Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Forward Facing Upper Deck Windows On The 380?  
User currently offlineericaasen From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 230 posts, RR: 1
Posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 22635 times:

Looking at head on shots of the 380 it looks like the plane has a receding hairline or has a giant forehead, maybe even a five-head. I think something needs to be up there and was thinking how cool forward facing windows would be for ultra-premium first class or a lounge ala VS or (was it CO's or AA's?) piano bar on the 747.

I know the windows would have to be cockpit-grade windows and would be heavier than normal pax windows to protect against bird strikes, but would that really be that much of a penalty on plane as large as the 380? I don't think the weight difference between cockpit windows and pax windows is that large, or maybe it is?

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4482 posts, RR: 22
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 22569 times:

Quoting ericaasen (Thread starter):

I know the windows would have to be cockpit-grade windows and would be heavier than normal pax windows to protect against bird strikes, but would that really be that much of a penalty on plane as large as the 380? I don't think the weight difference between cockpit windows and pax windows is that large, or maybe it is?

It wouldn't be so much of a "weight penalty" (although it would be when you talk about supporting structure) as it would be an aerodynamic penalty, engineering "penalty" and a real maintenance penalty. Not only are they heavy, they're not your average glass windows--they're incredibly expensive, have to be heated, etc. Plus then the whole cabin (potentially) could see out of them, and that would really bother some nervous fliers.

It'd be a neat idea by all means, but you can get at least 50% of the thrill by watching the external monitors on your seatback IFE.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineMrSkyGuy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1214 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 22548 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 1):
It'd be a neat idea by all means, but you can get at least 50% of the thrill by watching the external monitors on your seatback IFE.

Bingo. The landscape cameras do it for me, much more so than a physical window because everyone get's the view.



"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 22117 times:

I presume there's some reason why it was hard to do. The more logical thing would have been to put the cockpit on the top deck and allow a nose loading door for freighter versions a la the 747.

User currently onlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 21901 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting thegeek (Reply 3):

Evacuation rules mean that you can't have pax further forard than the furthest forward emergency exit, that's why the MD-12 looked very similar to the A380 as when you get to a double deckeryour options become very limited.

Fred


User currently offlineditzyboy From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 700 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 21719 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 4):
Evacuation rules mean that you can't have pax further forard than the furthest forward emergency exit,

747?  


User currently offlineJMA777 From UK - England, joined Jun 2010, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 21582 times:

Quoting ditzyboy (Reply 5):

747?

My thoughts exactly.



Josh
User currently offlinePlaneWasted From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 21206 times:

Quoting ditzyboy (Reply 5):
747

It's an old plane. The 747 would not get certified if it was new today.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29672 posts, RR: 84
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 20778 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 4):
Evacuation rules mean that you can't have pax further forard than the furthest forward emergency exit...
Quoting ditzyboy (Reply 5):
747?    

Said restriction was not in place when the 747-100 was certified and all future models (including the 747-8) are grandfathered in under that original certificate.


User currently offlinethegeek From Australia, joined Nov 2007, 2638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 20587 times:

Is this so that pax can always go forward as well as back to evacuate? Do many planes have a second cockpit exit? (pretty sure it's not present on one turboprop which crashed and burned in the US.)

User currently offlineditzyboy From Australia, joined Feb 2008, 700 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 20434 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Said restriction was not in place when the 747-100 was certified and all future models (including the 747-8) are grandfathered in under that original certificate.

What about the upper deck on the 380? There are seats forward of Upper Doors 1. Do the forward stairs satisfy the requirement?


User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3759 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 20305 times:

Quoting ericaasen (Thread starter):
has a giant forehead, maybe even a five-head

Booooo! To you, Sir, I say boo!

  

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29672 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 20136 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ditzyboy (Reply 10):
What about the upper deck on the 380? There are seats forward of Upper Doors 1. Do the forward stairs satisfy the requirement?

They must.


User currently offlinewukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 19893 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Said restriction was not in place when the 747-100 was certified and all future models (including the 747-8) are grandfathered in under that original certificate.

This makes no sense. Not what Stitch is saying, but the grandfathering. The 744 is certainly not a 741. That's like saying that a new VW beetle has no reason to comply with the NHTSA (US) because they've been running around since the late '40s under a grandfather clause.

That's just silly. Fed regulation is a mess. It's NOT the same plane.



We can agree to disagree.
User currently offlinemotorhussy From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 3038 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 19769 times:

In a similar vein, I always liked the idea of the proposed MD-12 with the first class lounge below deck in the nose ahead of the front undercarriage; windows looking forward and down!


come visit the south pacific
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 912 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 19568 times:

The VW Beatle doesn't take $5 billion in development cost to enter production. Boeing doesn't get to sell 50,000 jumbo jets each year. The economics of developing a clean-sheet airplane to comply with the latest regulations is completely different than with automobiles. It is also not an issue of U.S. federal regulations, but a matter which is also respected by foreign regulatory bodies as well.

Regulators would obviously prefer that new aircraft place passengers behind the forward door, but if there is no practical way to retrofit the airplane and it can still evacuate in time, should it not be allowed to fly? It is not as if new generation aircraft get exempt when a compliance issue is practical to implement. The 747-8 will require a fuel tank inerting system and the 737NG was required to redesign its over-wing exits in the 90s.


User currently offlinewumzi From Canada, joined Mar 2008, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 19303 times:

Quoting wukka (Reply 13):
This makes no sense. Not what Stitch is saying, but the grandfathering. The 744 is certainly not a 741. That's like saying that a new VW beetle has no reason to comply with the NHTSA (US) because they've been running around since the late '40s under a grandfather clause.

That's just silly. Fed regulation is a mess. It's NOT the same plane.

I hear what you're saying. But if aircraft flying today needed to comply with the certification rules for new aircraft, then a whole lot of aircraft would need to be simply retired. It's simply not feasible or cost effective to do so. For example, you'd need to retrofit all 747's in the world to comply with that "no passenger forward of most forward exit". It would mean sticking in a new door somewhere, and that's a MAJOR change.

That's why it's always cheaper for an aircraft to piggy back on the certification of previous designs. Otherwise you have a whole slew of new rules to adhere to.


User currently offlineBlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3696 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 19072 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wukka (Reply 13):
Not what Stitch is saying, but the grandfathering. The 744 is certainly not a 741
Quoting wumzi (Reply 16):
I hear what you're saying. But if aircraft flying today needed to comply with the certification rules for new aircraft, then a whole lot of aircraft would need to be simply retired.

Surely there is a middle ground somewhere. I understand the need to grand-father new regulations to protect R&D funds already expended, but one should also not be able to ignore almost 20-years worth of new regulations just because the 747-400 that entered service in 1989 vaguely resembles the 747-100 that began operation in 1970. Other than the appearance, what do they have in common anyway?



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2378 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 18913 times:

Quoting thegeek (Reply 3):
I presume there's some reason why it was hard to do. The more logical thing would have been to put the cockpit on the top deck and allow a nose loading door for freighter versions a la the 747.

That would defeat the purpose of the main fuselage door. Sure, I guess you could argue for long cargo, but IIRC, the A380F could not carry the per square inch load that the 747F can. It was/is more oriented for package freight. The nose door would have added weight.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinewukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 18841 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 15):
The VW Beatle doesn't take $5 billion in development cost to enter production.

Study up. The Beetle was a product of Hitler and the redevelopment of the German empire. The name of the car says it all. It was a vehicle for the masses. I'm pretty sure that nobody knows the ultimate cost in the development of that vehicle adjusted for inflation and lives. If you have that information, I'd like to see it... ESPECIALLY adjusted for inflation and... well... Ferdinand Porsche and all... and LIVES... Did you miss all of this in history class?

I'll throw this at you:

http://mondediplo.com/1998/01/11volkswag

Enjoy.

This may be an aviation site, but damn. I usually respect your posts. On this, you fail.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 15):
It is also not an issue of U.S. federal regulations

Oh, but it most certainly is. Not tested, not approved, not flying commercially in U.S. airspace. Period. The FAA will make sure of that. You can have an EXPERIMENTAL sticker, which can be revoked yesterday, so don't say that there's no intervention there.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 15):
Regulators would obviously prefer that new aircraft place passengers behind the forward door, but if there is no practical way to retrofit the airplane and it can still evacuate in time, should it not be allowed to fly?

When and where did I say that? You're being combative just to have a good time with me. Why? I was simply stating that the feds are messed up in what is cool and what's not. If "regulators would obviously prefer that new aircraft place passengers behind the forward door" you could argue that said regulators should obviously prefer that any aircraft should fly.

When did a.net get so nasty? Take it away, Revolution.



We can agree to disagree.
User currently offlinewukka From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1017 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 17793 times:

Quoting BlueFlyer (Reply 17):
I understand the need to grand-father new regulations to protect R&D funds already expended, but one should also not be able to ignore almost 20-years worth of new regulations just because the 747-400 that entered service in 1989 vaguely resembles the 747-100 that began operation in 1970. Other than the appearance, what do they have in common anyway?

Thank you! (and this is coming from a person that adores the 74- craft)



We can agree to disagree.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 912 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 14969 times:

Wukka, I am replying from a smartphone so I am sorry if I sound blunt. I'm just trying to save words. I see nothing combative about my post. Frankly, you seem like the sour one.

You are missing the point about the VW. The production and tooling cost for an automobile are and order of magnitude less than a jetliner and the production volume is about 100x greater. It is far easier to implement changes from model to model in cars. You can't compare that to aviation.

You should read the sentence about federal requirements as not just an issue of the U.S FAA. Other international bodies grandfather requirements as well. It's an entirely normal and acceptable practice that does not compromise safety in a significant way. You seemed to ignore my point that the 747-8 will indeed comply with a number of new regulations. For what its worth, aspects of the A380 and 787 would already need to be grandfathered due to recent changes. Such is life.


User currently offlineandz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8414 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 14895 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PlaneWasted (Reply 7):
It's an old plane. The 747 would not get certified if it was new today.

747-8?



After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 14851 times:

I'd imagine they would be the most sought after seats on the entire plane. If I had paid the same price as the guys with the specatular forward view for my back of seat view I'd be pretty browned off.

I think the forward facing camera is the best solution for all the passengers, who can see it from all seats, in all classes.


User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3045 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 13844 times:

Quoting wukka (Reply 13):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Said restriction was not in place when the 747-100 was certified and all future models (including the 747-8) are grandfathered in under that original certificate.

This makes no sense. Not what Stitch is saying, but the grandfathering. The 744 is certainly not a 741. That's like saying that a new VW beetle has no reason to comply with the NHTSA (US) because they've been running around since the late '40s under a grandfather clause.

1. The NHTSA and the FAA are separate regulating bodies which regulate entirely different types of transportation.
2. The new/current VW Beetle is a completely different vehicle from the VW Type 1 "beetle" first sold in the US in the late 40's and last sold in the US in 1978. The Type 1 was RWD with an air-cooled boxer engine in the rear, the new/current VW Beetle is FWD with a water-cooled inline engine mounted sideways in the front. I doubt if there is so much as a single nut or bolt that is shared between the two vehicles.
3. Some things on aircraft can be "grandfathered" such as iffy exit door locations because there has not been shown to be a specific problem with them, they're just not how things are done today on clean-sheet designs.



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
25 Post contains links WarpSpeed : According to Things With Wings, Airbus was recently awarded a U.S. Patent for this concept. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plc
26 TheSonntag : Not to go off-topic, but the VW bug in fact always had to adopt to new safety regulations. In fact all parts of the beetle were modified in the whole
27 Post contains images WingedMigrator : Two things: (1) there is all sorts of equipment in the "forehead" that would prevent the passenger space from being extended all the way to the front
28 brilondon : In an emergency could not the cockpit exits for the pilots be used by the passengers, although you would have to beable to fit through them? Thus ful
29 sw733 : It's all about your type certificate. The 747-400 or 747-8 is simply an amendment to the original 747 type certificate from way back when. Just like
30 XXXX10 : Wouldn't it be cheaper and safer to put a large LED screen at the front of the cabin (like airliners used to have) and link it to a camera at the fron
31 Stitch : In the case of the 747, the only "middle ground" would be to make the A Zone unavailable for passengers during take off and landing. I suppose you co
32 Post contains images leezyjet : I'd thought the same thing a few years ago, but there is an avionics equipment bay up there at the very front. Shame they couldn't move it elsewhere
33 XXXX10 : IIRC on the 743 and 744 The upper deck emergency exit is not at the front of the cabin. The samee is true of the upper deck of the A380
34 kanban : Tried to to copy the lower graphic here but the technology escapes me. It would appear that the upper deck passengers are indeed seated forward of th
35 WingedMigrator : Not quite. Walking forward from any seat on the upper deck will not reduce your chances of reaching an exit, since you can take the stairs down and e
36 lax25r : I understand that you can't have passengers in front of the forward most exit any longer on new types. How did the regional jets which came to be muc
37 borism : I find myself asking the same question as OP very often - why didn't they do it? And I think that "pax further forward than than the furthest forward
38 speedygonzales : I suppose it comes down to three things: cost, cost and cost, or more specifically: prduction cost, fuel burn and maintanance.
39 rfields5421 : The diagram also shows there is minimal vertical room at the front of the A-380 cabin for windows. It looks like the front of the upper avionics bay
40 flypba : AFAIK the distance from the front of the cabin to the first set of passenger doors has not changed on any model of the 747. ergo in this case all the
41 flyingAY : This is kind of strange. Why is the regulation there for the new planes? Probably, because they found out that producing the plane according to the r
42 kanban : please remember that part of the regulation process in political and may have no affect on actual safety... Congress seems to get their fingers in ev
43 Post contains images Stitch : IMO, no, since in order for passengers in the A Zone to not be able to evacuate via Door 1, the nose section forward of Door 1 would have had to have
44 TZTriStar500 : You all are incorrect about a specific regulatory restriction that no seating can be forward of an emergency exit and that it was 'grandfathered' or p
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Upper Deck Door On The B742 posted Sun Oct 20 2002 02:59:05 by Mr AirNZ
Three Windows On The Upper Deck posted Tue Feb 22 2000 06:00:29 by EI133
3 Little Windows On The 747-8F posted Fri Feb 26 2010 20:20:21 by VC10er
Brakes Being Tested On The 380 And 777 posted Sun Aug 26 2007 06:35:52 by Mycrj17
A380F Upper Deck Windows And Door posted Tue Jan 2 2007 13:46:11 by Speedmarque
The Windows On The CRJ's posted Wed Dec 6 2006 20:25:15 by Bobprobert95
A380: Upper Deck Windows Smaller? posted Thu May 18 2006 04:28:20 by PPSMA
Pax Windows On The United Express EMB170 posted Fri Aug 26 2005 15:58:23 by Liedetectors
Fewer Windows On The A380 - Bad For Passengers? posted Sun Apr 24 2005 06:29:09 by A380900
Strange Tail On The A-380 posted Tue Jan 25 2005 00:01:06 by Helje