark!
 
2014-07-08 06:08:46 PM  

worlddan: ArcadianRefugee: Repeat: 8323712

Yes, and it's like the third repeat today. Someone needs to fix the greenlight roulette wheel.


Fourth (there was another isoPod thread earlier).

Maybe they're still hungover from the weekend's festivities.
 
2014-07-08 07:16:14 PM  

brimed03: Until of course the cameras malfunction and the pilots are flying blind.


Except for all of the other ways they have to fly, including letting the computer do it with it usual complete disregard of video input.

Viewport failure is a legitimate risk (though I'd point out that scratches or ice or impact can and have disabled the difficult-to-make-redundant windows on existing planes), but there's no reason to think that it's any harder to manage than the risk of hydraulic (or other control surface driver) failure, and planes fly even less well without control surfaces than they do without viewports.
 
2014-07-08 09:27:39 PM  
This is a bad idea.
 
2014-07-09 03:36:49 AM  

MindStalker: brimed03: DubtodaIll: Why put windows on a plane when you can put cameras there for 10 times the price?

In fairness the fuel savings will more than compensate. Until of course the cameras malfunction and the pilots are flying blind.

I seriously doubt a pilot window has a serious effect on the aerodynamics of the plane. Some sure, but significant?


I read about this is a different article and, yes, apparently forward cockpits cost airlines a shipload of money. It's not the windows so much as the overall shape of the front of the plane. A scalpel point would be most aerodynamic, but you need a more bulbous front for pilot seating. The drag created by that racks up some serious added fuel cost.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report