Fao Greta Thunberg

[drmorgans]

If aeroplanes didn't have windows they could be 50% lighter, saving fuel and moving quicker.

BBC Radio 4 - the Unbelievable Truth

[New Judge]

Perhaps somebody could point me to an example of an aircraft where the windows make up 50% of its weight.

[drmorgans]

Not the windows but the reinforcement to the structure of the plane.

[bednobs]

I don't think great thunberg has the time to read this website? She's never revealed herself anyway. Perhaps it's all the strange old men who seem to have an obsession with her that keeps her away though?

[Khandro]

Only a small percentage of seats in a jumbo jet are advantaged by windows - some don't line up & then there's those by the wings. I wouldn't be bothered myself flying without windows because I either read or sleep anyway.

[pat2604]

Not that I can understand this!!!

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/12359/what-is-the-weight-saving-of-windowless-fuselage-for-cargo-aircraft

[Gromit]

Painting a modern jet airliner adds half a ton to its weight. And polishing rather than painting would be more effective at reducing wind resistance.
Extra weight means it uses more fuel, and more polution.

[jno]

American Airlines leave their planes unpainted

https://viewfromthewing.com/american-airlines-done-painting-planes/

[New Judge]

If you look at the Boeing 747-8 – the final 747 variant which has freight (no windows) and passenger (windows) versions which were developed simultaneously, the “overall empty weight” is about 220 tons for the passenger version and around 197 tons for the freight version. This is a weight difference of just over 10% and I would imagine (though cannot be sure) that a large proportion of this difference would be accounted for in seating, locker space and galley equipment. It is true that the freight version has thicker (and hence heavier) wings and larger fuel tanks. It could be, of course, that the fuselage structure of both is similar in design (to avoid having to design two different versions). But I have always understood that the principle mass of reinforcement required in passenger aircraft stems from the strengthening needed to cope with cabin pressurisation (common to both the passenger and freight versions).

I would be very surprised if the structure needed to facilitate windows in a pressurised aircraft accounted for 50% of its weight.

[Khandro]

NJ ; I think you will find it is similar fuselage construction on both aircraft, the 10% saving of weight will be from (as you say) the seating etc.

[itchycopark]

the windowless aircraft (if they go ahead) i have heard will have display screens to replace the windows with a screen showing the outside so there's not much weight advantage saved and there has been no structural failure of any aircraft due to having windows EXCEPT of course the first COMET of its type

[Khandro]

There have been lots of controversy about aircraft windows;

http://jdasolutions.aero/blog/technical-clarity-aircraft-windows/

One unfortunate passenger was part sucked out of the plane when one broke next to her in flight!

[New Judge]

//...EXCEPT of course the first COMET of its type//

And that was caused by the aircrafts' square windows producing stress failures as a result of metal fatigue arising from the movements during the pressurisation/depressurisation processes. This was the first significant manifestation of metal fatigue in aircraft design.

[itchycopark]

it was indeed NJ. the 707 then beat it to the market (though the 707 was far superior)
aircraft is my favourite subject in all aspects

[ToraToraTora]

it can't be 50%. 5% maybe.

[douglas9401]

It can, if it's half the size.

[maggiebee]

When did Greta become a member of this group?