Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Window On Freighters  
User currently offlineThvgjp From Ukraine, joined Mar 2002, 158 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3680 times:

Might be a dumb question but why are there no cabin windows on freighters. I assume it must be something to do with an increased fuselage strength. Am I correct

Glen

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBeechcraft From Germany, joined Nov 2003, 828 posts, RR: 42
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3653 times:

and maybe freight doesn´t really want to look outside, as passengers would...  Big grin


regards Denis




That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3639 times:

Windows are heavy too. The freighters gain some extra load capacity with the heavy window assemblies removed.

And...they no longer have to maintain them which is a bonus too!


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29784 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 3618 times:

In in the case of a fire, plastic burns through faster then metal.

That is why when we flew combis, all the window screens had to be lowered.

The extra time that it may take for a fire to burn though might be just enough to oxygen starve a fire.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offline3lions From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3594 times:

Also don't have the added expense of the installations of all the windows.

User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3572 times:

Airplanes originally designed as freighters have no windows -
Windows are heavier than structural metal and skin...
xxx
There are many freighters with windows - which are...
Those airplanes that were converted from passenger to cargo planes...
xxx"
The only 747s without windows are airplanes that are 747Fs...
The 747SF airplanes have windows...
And so are the 747C which are operating in cargo configuration...
So, no windows on freighters... what is THAT statement...?
Happy contrails -
(s) Skipper


User currently offlineIMisspiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6275 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3472 times:

Usually, in fact almost always, the converted aircraft have plugs installed in place of the windows. As has been mentioned, it's because of weight.. I've pulled a few window assemblies and replaced them with plugs in my time, and after the 100th or so, you begin to notice the difference.


Don't take life so seriously, you are going to die soon anyway.
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3406 times:

As for fuselage strength, you'll most likely want to make sure that the plug is no stronger nor weaker than the window assy, as a change would change the stress distribution. For the same reason, you make sure that repairs are not stronger than the original structure.

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3372 times:

In in the case of a fire, plastic burns through faster then metal.
That is why when we flew combis, all the window screens had to be lowered.
The extra time that it may take for a fire to burn though might be just enough to oxygen starve a fire.


Just how thick were your window shades? Aircraft that are exclusively used for cargo require the compartment to meet Class E criteria (FAR 25) which states:

A Class E cargo compartment is one on airplanes used only for the carriage of cargo and in which--
(1) [Reserved]
(2) There is a separate approved smoke or fire detector system to give warning at the pilot or flight engineer station;
(3) There are means to shut off the ventilating airflow to, or within, the compartment, and the controls for these means are accessible to the flight crew in the crew compartment;
(4) There are means to exclude hazardous quantities of smoke, flames, or noxious gases, from the flight crew compartment; and
(5) The required crew emergency exits are accessible under any cargo loading condition.


In the case of combi aircraft when the compartment can be used for passengers as well, the correct (legal) method is to use temporary cargo liners to cover the interior panels (and windows). Pulling the shades down isn't going to help unless your window shades are made of Kydex or some sort of metal.

Cargo liners must meet FAR 25 Appendix F burn critera as follows:

Sec. F25.3

[Appendix F--Part III--Test Method to Determine Flame Penetration Resistance of Cargo Compartment Liners.]

[(a) Criteria for Acceptance.
(1) At least three specimens of cargo compartment sidewall or ceiling liner panels must be tested.
(2) Each specimen tested must stimulate the cargo compartment sidewall or ceiling liner panel, including any design features, such as joints, lamp assemblies, etc., the failure of which would affect the capability of the liner to safety contains a fire.
(3) There must be no flame penetration of any specimen within 5 minutes after application of the flame source, and the peak temperature measured at 4 inches above the upper surface of the horizontal test sample must not exceed 400° F.
(b) Summary of Method. This method provides a laboratory test procedure for measuring the capability of cargo compartment lining materials to resist flame penetration with a 2 gallon per hour (GPH) #2 Grade kerosene or equivalent burner fire source. Ceiling and sidewall liner panels may be tested individually provided a baffle is used to simulate the missing panel. Any specimen that passes the test as a ceiling liner panel may be used as a sidewall liner panel.
(c) Test Specimens.
(1) The specimen to be tested must measure 16 ± inches (406 ± 3 mm) by 24 ± inches (610 ± mm).
(2) The specimens must be conditioned at 70° F. ± 5° F. (21°C. ± 2°C.) and 55% ± 5% humidity for at least 24 hours before testing.
(d) Test Apparatus. The arrangement of the test apparatus, which is shown in Figure 3 of Part II and Figure 1 through 3 of this Part of Appendix F, must include the components described in this section. Minor details of the apparatus may vary, depending on the model of the burner used.
(1) Specimen Mounting Stand. The mounting stand for the test specimens consists of steel angles as shown in Figure 1.
(2) Test Burner. The burner to be used in testing must--
(i) Be a modified gun type.
(ii) Use a suitable nozzle and maintain fuel pressure to yield a 2 GPH fuel flow. For example: an 80 degree nozzle nominally rated at 2.25 GPH and operated at 85 pounds per square inch (PSI) gage to deliver 2.03 GPH.
(iii) Have a 12 inch (305 mm) burner extension installed at the end of the draft tube with an opening 6 inches (152 mm) high and 11 inches (280 mm) wide as shown in Figure 3 of Part II of this Appendix.
(iv) Have a burner fuel pressure regulator that is adjusted to deliver a nominal 2.0 GPH of #2 Grade kerosene or equivalent.
Burner models which have been used successfully in testing are the Lenox Model OB-32, Carlin Model 200 CRD and park Model DPL. The basic burner is described in FAA Powerplant Engineering Report No. 3A, Standard Fire Test Apparatus and Procedures for Flexible Hose Assemblies, dated March 1978; however, the test setting specified in this Appendix differ in some instances from those specified in the report.
(3) Calorimeter.
(i) The calorimeter to be used in testing must be a total heat flux Foil Type Gardon Gage of an appropriate range (approximately 0 to 15.0 British thermal unit (BTU) per ft.2 sec., 0-17.0 watts/cm2). The calorimeter must be mounted in a 6 inch by 12 inch (152 by 305 mm) by inch (19 mm) thick insulating block which is attached to a steel angle bracket for placement in the test stand during burner calibration as shown in Figure 2 of the Part of this Appendix.
(ii) The insulating block must be monitored for deterioration and the mounting shimmed as necessary to ensure that the calorimeter face is parallel to the exit plane of the test burner cone.
(4) Thermocouples. The seven thermocouples to be used for testing must be inch ceramic sheathed, type K, grounded thermocouples with a nominal 30 American wire gage (AWG) size conductor. The seven thermocouples must be attached to a steel angle bracket to form a thermocouple rake for placement in the stand during burner calibration as shown in Figure 3 of this Part of this Appendix.
(5) Apparatus Arrangement. The test burner must be mounted on a suitable stand to position the exit of the burner cone a distance of 8 inches from the ceiling liner panel and 2 inches from the sidewall liner panel. The burner stand should have the capability of allowing the burner to be swung away from the test specimen during warm-up periods.
(6) Instrumentation. A recording potentiometer or other suitable instrument with an appropriate range must be used to measure and record the outputs of the calorimeter and the thermocouples.
(7) Timing Device. A stopwatch or other device must be used to measure the time of flame application and the time of flame penetration, if it occurs.
(e) Preparation of Apparatus. Before calibration, all equipment must be turned on and allowed to stabilize, and the burner fuel flow must be adjusted as specified in paragraph (d)(2).
(f) Calibration. To ensure the proper thermal output of the burner the following test must be made:
(1) Remove the burner extension from the end of the draft tube. Turn on the blower portion of the burner without turning the fuel or igniters on. Measure the air velocity using a hot wire anemometer in the center of the draft tube across the face of the opening. Adjust the damper such that the air velocity is in the range of 1550 to 1800 ft./min. If tabs are being used at the exit of the draft tube, they must be removed prior to this measurement. Reinstall the draft tube extension cone.
(2) Place the calorimeter on the test stand as shown in Figure 2 at a distance of 8 inches (203 mm) from the exit of the burner cone to simulate the position of the horizontal test specimen.
(3) Turn on the burner, allow it to run for 2 minutes for warm-up, and adjust the damper to produce a calorimeter reading of 8.0 ± 0.5 BTU per ft.2 sec. (9.1 ± 0.6 Watts/cm2).
(4) Replace the calorimeter with the thermocouples rake (see Figure 3).
(5) Turn on the burner an ensure that each of the seven thermocouples reads 1700°F. ± 100°F. (927°C. ± 38°C.) to ensure steady state conditions have been achieved. If the temperature is out of this range, repeat steps 2 through 5 until proper readings are obtained.
(6) Turn off the burner and remove the thermocouple rake.
(7) Repeat (1) to ensure that the burner is in the correct range.
(g) Test Procedure.
(1) Mount a thermocouple of the same type as that used for calibration at a distance of 4 inches (101 mm) above the horizontal (ceiling) test specimen. The thermocouple should be centered over the burner cone.
(2) Mount the test specimen on the test stand shown in Figure 1 in either the horizontal or vertical position. Mount the insulating material in the other position.
(3) Position the burner so that flame will not impinge on the specimen, turn the burner on, and allow it to run for 2 minutes. Rotate the burner to apply the flame to the specimen and simultaneously start the timing device.
(4) Expose the test specimen to the flame for 5 minutes and then turn off the burner. The test may be terminated earlier if flame penetration is observed.
(5) When testing ceiling liner panels, record the peak temperature measured 4 inches above the sample.
(6) Record the time at which flame penetration occurs if applicable.
(h) Test Report. The test report must include the following:
(1) A complete description of the materials tested including type, manufacturer, thickness, and other appropriate data.
(2) Observations of the behavior of the test specimens during flame exposure such as delamination, resin ignition, smoke, etc., including the time of such occurrence.
(3) The time at which flame penetration occurs, if applicable, for each of three specimens tested.
(4) Panel orientation (ceiling or sidewall.)



User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29784 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3233 times:

This was when I was at Reeve Airplay. All pallet, All seats or combinations there-off.

If you where carrying topside cargo you had to have all the gaspers shut off, and the window shades down.

Later right before I left the company, they started required that all freight, not in igloos (which where required to have intact tarps or doors) but on cookie sheets, had to be covered with this flameproof tarp. It was silver in color and weight right up there with a piece of heavyweight canvas.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSkydrolBoy From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 341 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3004 times:

Actually the real reason there are no windows is not the weight savings. It is due to window inspections for cracks, delamination or other problems. The labour costs of having to remove the cargo interior to inspect the windows on a calender time basis would be too high, so the windows are removed and plugs installed, and now the airlines only have to inspect the plugs at the same time that they are inspecting the rest of the fuselage on c-checks.

Skydrolboy


User currently offlineIMisspiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6275 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

A plug on a 727 weighs less than 4 pounds, the window pushes 10. Not that I have any experience though.


Don't take life so seriously, you are going to die soon anyway.
User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2949 times:

No windows, save on weight... Well, that is what Mr. Boeing said to me.
But our Skydrolboy said the opposite.
Gosh, what expert knowledge amounts are we are finally getting here...  Big grin
xxx
Happy contrails -
(s) Skipper


User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2881 times:

Skydrolboy does have a point. Removing windows relieves a great deal of maintenance, so although its probably (in my opinion) not the primary reason for removing the windows, it certainly is a positive aspect.

User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2852 times:

Compare the cost of having the number of windows times six pounds less in cargo with the cost of tearing out the entire interior at whatever interval is required for inspecting the windows.

There's your answer.

Both reasons are valid, and the figures you arrive at will tell you which is the most significant. My guess would be that the extra maintenance will cost you more than the extra weight.

Cheers,
Fred



I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineSkydrolBoy From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 341 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2822 times:

With the company I work for I have had a 727-100 that still had the windows installed but with decals put over to look like plugs, and we went and removed the windows not because of the weight but because of the inspection cost of having the windows. Also on the Aeronautical Engineers 727 cargo door mod, when you put the plugs in you modify the actual window frames. The engineers upstairs at my work told me that Boeing made AEI put this into their mod so that the airplane can never fly passengers again, because the original windows cannot be installed into the modified window frames.

If you do the math you are only saving about 500lbs by changing the windows to plugs. The money you save from the weight doesnt even come close to the cost of the maintenance for the window inspections.


User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2816 times:

500 lbs x 200 flights a year would the fuel to haul 100,000 lbs. If you average about 2 hours a flight, that translates into alot of fuel...

But I agree. Both reasons are valid.

I wonder if anyone has the data for how much it costs to fly a pound of freight?


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why No Window On Freighters
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...
Why No Papi On W/B Rwys At LAX? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 06:58:06 by Adipasqu
Why No Landings On posted Mon Sep 12 2005 11:29:01 by TheSonntag
Why No V2500 On The A318 posted Sat May 28 2005 13:52:30 by HAWK21M
Why No Winglets On The 777? posted Sun Sep 12 2004 12:19:58 by Regis
Why No HUDs On Large Aircraft? posted Tue Aug 31 2004 05:52:04 by AndrewAir
Why No Paint On Wings? posted Wed May 5 2004 12:55:05 by A380900
Why No FE On 737? posted Sun Apr 25 2004 16:36:12 by Checkerboard
Why No Winglets On The 737-600 posted Sun Sep 28 2003 00:41:25 by Cancidas
Why No Reverse On Piston Planes posted Wed Nov 27 2002 13:30:53 by Salim
Why No Winglets On The 717? posted Mon Oct 14 2002 21:35:26 by BR715-A1-30

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format