Company unveils airplane design with seats on top of aircraft | Fox News Image Unavailable, Please Login
I would rather have a 360 degree view from below the airplane. Who wants to look at a bunch of clouds and sky and sit in the blazing sun for hours. Maybe stargazing would be interesting for a few minutes.
+1 I think it looks awesome! Guess those seats won't be cheap, but I'd love to sit up there! Cheers, Ian
Fair comment. Would be cool for takeoff & landing I guess, but beyond that not much more 'view' than a window seat really. Didn't someone do (or at least propose) a 'glass bottomed' 747 a few years back? Cheers, Ian
I think it looks great! I wouldn't want to sit up there for the entire trip, though. 10-15 minutes would be enough for me. It would be really, awesomely, cool at night!
Too much sun. Needs sun visors or something. I'm not sure its well thought out. I can see it as a temp viewing port and then return to your seat. That would be pretty cool but I bet it would freak some people out!
I think that is how they were advertising it. Pay for XX minutes, then next in line. Have to consider they are using up more revenue space than 2 seats with the stairs/elevator and approach area.
Ever been in a ball turret? I still can't believe what those guys went through without complaining. The worst duty position ever...and deadly.
Birdstrike causing deformation of the canopy allowing said canopy to impact the cranium of paying passenger(s) resulting in death from severe cranial and spinal trauma. That, is what can go wrong.
Yes, really. An airliner's plate windows are extremely thick and deform very differently than a bubble canopy unless properly designed. At airliner speeds, bubble deformation during a strike will be the number one biggest risk to life for this idea and will require careful design attention to the bubble for that reason. This does not appear to be going on a slow speed airplane, so this is different than some bubble mod for an RV-4. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ibJ3aXrvaCs If we don't learn from the past...
I'd rather have video cameras on the nose and on the bottom of the plane. That way, everyone could turn to one of two channels on their digital display in front of their seat and see the camera views. This would be a lot cheaper to do and everyone could benefit from it. .
I'll go for that. Someday they might eliminate windows entirely and replace them with an equivalent video screen. That might be acceptable, if the images are really equivalent. And I think the pilots should be equipped with a screen that can show them video images of the engines, landing gear and control surfaces, so that they can see what's going on with their aircraft in the event of anomalies. If the crew of AA 191 had had that, they could have seen instantaneously that they had physically lost an engine and that the left-wing slats had retracted, and might have saved the aircraft.
Simple, no one in the bubble below 10000ft. 70% of strikes occur at or below 200agl, while only 5% occur between 2500 and 10000 agl. https://easa.europa.eu/essi/documents/EASAReportBirdpopulationandimpact.pdf Fighter transparencies are designed for birdstrike at 500kts (approx), anywhere in the operational envelope (e.g. sea level). Airliners are not doing 500kts at sea level. Also (bubble) transparency design is not a military secret, and the FAA requires birdstrike analysis on all structure susceptible to strike, so the design will be appropriately reviewed and certified. Many radomes of similar shape are currently flying on commercial aircraft (e.g. in-flight wi-fi antenna), so aerodynamic aspects including birdstrike trajectories is complete.
The experience would be somewhat like riding in a Vista-Dome car on a train- except much, much higher!
No different than a bird strike on an F-16. And, for that matter, a bird strike is pretty unlikely, especially if you don't allow people to sit up there for takeoff and landing.
You are correct, any design will be tested. The design is still the key element to the whole idea, though. A simple bubble riveted to the fuselage, as in the rendering, isn't going to pass muster anywhere. Regarding radomes, they get completely trashed not infrequently by birdstrikes at even pattern speeds, so I wouldn't be to keen on riding around with my face behind anything borrowing from those design concepts. I agree that limiting the exposure of occupants to higher altitude makes sense until you have to explain why..."Oh, no, Mrs Cavendish, we cannot allow you to remain here during the descent because your face will get crushed down into your chest if a bird hits the bubble." That will go over great.
What you see in the rendering is probably very close to what a finished product would appear. Its not as though passengers see the stringers, frames, and numerous skin doublers in a fuselage. No, these are covered with decorative trim, as would the supporting structure of the cutout and bubble. As to Mrs Cavendish it would be no different than asking her to stow her tray table and return her seat back to its full upright position.
For that matter, as Jim pointed out, fighters with bubble cockpits don't seem to have a big problem with bird strikes. Why should this be worse?
