787 Windows. Are They Any Different?

a380900 · Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:52 am

I thought the windows of the 787 would be different. They look pretty similar from what is being done. Does anyone know the actual size of the 787 windows and the size of other aircraft? Thanks.

ikramerica · Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:57 am

YES! THEY ARE BIGGER! I'M SHOUTING because maybe it will sink in that way.

The cockpit windows are also bigger. Huge, making the other windows not look as big.

Stitch · Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:59 am

Over 18". They are a good deal larger then the 777's, which are the largest in current service.

echster · Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:59 am

Click on the "Inside The Plane" tab.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/boeing/787/787primer.asp

SJCRRPAX · Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:59 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
YES! THEY ARE BIGGER! I'M SHOUTING because maybe it will sink in that way.

The cockpit windows are also bigger. Huge, making the other windows not look as big.

The Windows on a Ghost plane can be any size you can imagine. rotf

AA757200 · Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:02 am

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
I thought the windows of the 787 would be different. They look pretty similar from what is being done. Does anyone know the actual size of the 787 windows and the size of other aircraft?

Have you tried the boeing website, or does someone else have to do the heavy lifting for you? 787 windows will be the largest in the industry. A higher eye level will give the passenger a better horizon view. The windows will not have traditional shades. They are made from electrochromic glass, which dims at the touch of a button.

ikramerica · Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:05 am

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Reply 4):
The Windows on a Ghost plane can be any size you can imagine.

ROFL

Quoting Echster (Reply 3):
Click on the "Inside The Plane" tab.

Cool. Thanks.

And anyone who's flown the 777 knows those windows are already nicely sized. Even the 744 windows are sized okay and located at a good height for looking out.

The 787 with 18" tall windows will offer me (a tall guy) a good view without craning. So I'm happy.

Viscount724 · Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:08 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
They are a good deal larger then the 777's, which are the largest in current service.

I thought the DC-10 and MD-11 windows were larger than those on the 777. They always seemed significantly larger to me but I don't have the actual dimensions handy.

GivenRandy · Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:23 am

I was wondering about the windows, too. Looking at the inside-the-cabin, the interior of the windows look huge. But, the size of the hole in the skin doesn't look nearly as big.

EMBQA · Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:26 am

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
I thought the windows of the 787 would be different.

Yes... as said above they are bigger. Nearly 2x larger then the A380's.... plus they offer individual and transparent shading. A feature until now only seen on business jets.

ikramerica · Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:35 am

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 9):
Nearly 2x larger then the A380's

no way.

they are only about 30% larger than the 777 windows. are the A380 windows that much smaller than the 777 windows? i thought they were nearly the same...

MCIGuy · Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:52 am

I could be wrong, and this is NOT meant as a slam, but I've always percieved Airbus' windows to be smaller, at least the models I've flown on, which isn't every model.

ikramerica · Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:05 am

there must be a table that lists all the windows. it's not classified information...

pr1268 · Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:07 am

Quoting AA757200 (Reply 5):
They are made from electrochromic glass, which dims at the touch of a button.

Lovely... When the electrochromic window dimmer malfunctions then pax will have another reason to demand compensation from the airlines.

JUST KIDDING!! I'm only satirizing how we Americans complain too much. duck

Besides, Boeing's high quality manufacturing standards will certainly make the above a non-issue. So go ahead and call me a butthead

.

Quoting Echster (Reply 3):
Click on the "Inside The Plane" tab.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/boeing/787/787primer.asp

Thanks for that URL - lots of cool info about the Dreamliner!

pelican · Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:10 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
The cockpit windows are also bigger. Huge, making the other windows not look as big.

Are you sure about that?

signed,

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mészáros Tibor

pelican

N328KF · Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:14 am

Quoting Pr1268 (Reply 13):
Lovely... When the electrochromic window dimmer malfunctions then pax will have another reason to demand compensation from the airlines.

Just to note, from a purely mechanical standpoint, these windows are actually far simpler. Just a dial and a low voltage circuit supplying power to the glass. The dial is the only moving part in the whole system.

ikramerica · Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:17 am

Quoting Pelican (Reply 14):
Are you sure about that?

you show a picture of an L1011 without any reference and what is your point?

Yes, the cockpit windows on the 787 are huge, thus they make the side windows look smaller.

Same goes for the L1011 in your pic. look how tiny the side windows look...

zeke · Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:39 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Over 18". They are a good deal larger then the 777's, which are the largest in current service.

AFAIK they are 19"x11" and smaller than those on the DC8, which were 18"x14.5".

MD-90 · Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:47 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
you show a picture of an L1011 without any reference and what is your point?

His point was that the L-1011 had a big windscreen and was reputed to have the best field of view of any airliner ever built (okay, that's my point, thought I'd just tag that in).

Mir · Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:52 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
no way.

they are only about 30% larger than the 777 windows. are the A380 windows that much smaller than the 777 windows? i thought they were nearly the same...

They're not. They seemed to be about the same size as the 777, or thereabouts. I'd be shocked if the 787 windows were twice as big as the 380 windows.

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 11):
I could be wrong, and this is NOT meant as a slam, but I've always percieved Airbus' windows to be smaller, at least the models I've flown on, which isn't every model.

You're not wrong - the 320, 330 and 340 have relatively small windows compared to the competing Boeing products. The windows on the 380 are bigger (though smaller than the 787), and there is no reason to believe that the 350 won't have larger windows as well (whether they match the 787 remains to be seen).

-Mir

albird87 · Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:54 am

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 9):
plus they offer individual and transparent shading. A feature until now only seen on business jets

Out of interest does anybody know then if the FA's can control this function?? I guess they would need to for takeoff and landings and also at other times.

Also what are the chances of it not working?? i mean i would hate to be in the seat with the one that doesnt dim and im trying to get some shut eye!!

pr1268 · Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:12 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
Yes, the cockpit windows on the 787 are huge, thus they make the side windows look smaller.

Same goes for the L1011 in your pic. look how tiny the side windows look...

I got the impression that the 747's cockpit windows were larger than any other. It's just that in visual perspective, the sheer size of the aircraft and/or the angle of the glass with respect to the pilots' seating positions hide this fact. Are the Dreamliner's or L-1011's cockpit windows larger than the 747's? Thanks

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Manas Barooah

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Eric Coeckelberghs

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Helmut Bierbaum

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Serge Bailleul - AirTeamImages

pelican · Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:22 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 16):
you show a picture of an L1011 without any reference and what is your point?

That's exactly my point - you said:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):
The cockpit windows are also bigger.

Bigger than what? Bigger than the 777 cockpit windows? Bigger than everything else before? Even bigger than those of the L1011. A reference to what you refer with bigger would have been nice.

pelican

WingedMigrator · Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:34 pm

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
Does anyone know the actual size of the 787 windows

787 windows are 10.5" x 18" spaced 24" apart
777 windows are 10.5" x 15.3" spaced 21" apart

So, compared to the 777, each window is ~20% larger, but there are 13% fewer of them for a given length of the cabin. This gives the 787 window belt ~5% more glass area than the 777 window belt, per unit length of the aircraft. So yes, they are bigger... just not as huge as the interior mockups initially suggested.

scrubbsywg · Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:03 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 15):

Just to note, from a purely mechanical standpoint, these windows are actually far simpler. Just a dial and a low voltage circuit supplying power to the glass. The dial is the only moving part in the whole system.

far simpler than a sliding shade? Sure, they are not nearly as advanced and technical as some would believe, but to say 'from a mechanical standpoint..." is a bit of a stretch when comparing it to something like the current sliding shades. I've never seen a shade malfunction in a mechanical way. I think there is more to go wrong in photochromatic windows(i thought they were LCD based), you need a circuit breaker to pop, resister to break, loose connection, whatever and it doesnt work.

PolymerPlane · Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:18 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 23):
So, compared to the 777, each window is ~20% larger, but there are 13% fewer of them for a given length of the cabin. This gives the 787 window belt ~5% more glass area than the 777 window belt, per unit length of the aircraft. So yes, they are bigger... just not as huge as the interior mockups initially suggested.

How does this have anything to do with the interior mockups?
Unless you provide the windows size of the mockups, you conclusion is flawed.

BTW I just did crude calculations based on Boeing's airplane description and the actual window count and the distance between first to the last door on both 787-8 and 777-200LR. B787-8 has about 0.4 window/ft while B772LR has about 0.43 window/ft (excluding windows on door). That's about 8% less windows.

787's windows is about 25% larger than the 777 based on the SeattlePI article.

So yes, it's a big difference.

Cheers,
PP

md80fanatic · Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:24 pm

Besides, you cannot close a photochromatic window only half way. It's nice to block the high sun and still have an unobstructed view of the ground. I guess there is a weight savings....but the convenience to passengers will likely suffer.

VirginFlyer · Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:43 pm

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 26):
Besides, you cannot close a photochromatic window only half way.

You can however dim it partially so that it cuts down the glare of the sun while allowing you still to see through the whole window.

V/F

N328KF · Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:57 pm

Quoting ScrubbsYWG (Reply 24):
I think there is more to go wrong in photochromatic windows(i thought they were LCD based)

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 26):
Besides, you cannot close a photochromatic window only half way

They are LCD-based, so they are electrochromic. And they are probably using a single LCD element (cell) for the entire window, but there's no reason you couldn't have multi-element windows...it just adds to the cost. Since it's monochromatic, additional elements themselves probably aren't too expensive. So you'd just have several elements, each one the full horizontal width of the window, and just turn them on selectively. Adds complexity but easily addresses what you're referring to.

ikramerica · Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:24 pm

According to the NH website illustrations, the windows are 8cm taller than 767 windows.

But we must remember that that added height is a full 27cm x 8cm rectangle. Windows are rounded at the edges, so you can't just divide the two heights to find the increase. You must divide the areas after calculating them.

The radius of the window fillets looks to be about 13cm. That means the non-glass contribution is 0.86 x 169cm = 145cm^2. (roughly)

39cm x 27cm - 145cm^2 = 910cm^2 (roughly)
47cm x 27cm - 145cm^2 = 1125cm^2 (roughly)

New windows are 23-24% larger by those calcs.

I can believe the 25% if the numbers that actually come out of Boeing are a bit different than all the numbers thrown about the interweb.

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 23):
787 windows are 10.5" x 18" spaced 24" apart777 windows are 10.5" x 15.3" spaced 21" apart

I don't like that part. At 21" on center, every coach seat (at 31 or 32" pitch) gets basically 1.5 windows. But at 24" centers, you only get 1 1/3rd windows, and there will be more fighting with your back and front neighbors about having it clear or opaque.

I can see the advantage for F seating with 72" pitch, but again, not for J seating with 55-60" pitch.

GBan · Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:32 pm

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 26):
Besides, you cannot close a photochromatic window only half way. It's nice to block the high sun and still have an unobstructed view of the ground. I guess there is a weight savings....but the convenience to passengers will likely suffer.

Agreed.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 28):
They are LCD-based, so they are electrochromic. And they are probably using a single LCD element (cell) for the entire window, but there's no reason you couldn't have multi-element windows...it just adds to the cost. Since it's monochromatic, additional elements themselves probably aren't too expensive. So you'd just have several elements, each one the full horizontal width of the window, and just turn them on selectively. Adds complexity but easily addresses what you're referring to.

Certainly can be done. But has it been done this way?

Quoting Albird87 (Reply 20):
Out of interest does anybody know then if the FA's can control this function?? I guess they would need to for takeoff and landings and also at other times.

I read in another thread that they can control this function.

Leskova · Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:32 pm

The concept of these windows is rather interesting - though I'm not certain whether it's really an advance for the passenger:

Quoting AA757200 (Reply 5):
They are made from electrochromic glass, which dims at the touch of a button.

Sounds good, but what if - as others have suggested - something malfunctions and you're stuck with an either undimmed window with the sun behind it, or a completely dimmed window while you actually want to look outside?

Quoting Albird87 (Reply 20):
Out of interest does anybody know then if the FA's can control this function?? I guess they would need to for takeoff and landings and also at other times.

And that's precisely the one thing I worry about - not the takeoff/landing part, that's one thing I find extremely helpful; the one thing I don't like is someone else having a say about whether or not I should have my shades "down" or not: for example, I love seeing sunrises and sunsets from planes, but usually FA's will make you close your blinds around that time: so, will I be able to override that "closed" blind to be able to enjoy the sight that, in my eyes, is one of the best sights while flying?

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 27):

Quoting MD80fanatic,reply=26:
Besides, you cannot close a photochromatic window only half way. It's nice to block the high sun and still have an unobstructed view of the ground. I guess there is a weight savings....but the convenience to passengers will likely suffer.

You can however dim it partially so that it cuts down the glare of the sun while allowing you still to see through the whole window.

While I agree that it's a nice function to be able to have the whole window darkened yet transparent , having the sun shine in directly through your window would require your window to be darkened quite a lot - so I see the same problem as MD80fanatic: a shade can go halfway down and still let you look through the lower half, a (for example) 90% darkened window won't let the sun blind you, but it also won't let you see much of what's visible outside.

andessmf · Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:45 pm

Quoting Leskova (Reply 31):
Sounds good, but what if - as others have suggested - something malfunctions and you're stuck with an either undimmed window with the sun behind it, or a completely dimmed window while you actually want to look outside

There are many automatic devices on a car nowadays as compared to a few years ago. I was warned about the possibility of all these things going wrong. Guess how many have gone wrong in 15 years...

None.

There are way too many things to worry about the 787 rather than the windows. Though the Boeing windows are my preference.

bringiton · Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:50 pm

Quoting Leskova (Reply 31):

And that's precisely the one thing I worry about - not the takeoff/landing part, that's one thing I find extremely helpful; the one thing I don't like is someone else having a say about whether or not I should have my shades "down" or not: for example, I love seeing sunrises and sunsets from planes, but usually FA's will make you close your blinds around that time: so, will I be able to override that "closed" blind to be able to enjoy the sight that, in my eyes, is one of the best sights while flying?

This has been discussed and Randy B even gave his take on it . I will try to look up his blog entry but his version was simply that , if you are traveling and the FA asks you to turn your blind down then you either have 100% visibility (blind up) or 0% visibility ie. the blind is down . However in this case the FA's have an option to set a max level upto which the window shade can be brightened so they could create a situation whereby you can get say 40% light comming through which may be acceptable as a dim enough cabin for Sunrises and still provide you with an ability to look at and admire the sunrise if you so wish . Early on there was nothing which could be done either you are allowed to look at a sunrise or not but now if airlines so wish to please those travelers like you and me they can set a maximum brightness level uptil which you can dim or brighten the view ! Not a bad deal if you have been asked to turn the blinds down as i have on many occasions !

Leskova · Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:51 pm

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 32):
There are many automatic devices on a car nowadays as compared to a few years ago. I was warned about the possibility of all these things going wrong. Guess how many have gone wrong in 15 years...

None.

Thank you for pointing out the blindingly obvious...

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 32):
There are way too many things to worry about the 787 rather than the windows. Though the Boeing windows are my preference.

I know, but having been in planes with just about everything malfunctioning from lighting, audio- and video-systems, onboard computers, navigational equipment, engines, flaps and landing gears, it's always been rather the simple things that malfunction than the highly complicated technical equipment - or, for the latter, there's simply redundancy planned into the system.

I don't have much of a doubt in the reliability of the rest of the plane, it's actually really more this element that I have my doubts about... but I guess we'll see anyhow.

MD-90 · Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:40 pm

Quoting Pr1268 (Reply 21):
I got the impression that the 747's cockpit windows were larger than any other.

Honestly, I don't really know about the 747, but you'll note the while the two center panes are very large and extend downwards quite a bit, the glareshield above the instruments is quite intrusive and seems to limit the view quite a lot. I don't have the exact quote available to me right now, but I've read of pilots describing flying the L-1011 as a "magic carpet ride" or "being inside a giant bubble" because of the placement of the windscreen and the dimensions, not necessarily because it was the biggest one out there.

Look at the DC-10/MD-11: an enormous field of view from the side but a much smaller view from the front.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Basically all the widebodies have a good view from the flightdeck, the worst are the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/717.

keesje · Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:48 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 29):
The radius of the window fillets looks to be about 13cm. That means the non-glass contribution is 0.86 x 169cm = 145cm^2. (roughly)

39cm x 27cm - 145cm^2 = 910cm^2 (roughly)
47cm x 27cm - 145cm^2 = 1125cm^2 (roughly)

Does anybody know the size of the MD11 windows, how far apart, they seem large too & at convenient hight.

ThePRGuy · Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:18 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6):
And anyone who's flown the 777 knows those windows are already nicely sized. Even the 744 windows are sized okay and located at a good height for looking out.

MD11 pwned the 777 hands down, great windows, airy cabin, lovely.

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 9):
Yes... as said above they are bigger. Nearly 2x larger then the A380's.... plus they offer individual and transparent shading. A feature until now only seen on business jets.

The 787's engine power is around 400% greater than *errm think of an airbus to put in here, QUICK!!*, making it by far the best aircraft in the world for anyone that could possibly be concerned and connected, oh, err especially the passenger!!!

Signed,

EMBQA

bh4007 · Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:37 pm

IMO, the appearance of the 787 makes it look smaller than it is; in photos it looks like a big A320 but when you see how big the people are; you realize that it really is massive.

Oh and in the promo cabin shots they probably hire really small people; making the windows and seats look bigger!

6yjjk · Mon Jul 09, 2007 8:44 pm

If I remember rightly, one of the reasons given for Concorde's tiny windows was the difference between internal and external pressure at 60,000', and the ability to withstand the loss of a window at that altitude. The smaller window would reduce the outward flow to something more manageable.

The 787 claims a lower cabin altitude than other aircraft, and hence higher internal pressure, yet has bigger windows. How does that work? Loss of a window is going to (literally) suck whatever you're in, but would it be significantly more dramatic in a 787 than, say, a 777? (Let's start a BvB flame war... Wink

)

I'm not implying it's in any way unsafe - I'm just curious. Am I right that the window size in conventional aircraft is limited more by structural concerns than by what happens if the window blows out? I know the 787's structure allows the bigger windows, so what prevents them being bigger still - cost of the windows themselves (including those jazzy LCD dimmer things)? cost of supporting structure? depressurisation concerns?

scott0305 · Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:24 pm

Check out this BBC news clip about the 787. Pause it at 1:31. They do a pretty good size comparison with an A340 window that lets you see the difference. Notice they don't do a 777 or MD-11 comparison though!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/new...id_6281300/6281332.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm

[Edited 2007-07-09 14:26:05]

EMBQA · Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:30 pm

Quoting ThePRGuy (Reply 37):
The 787's engine power is around 400% greater than *errm think of an airbus to put in here, QUICK!!*, making it by far the best aircraft in the world for anyone that could possibly be concerned and connected, oh, err especially the passenger!!!

Say what....???

chrisnh · Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:33 pm

I hope those fancy light-dimming windows won't be a problem in the same way that pop-up headlights are for cars. Nothing looks more retarded than a car driving down the road with one light flipped up and the other down.

Stitch · Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:34 pm

Quoting Leskova (Reply 31):
Sounds good, but what if - as others have suggested - something malfunctions and you're stuck with an either undimmed window with the sun behind it, or a completely dimmed window while you actually want to look outside?

The technology is pretty "tried and true" by now, so I expect the MTBF is sufficiently low enough, even with the frame longevity of the 787.

EMBQA · Mon Jul 09, 2007 9:44 pm

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 42):
I hope those fancy light-dimming windows won't be a problem in the same way that pop-up headlights are for cars

My understanding is that it works the same as an LCD calculator.... so it's been around for years.

EI321 · Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:40 pm

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 23):
So yes, they are bigger... just not as huge as the interior mockups initially suggested.

Its just marketing. The plane needs to look sexy, so every thing is made to look dramatic, from the shark fin to the nose, to the windows, to the wing flex, to the lack of economy class photos. The finished product will be toned down.

PolymerPlane · Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:19 pm

Quoting EI321 (Reply 45):
Its just marketing.

Unless you can provide the real measurement of the interior mock ups, I call it B.S. The mock-up looks bigger because of the shape of the wall around the windows. I think the actual size is pretty accurate.

Cheers,
PP

PYP757 · Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:24 pm

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 42):
I hope those fancy light-dimming windows won't be a problem in the same way that pop-up headlights are for cars. Nothing looks more retarded than a car driving down the road with one light flipped up and the other down.

Actually, I wouldn't mind if it malfunctions, if I'm unlucky enough to be seated one seat away from the window, and my neighbor is one of these irritating people who close the shade as soon as we take off and does not open it again until after landing! What's wrong with some people? If they can't stand watching outside, then they choose an aisle seat!

works4boeing · Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:37 am

When you're standing next to the airplane, the windows do look bigger. It's hard to tell just looking at a picture because you really don't have anything to compare them to in order to gain perspective. The airplane itself looks a lot bigger in person as well.

MD-90 · Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:17 am

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 9):
:
Yes... as said above they are bigger. Nearly 2x larger then the A380's.... plus they offer individual and transparent shading. A feature until now only seen on business jets.

Actually that's incorrect. I read a Flying article a few years ago, and the first aircraft to use polarization was the Gulfstream I, which of course is a turboprop. I believe it was Walt Disney's personal plane and it was his idea to use polarization, and Gulfstream liked the idea and used it.

I think King Airs today use polarization, maybe?

Quoting 6YJJK (Reply 39):
The 787 claims a lower cabin altitude than other aircraft, and hence higher internal pressure, yet has bigger windows.

Well, in this case, the composite barrels. But it's not impossible, just heavy to do. Again, Gulfstream's G500 and G550 have max cabin altitudes of 6000 feet at FL510, far higher than the 787 can fly, and they have impressively large windows. It's a weight tradeoff that Gulfstream (and I) feel is worth it.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net