Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Eyebrowless QF 733...was I Seeing Things?  
User currently offlineJafa39 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2443 times:

Last night at WLG my flight to AKL was delayed from 19:30 to 21:20, while finally waiting at gate 21 to board I swear i saw what I think was ZK-JNB sitting at gate 23 (it had been there for ages so was thinking maybe it was waiting to do WLG-SYD). What shocked me was that when I went to look at her I noticed she had no "eyebrow" windows!

I know I was tired but I checked on ZK-JTR, the 734 that took me to AKL and there were the distinctive windows......was I so tired I was hallucinating? Anyone got ant info on this?

I have done a photo search but can't find an eyebrowless QF 733 at all......hmmmmm, beats me.

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAjd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2415 times:

Some B737's don't have them, and now they aren't even delivered with them. It came from when pilots navigated by stars and stuff, but obviously now they're obsolete. It was just a weight saving thing (and apparently, they reduce noise in the cockpit too).

User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2390 times:

I think you will find there is a service bulletin that can be accomplished on any 737 that plugs the eyebrow windows with aluminum.

User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2386 times:

Quoting Jafa39 (Thread starter):
Last night at WLG my flight to AKL was delayed from 19:30 to 21:20, while finally waiting at gate 21 to board I swear i saw what I think was ZK-JNB sitting at gate 23 (it had been there for ages so was thinking maybe it was waiting to do WLG-SYD). What shocked me was that when I went to look at her I noticed she had no "eyebrow" windows!

The holes were still there, just plugged with metal blanks. There's a Service Bulletin to do this since it reduces maintenance, lowers weight, and nobody actually needs those windows today anyway.

Tom.


User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2375 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
The holes were still there, just plugged with metal blanks. There's a Service Bulletin to do this since it reduces maintenance, lowers weight, and nobody actually needs those windows today anyway.

Not to mention I think the glare annoys the pilots. Were they seriously for celestial navigation?



"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineJafa39 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2363 times:

Yup, I was aware of all the above info...but thanks anyway, always good to know there are people out there to help.

The question I want answered is this though:

Have any of the NZ-based QF 733's had the eyebrows plugged? because the a/c i saw is on the database countless times with its eyebrows intact....I really need to know if I was hallucinating.....and no, I hadn't had mushrooms for tea  Wink


User currently offlineHotelmode From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 460 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2313 times:

Quoting Bok269 (Reply 4):
Were they seriously for celestial navigation?

No, they were for better visibility when turning finals on visual approaches. The celestial nav windows were in the roof but i would be surprised if any 737s had them as they werent designed for oceanic work.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2299 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 3):
There's a Service Bulletin to do this since it reduces maintenance, lowers weight, and nobody actually needs those windows today anyway.

Add Sound reduction too.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2008 times:

As a sidenote, even 732s are getting their eyebrows plugged now.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Simon Blakesley



User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9489 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1960 times:

Quoting Bok269 (Reply 4):
Not to mention I think the glare annoys the pilots. Were they seriously for celestial navigation?



Quoting Hotelmode (Reply 6):
No, they were for better visibility when turning finals on visual approaches. The celestial nav windows were in the roof but i would be surprised if any 737s had them as they werent designed for oceanic work.

I spoke with the design engineer responsible for the removal of the eyebrow windows, and it was interesting to see why they were there. He said there were no documented reasons at Boeing for why they were ever installed on the 737. They were carryovers from the 727. However again there is no documentation for why they were included in that plane. So they went back and searched for the 707 and why they were included. The end result was that they were carryovers from the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser from the 1940s.

It took 60 years to get rid of them even though they no longer had a practical purpose. The final push for getting rid of them was that McDonnell Douglas got rid of similar windows on the MD-95/717.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offline737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 785 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1939 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If I recall the original reason for eyebrow windows was in military applications, WWII bombers to be specific. The crew needed the view to see incoming bogies from above and forward. These eyebrow windows were usually quite a bit larger on these aircraft. Since a very large portion of commercial pilots were former bomber pilots I believe they just felt more comfortable having them there so they could still see above and forward. Before ATC/TCAS they would have been handy. Now this is all from memory so don't shoot me down in flames, just accumulated info. over the years.

737tdi


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1916 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 9):
The end result was that they were carryovers from the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser from the 1940s.

Amazing that it took so many years to eliminate them.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2386 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

Quoting Jafa39 (Reply 5):

Yes, ZK-JNB has had them removed!


User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1861 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 11):
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 9):
The end result was that they were carryovers from the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser from the 1940s.

Amazing that it took so many years to eliminate them.

I recently did some work on 737CL and there was a hole in the keel beam that didn't appear to do anything. It was driving us nuts because, even though the aircraft we were working on didn't use it, we weren't sure that another aircraft wasn't using it (and therefore we couldn't use it for the modification). Turns out it was a holdover from the 727 fuselage and had no purpose at all on the 737.

Every change to a design takes time and manpower. If a thing isn't costing you much by being there, removing it may be more effort that it's worth. I'm surprised eyebrow windows fell in that bucket though...that's a relatively expensive part.

Tom.


User currently offlineBAe146QT From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2006, 996 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1846 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 9):
I spoke with the design engineer responsible for the removal of the eyebrow windows, and it was interesting to see why they were there. He said there were no documented reasons at Boeing for why they were ever installed on the 737. They were carryovers from the 727. However again there is no documentation for why they were included in that plane. So they went back and searched for the 707 and why they were included. The end result was that they were carryovers from the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser from the 1940s.

It took 60 years to get rid of them even though they no longer had a practical purpose. The final push for getting rid of them was that McDonnell Douglas got rid of similar windows on the MD-95/717.

I love this story. It's a charming example of "But-we've-always-done-it-that-way!"

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 10):
If I recall the original reason for eyebrow windows was in military applications, WWII bombers to be specific.

Does this explain why it was on the B-377? Because it was derived from the B-29? Other than the bombadier's glass nose, they look like brother and (pregnant) sister.



Todos mis dominós son totalmente pegajosos
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1810 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 13):
I recently did some work on 737CL and there was a hole in the keel beam that didn't appear to do anything

Where Exactly on the Keel Beam.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1804 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 15):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 13):
I recently did some work on 737CL and there was a hole in the keel beam that didn't appear to do anything

Where Exactly on the Keel Beam.

Inboard side of the LH A/C pack bay, about 24" forward of the rear spar. I think it was about 2" in diameter. Dimensions might be a little off, since I was mostly going off digital photos.

Tom.


User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2386 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1774 times:

I found a photo of JNB that I snapped at Queenstown recently, post-mod.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24803 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1753 times:

Quoting BAe146QT (Reply 14):
Quoting 737tdi (Reply 10):
If I recall the original reason for eyebrow windows was in military applications, WWII bombers to be specific.

Does this explain why it was on the B-377? Because it was derived from the B-29? Other than the bombadier's glass nose, they look like brother and (pregnant) sister.

The Stratocruiser cockpit definitely had more than its share of windows, 19 panes worth, and not only eyebrow windows but knee-level windows. The B-29 was even more generous.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Armstrong
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Del Laughery




The DC-8 and all DC-9 series models (except late production 717s) also had eyebrow windows, although only one per side. I guess they got the idea from the Boeing Dash-80 since earlier Douglas piston types lacked them.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1729 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 16):
Inboard side of the LH A/C pack bay, about 24" forward of the rear spar.

Is it the one similiar to the Access port to the Isolation valve which is further Ahead.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1662 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 19):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 16):
Inboard side of the LH A/C pack bay, about 24" forward of the rear spar.

Is it the one similiar to the Access port to the Isolation valve which is further Ahead.

I honestly couldn't tell you without going out to look at an airplane. However, I suspect it's similar. Unfortunately, all that I usually get around here is 737NG's.

Tom.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31667 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1643 times:

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 20):
However, I suspect it's similar. Unfortunately, all that I usually get around here is 737NG's.

Can it be access port to the APU duct check valve.

Yeah B732s are only flying out here as Freighters.Soon they will be gone too.Give them another 2-3 years out here.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1635 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 21):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 20):
However, I suspect it's similar. Unfortunately, all that I usually get around here is 737NG's.

Can it be access port to the APU duct check valve.

One of the guys who's been around for a really long time thinks it was originally for a water line on a 727, but that's pure speculation.

Tom.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Eyebrowless QF 733...was I Seeing Things?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
London/UK Aviation Things To Do posted Wed Mar 14 2007 00:10:20 by Meister808
On The 737, What Are Those Things Sticking Out... posted Mon Feb 26 2007 07:39:32 by CoolGuy
B-70: Was There Ever A Serious Mach 4 Requirement? posted Mon Feb 12 2007 00:51:47 by Starglider
Things That Make Me Go Hmmm....on A320 No:2 posted Fri Feb 2 2007 10:01:44 by Wing
Things That Make Me Go Hýmm....on A320 No:1 posted Tue Jan 2 2007 18:30:46 by Wing
How Wide Was The Boeing 7J7 Cabin? posted Wed Dec 13 2006 18:29:01 by 747400sp
"Incidents" I've Experienced On QF 744's posted Wed Dec 13 2006 07:05:50 by Camohe
How Long Was The 757 100 Suppost To Be? posted Sun Dec 3 2006 01:10:58 by 747400sp
733 With Both Ailerons Slightly Up posted Tue Nov 28 2006 23:54:01 by RedFlyer
What Was Wrong With The Plane I Just Flew? posted Sat Sep 30 2006 00:56:30 by OyKIE

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format