Windows themselves don't create drag, it's the interruption of the surface that creates drag. If they do a very good job of getting the windows put in, it shouldn't be an issue. The bigger reason is: it's a prototype, so it's easier not to cut the windows out and fill them with glass.
Would be interesting to make "virtual windows" where you take a camera on the hull and just stream its feed to like the in-flight entertainment system or a wall mounted monitor.
How about no? A camera doesn't give you the same view as a window does. You can't move around to get different angles. Not to mention the pixel resolution of in-flight entertainment is nowhere near what you get with your eyes. Looking out the window at the sights is one of the few great things about flying.
I don't know, I've been on flights with webcams on the nose/tail/belly and found those to be pretty entertaining. And it's available to every passenger, not just the window seats. If an airplane design really leaned in to the webcams, I think it could be fantastic!
It's kind of a weird idea to get used to, but I think windowless cars could be pretty cool. Maybe the driver puts on a VR helmet and can see everything. (Obviously the technology would have to be extremely reliable.)
It solves a bunch of problems: it gets rid of all the trade-offs between structural integrity and visibility. It reduces costs and makes manufacturing easier. The driver could be anywhere, even in the back seat if that makes sense for some reason.
This seems like it would be extra useful for military vehicles. I wonder if you were to redesign something like the A-10 or F-16 from scratch and you could put the pilot anywhere you want because visibility isn't an issue, would you come up with the same design or would the cockpit end up somewhere strange, like in the back of the plane?
I did a napkin math a while back: the standard for 20/20 vision or 1.0 acuity scale equals to 1 arc minute resolution, or 1MOA, or an Euclidean angle of 1/60th degree.
A spherical VR image that resolves to 20/20 acuity is as large as (60 x 360, 60 x 180) = (21600, 10800)px before requisite oversampling, and that’s kind of hard. Then of course those fighter guys has/need better visibility than 20/20 which only makes it harder.
And by the way modern digital image pipelines buffer and delay transfers, sometimes as much as 200ms, which is absurd considering the CPU runs at literally millions of times better clock frequencies and latencies, but that’s what readily available implementations are.
These mean that we are still some time away until such “local remote driving” not just complements but totally replace heat formed and dielectric coated pane of plexiglass.
I guess it eventually will beyond upper edge of atmosphere as glasses don’t work well and vision required surpass human eyeballs, i.e. in interstellar settler’s carriages and planetary orbital fighter jets, but for now and for forward windscreen applications, it makes more sense to just put on panes of plain old transparent aluminum.
...a car without windows would get hotter than one without because windows are at least somewhat reflective (depending on the angle of the sun) and because they can be left cracked open to let the heat escape.
The first half of your supposition is dead wrong, but the second half is correct. Opaque materials will always transmit less solar energy than transparent materials. The most effective insulated multi-pane windows available for homes today are still less efficient than a wall.
Put aside controversies, I believe the window requirements are for rescuers to scout the cabin in a crash than for occupant entertainment. Else makes no sense to have window shades open during takeoff & landing.
Some passenger jets have had this for a while, giving you various views from the seatback screen. Not sure which airlines or jets but I've definitely heard of it.
I absolutely loved the few times I was in a plane that had a forward and downward facing camera that you could watch on the screen. So great to just watch it for hours. Windows are nice but in most transatlantic flights they are all closed the majority of the trip so that people can sleep.
A similar camera was present on the old DC-10. AFAIK, it was removed after an pretty big crash in Chicago. Nothing to do with forthrightness, iirc (outside of the usual flying coffin perception of the DC-10).
