7E7 Windows

Check it out:
http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cf...8153&release=t

The more I read about this plane, the more I think it's going to be an
enormous winner for Boeing.

"Lou Minatti" wrote in message
om...
Check it out:
http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cf...8153&release=t

The more I read about this plane, the more I think it's going to be an
enormous winner for Boeing.

That must be first class, where is the seat in front banging their knees?!

Now, let's just hope they can get it off the drawing board and make it a
reality instead of just a pipe dream.

"Lou Minatti" wrote in message
om...
Check it out:
http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cf...8153&release=t

The more I read about this plane, the more I think it's going to be an
enormous winner for Boeing.

Lou Minatti wrote:

Check it out:
http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cf...8153&release=t

The more I read about this plane, the more I think it's going to be an
enormous winner for Boeing.


Wasn't it large windows that contributed to the fusalage failure and 5
crashes of the Comet in the late 1950's

....just call me Mr Paranoid :-)

m

"mal" wrote ...
Lou Minatti wrote:
Check it out:
http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cf...8153&release=t


Wasn't it large windows that contributed to the fusalage failure and 5
crashes of the Comet in the late 1950's

No, it was the square window which caused too much stress on the corners.
Hence the round-shaped windows nowadays.
Greetz,

* http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/Hfactors.htm - 5th paragraph *

"mal" wrote in message
...
Lou Minatti wrote:

Check it out:
http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cf...8153&release=t

The more I read about this plane, the more I think it's going to be an
enormous winner for Boeing.


Wasn't it large windows that contributed to the fusalage failure and 5
crashes of the Comet in the late 1950's

...just call me Mr Paranoid :-)

m

Actually, I believe a contributing factor wasn't necessarily the size, but
the shape. They were rectangular rather than oval and the cracks started in
the corner of the window when the the fuselage failed.

Jim

Thur wrote:

"mal" wrote ...
Lou Minatti wrote:
Check it out:
http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cf...8153&release=t


Wasn't it large windows that contributed to the fusalage failure and 5
crashes of the Comet in the late 1950's

No, it was the square window which caused too much stress on the corners.
Hence the round-shaped windows nowadays.
Greetz,

* http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/Hfactors.htm - 5th paragraph *

All in all, I think I would be better off if planes didn't have windows at
all ...that way it would be easier to pretend it wasn't 35000 feet off the
ground !!

.... you might have guessed - I not the worlds most confident flier

m

Check it out:
http://boeingmedia.com/images/one.cf...8153&release=t

The smart thing about having narrow but high windows is that they will cater
to passengers of varying height.

However, I have a strong suspicion that the windows will turn out to be very
conventional in that plane, once the engineers start to consider weight, and
once accountants start to talk about the number of windows. (narrow windows =
more windows).

Also, I get the impression that Boeing put the floor higher up, and reduced
the unused space above ceiling. This would give greater height and width to
cargo deck. And by reducing unused space between cabin ceiling and fuselage,
they can still give passengers a high enough ceiling.

However, with a cabin that looks more like an arch, it will be interesting to
see how they manage window seats if the wall is already slanted.

It would be interesting to see what Boeing is *really* thinking. These images
are clearly just fantasies drawn up by artists.

JF Mezei wrote:

These images
are clearly just fantasies drawn up by artists.


Well, JF, you'd be quite the expert on "fantasies", I imagine....

--
Best
Greg

I wonder if the plane is ever meant to be produced, but rather is suggested
for "internal" purposes within the Boeing organisation - keeping the moral
up and the co-workers happy etc. Seems somehow that Boeing has to make the
big choice of either making a more or less compleate new product line (ex
777) of third generation jets or simply "squice" the last $$ out of the
product line that they have and consentrate the company's future development
in other areas. 737 seems to have reaced its end with the NG - an NNG seems
rather unimaginable. And would it be possible to imagine a 747-500? Next
after 777 the 767/757 (now dead) are the newest products on offer from
Boeing. Strange to me that there are no discussion og a NG replacement.


Nik.