AT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 863 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3512 times:
A number of airlines have their windows "plugged" in regions of the aircraft where there is a galley, toilet or other non-seating areas, for example
in this picture, just forward of Door 2L.
I wanted to ask, what are the benefits of doing so?
Does it affect the structure of the aircraft?
And are they permanent? Or can they be removed if the seating configuration changes and the windows are required?
Bigsmile From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3476 times:
These aren't permanent. They are fitted the same way the windows are fitted. They are just cosmetic blanks. There is no more structural benefit from these blanks when compared to the windows. They are fitted usually behind galleys, toilets etc so you don't see the back of it from outside, galley's, toilets etc are not the most attractive things when you get behind them. Sometimes you do see some blanks fitted with aerials attached.
AFAIK, there is no real benefit. They just fill a gap where a window is not required, for example a toilet, a galley bulkhead etc.
Perhaps window plugs save a little weight, but I'd imagine it'd a negligable ammount in relation to the entire aircraft.
Quoting B744F (Reply 1): Does it affect the structure of the aircraft?
Nope, think of them as windows made out a metal window. They are just as secure, perhaps even stronger.
Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2572 posts, RR: 59 Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3452 times:
Quoting AT (Thread starter): Or can they be removed if the seating configuration changes and the windows are required?
It's a fairly quick and simple process to plug and unplug a window - in very simple terms the glass window panel is replaced with a sheet metal plug and vice versa.
My airline recently reconfigured 2 ex-Vietnam Airlines B767s. The first window aft of Door 2L & R was already plugged due to a toilet being located on each side - during reconfiguration stowages were installed aft of the toilets on both sides of the cabin so the second window on each side aft of Door 2L & R was also plugged.
Tod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1682 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3375 times:
There are also locations that plugged because the main conditioned air ducting is routed there. For example, three locations on each side of a 747 forward of door three. IIRC, two on each side of 767 and one on each side of 737NG (old 737 using mulitple small ducts routed around the windows instead). For all practical purposes, these locations cannot be changed.
GARPD From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2312 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3364 times:
Quoting Tod (Reply 5): There are also locations that plugged because the main conditioned air ducting is routed there. For example, three locations on each side of a 747 forward of door three. IIRC, two on each side of 767 and one on each side of 737NG (old 737 using mulitple small ducts routed around the windows instead). For all practical purposes, these locations cannot be changed.
Tod
I don't thinks these locations feature "plugged" windows. Rather, no window cutting at all. Simply clean sheet metal fuselage.
Tod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1682 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3329 times:
Quoting GARPD (Reply 6): I don't thinks these locations feature "plugged" windows. Rather, no window cutting at all. Simply clean sheet metal fuselage.
AeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1601 posts, RR: 52 Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3161 times:
Jeffry747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 961 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3019 times:
Let's not forget aircraft which have been converted from passenger to cargo configuration, which in some cases has the entire fuselage lined with window plugs.
OzLAME From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 338 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2850 times:
Quoting Lincoln (Reply 12): Forgive the layman for budging in here, but I beleive I read somewhere that window plugs require less MX than a real window. Is this correct?
That is correct, which is why the eyebrow windows are disappearing from the cockpits of 737s.
Quoting Aviation (Reply 13): I really dont think they are such a good idea.
Why not? I have been involved in converting small twin-engined a/c into freighters. We would often remove windows and install metal blanks. The metal can still be checked from the inside and there is no longer any need to get out the prism and check the window for cracks, or to polish out scratches. There is a huge difference in maintenance requirements; there are guys working at QANTAS who do nothing but change windows.
Monty Python's Flying Circus has nothing to do with aviation, except perhaps for Management personnel.
Whiskeyflyer From Ireland, joined May 2002, 224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2773 times:
also metal plugs make washing and painting easier
you do not need to waste time ensuring no abrasive cleaners/stripper gets on the windows (masking windows prior to stripping/painting consummes a lot of manhours)
The MM specifies limits to scratches, nicks, abrasions (those little scratches) etc that a window may have (varies by aircraft type), if it exceeds limits, you replace the window (and hope the polishing shop can restore the windows within limits) Dusty climes and pollution result in abrasing of windows so best to put the metal in and keep your windows in stock for pax (boxes don't admire the view and they don't complain........... brings back happy memories of when I was a freight dog and left oil all over the ramp in our thrusty DC8-55F)
SkydrolBoy From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 341 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2747 times:
Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 16):
Also it contributes to a more silent cockpit too.
regds
MEL
It's the Vortex Generators that they install infront of the windshield that makes for a quieter cockpit, not the removal of the windows. You can see them in the picture below just behind the radome.
727EMflyer From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2690 times:
Quoting VC-10 (Reply 11): A company I once worked for did a calculation of how much extra fuel was burned in course of a year by an extra sugar bag.
So what was the verdict? I trust we're not talking a tsp sized packet for coffee...
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58 Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2681 times:
Quoting SkydrolBoy (Reply 18): It's the Vortex Generators that they install infront of the windshield that makes for a quieter cockpit, not the removal of the windows. You can see them in the picture below just behind the radome.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 863 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 0 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 141 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2312 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1682 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 2004, 1143 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2002, 224 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 341 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
