Dev.SN ♥ developers
Sections
Dev.SN
girlwhowaspluggedout writes:
"Spike Aerospace has revealed how the Spike S-512, which is planned to be the first supersonic business jet, will be able to fly from New York to London in half the time that the flight requires now. The plane, which is expected to carry 12-18 passengers, will enjoy the reduced drag and lower weight that come with an advanced engine and no windows:" Read more below.
The new supersonic jet will feature a revolutionary windowless passenger cabin so no more glaring sun and no more shades to pull down or push up. Instead, the interior walls will be covered with a thin display screens embedded into the wall. Cameras surrounding the entire aircraft will construct breathtaking panoramic views displayed on the cabin screens. Passengers will be able to dim the screens to catch some sleep or change it to one of the many scenic images stored in the system.
Without windows, the S-512 is expected to reach speeds between Mach 1.6 and 1.8.
Dr Darren Ansell, an expert in space and aerospace engineering at the University of Central Lancashire, told BBC News what passengers in a plane without windows can expect to experience:
There will be no natural light it will all be simulated so it will be a bit like being in a tube. And how would it work from a safety perspective? If there was an accident how would you know which way the plane was facing, and where you had landed, when the cameras have failed?"
You just know that some imaginative hacker is going to have a field day with this..."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by similar_name on Saturday February 22 2014, @05:22AM
Thinking about windows causing drag, I'm wondering; Could you make a plane (or anything for that matter?) more seamless with something like a thin coat of acrylic applied to the whole thing?
Where can I vote for ACs to be Anonymous Cows? It should always be plural
(Score: 5, Interesting) by isaac on Saturday February 22 2014, @05:43AM
Even if there weren't all kinds of other ports, hatches, and other perforations that were needed for the aircraft to operate or be maintained (defeating the integrity of this coating,) the extra weight would offset any benefit at low speeds and it wouldn't hold up to the stresses of high speeds.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NovelUserName on Saturday February 22 2014, @01:51PM
NASA [nasa.gov] used a high temperature carbon composite for the leading edge surfaces of the Hyper-X planes. Those were only designed to last for a few minutes, but they were also good to skin temps up to 3000deg or something silly. Presumably the resin materials for those composites would work fine for the GP's hypothetical plane-dip. The plane is apparently being designed with composite materials anyway, so it will probably come out of the factory with a sanded/painted resin skin already, which will be pretty close to the hypothetical dip.
Cheers
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Saturday February 22 2014, @03:54PM
Heck, I'm wondering if you could make a whole plane with absolutely minimal perforations and not even cockpit windows. Just a redundant array of sensors and a full touch screen pit completely surrounded with displays that allow the pilots a 360 degree view with minimal obstructions.
It's all going to be fly-by-wire, so safety is simply a matter of redundant systems. If you're dropping like a rock, and all the systems are dead, I don't see how seeing the ground rushing up at you helps all that much.
As for all the ports and hatches, perhaps that can be minimized, or put in only a few places to allow otherwise seamless skin around the whole thing.
If they're serious about making this thing, it could be done and look almost transparent on the inside.
Since I bet the cost will likely be 20k per trip, I'm betting that most of us will never see the insides of one of these things.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by evilviper on Saturday February 22 2014, @06:23PM
I can think of situations such as flying through volcanic ash clouds, or bird strikes, that have partially blinded pilots before, which likely would have COMPLETELY blinded them if they only had a much smaller surface (a couple camera lenses) to look through.
I'd also be concerned about power draw, in the event of multiple engine failures. Is the RAT going to be able to provide enough power for several large TV screens, in addition to what it powers now, even at low air speeds?
Do YOU see ALL home-page stories?
dev.soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=1
github.com/SoylentNews/slashcode/issues/78
(Score: 2, Interesting) by CluelessMoron on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:52PM
On the other hand, while you can have backup cameras (with protective covers that can be ejected), you cannot have backup windshields. I know of the flight you're probably thinking of near Australia years back that got sandblasted from a volcano and I'm sure they would have loved to have been able to say "eject cover on camera #2 and switch to that".
As for power, I don't see that as a problem. I am currently looking at a 25" monitor and it's drawing a puny 23W according to my meter, and you really only need one monitor to land in a pinch. In a FBW airplane 23W is peanuts. If your RAT can't handle that it can't handle the flight control surfaces for sure.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hb253 on Saturday February 22 2014, @01:19PM
Per the website, the windows are removed to make the airframe more robust and reduce weight.
The firings and offshore outsourcing will not stop until morale improves.
(Score: 1) by tangomargarine on Monday February 24 2014, @02:10PM
I'm wondering how all the cameras they say they're mounting on the outside of the plane to simulate windows aren't going to affect the aerodynamics...
A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.