PDA

View Full Version : The birth of a quieter, greener plane: 35% more fuel-efficient; Cambridge-MIT Institute's 'Silent' Aircraft Initiative


Larry Dighera
November 6th 06, 04:05 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6113418.stm
The birth of a quieter, greener plane
By Tim Bowler
Business reporter, BBC World Service

....

Now a team of researchers in Britain and the US has come up with a
revolutionary new aircraft design that could make a dramatic
contribution to curbing climate change.

The SAX-40, which has been developed by the Cambridge-MIT Institute,
is a radically different shape of aircraft.

Officially, it is what is known as a "blended wing". It has a tailless
wedge-shaped body with two bat-wings.

The Silent Aircraft Initiative (SAI) team has succeeded in coming up
with a radically quieter plane. Crucially, the SAX-40 is also 35% more
fuel-efficient than any airliner currently flying.

The case for radical change is getting stronger

Prof Ann Dowling, SAI's UK team leader

Oil prices may no longer be the $78 a barrel they were a few months
ago, but with high fuel costs likely to continue, fuel efficiency is a
major factor in all airlines' calculations.

Yet none of this means the SAX-40 will necessarily be built. Ever
since the Boeing 707 first flew in 1957 and ushered in the commercial
jet age, airliners have changed very little in their basic appearance.
Airliners still consist of a tube-like fuselage, with two swept-back
wings and engines slung underneath. (The world's first - but
commercially unsuccessful - passenger jet aircraft, the DeHavilland
Comet, had the engines integrated in its wing).

Innovation costs

There are good economic reasons why design has remained so
conservative.

By making the fuselage a tube, aircraft-makers can easily build a
family of larger or smaller variants, utilising many of the same
parts.

And by sticking engines under the wings, it's easier to maintain them,
or upgrade them halfway through an aircraft's 30-year lifespan.

Naturally, aircraft manufacturers have made considerable improvements
in the past 50 years, for instance using composite materials and
lighter, more efficient engines.


The SAX-40 will be far less noisy than current jets

Yet future improvements to the basic design are getting harder to
make, according to Professor Ann Dowling, professor of mechanical
engineering at Cambridge University and SAI team leader in the UK.

"The case for radical change is getting stronger," she says.

"It's only through such a change that one can achieve step-changes in
fuel burn."

But for aircraft manufacturers like Boeing or Airbus, any design
changes need to produce a quick return on their investment.

Boeing is working on developing fuel cells to power aircraft
air-conditioning and electrical systems. Currently, these are run off
a plane's engines, reducing their efficiency.

Bill Glover, Boeing's director of environmental performance,
commercial airplanes, says using fuel cells would give significant
savings.

"With fuel cells we can take conventional fuel, convert it into
hydrogen and produce electricity very efficiently," he says. "The only
other emission is water."

But even this is still 10 to 15 years in the future.

Radical shift?

There is a good reason for the aircraft manufacturers' caution.
Building totally new planes is both costly and risky.

After Boeing launched its Boeing 747 jumbo jet in 1968, it ran into
serious financial difficulties when the demand for its new plane
stalled.

To survive, the company slashed its workforce from 100,000 to 38,000.

Today, Airbus is also having financial problems with its giant
double-decker A380.


The Airbus A380 has run into difficulties in recent months

For manufacturers, it is much safer to develop new airframes out of
what has gone before, rather than re-tool completely with a brand-new
production line.

Yet with increasing concern over climate change, we could see a
radical shift in aircraft design.

This would be more likely if airlines had to pay "green" taxes on
their airliners' emissions of greenhouse gases.

But the skies are not going to fill with radically new aircraft shapes
any time soon.

When an airline buys a new plane, it will keep it flying for decades
in order to make it pay its keep.

Which means even if this design gets the thumbs-up from the
manufacturers, we won't be queuing up to board planes like the SAX-40
before 2030 at the earliest.








http://www.cambridge-mit.org/cgi-bin/default.pl?SID=6&NewsID=189
Boeing joins CMI's Silent Aircraft Initiative
Aug 31 2004

We are pleased to announce that The Boeing Company has formally
entered into a collaboration with the Cambridge-MIT Institute's
'Silent' Aircraft Initiative. This is a three-year project, sponsored
by the Cambridge-MIT Institute, aimed at a new generation of quiet
aircraft.

Under a recently signed memorandum of understanding, Boeing will allow
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to use some of its
advanced design software to design and analyse aircraft that are being
considered as conceptual design candidates. The software uses a state
of the art, multidisciplinary design optimisation framework that
considers aerodynamic, structural, stability, control, and mission
performance factors. Noise prediction models will be added to this, to
aid in the design of the 'Silent' Aircraft.

The Cambridge-MIT Institute's 'Silent' Aircraft Initiative was
launched in November 2003 with a bold aim: to discover ways to reduce
aircraft noise dramatically, to the point where it would be virtually
unnoticeable to people outside the airport perimeter. The initiative
is bringing together leading academics from Cambridge University and
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) with an extended
'Knowlege Integration Community' of representatives from all parts of
the civil aerospace/aviation industry. They include BAA, Boeing,
British Airways, the Civil Aviation Authority, Lochard, Marshall
Aerospace, National Air Traffic Services, the Royal Aeronautical
Society, and Rolls-Royce. Members of the 'Silent' Aircraft Community
are working together, sharing knowledge and developing the design for
an aircraft that has noise reduction as its primary consideration.

In addition to the design software, Boeing will also provide technical
consultation services to the 'Silent' Aircraft Initiative's integrated
team of researchers at both MIT and Cambridge. Providing consultation
will be Dr Robert Liebeck, head of an advanced Transports and Tankers
design group in the Boeing Phantom Works advanced research and
development (R&D) unit. Dr Liebeck, who is also a Professor of the
Practice at MIT, will be working with Karen Willcox, Professor of
Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT. Prof Willcox leads the
Integration research work within the 'Silent' Aircraft Initiative and
worked briefly with Dr Liebeck at Boeing before she joined the MIT
faculty.

Prof Ed Greitzer, who is leading the 'Silent' Aircraft research team
at MIT, says: "The connection with Boeing presents several excellent
opportunities for the 'Silent' Aircraft project. These include the
ability to draw on Boeing design knowledge acquired over many years,
and to have students and faculty use industry-level tools for the
conceptual design and analysis of innovative aircraft that are
designed with noise as the primary consideration."

Dr Robert Liebeck says: "This is an ideal opportunity to examine the
upper bound of silence for a next-generation of subsonic transport,
and the cost/benefit of achieving said silence."

Robert M. Gary
November 6th 06, 07:44 PM
It still remains to be seen if pax will be willing to sit in a blended
wing aircraft. There will be almost no windows and the seat
configuration will be more like a theater than a traditional airplane.
It will result in considerable disorientation for the pax. Maybe people
will get used to it, but maybe they won't. I don't have high hopes for
it.

-Robert

Peter Duniho
November 7th 06, 12:29 AM
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> It still remains to be seen if pax will be willing to sit in a blended
> wing aircraft. There will be almost no windows and the seat
> configuration will be more like a theater than a traditional airplane.
> It will result in considerable disorientation for the pax. Maybe people
> will get used to it, but maybe they won't. I don't have high hopes for
> it.

True enough. My reading of the reporting of this "test-bed" airplane isn't
so much that they believe this exact design will be used as a production
aircraft, but rather that various technologies from the design will be
applied.

For example, on large enough airliners, design features that place the
engine intake and exhaust above the wing may still be useful.

That said, frankly...airline passengers have so far showed an amazing
willingness to put up with practically any crap imposed on them. I'm not
convinced they will balk for very long at flying aboard a "flying wing"
airplane. :)

Pete

Larry Dighera
November 7th 06, 02:01 AM
On 6 Nov 2006 11:44:08 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote in om>:

>It still remains to be seen if pax will be willing to sit in a blended
>wing aircraft. There will be almost no windows and the seat
>configuration will be more like a theater than a traditional airplane.
>It will result in considerable disorientation for the pax. Maybe people
>will get used to it, but maybe they won't. I don't have high hopes for
>it.

If it is truly 35% more fuel efficient (which is a remarkable claim),
fares should be less. That will make it more attractive for coast
conscious coach passengers. And for overseas trips, if it were
equipped with reclining seating, it would be welcome despite a lack of
windows.

But the environmentalists see air travel as being in need of a
reduction in traffic, despite the historic ~5% annual increases.
They're not supporting the project. However, during departure the
SAX-40 is supposed to be about as loud as a washing machine. I've got
to believe those currently affected by airline noise will be rooting
for its use.

Morgans[_2_]
November 7th 06, 04:12 AM
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> It still remains to be seen if pax will be willing to sit in a blended
> wing aircraft. There will be almost no windows and the seat
> configuration will be more like a theater than a traditional airplane.
> It will result in considerable disorientation for the pax. Maybe people
> will get used to it, but maybe they won't. I don't have high hopes for
> it.

Sitting in the middle seats of a 747, or in a BWB would be much the same.

If you give all of the passengers a LCD in front of them, and the ability to
switch to different views, I'll bet most will have no problem with it.
--
Jim in NC

Neil Gould
November 7th 06, 06:21 PM
Recently, Morgans > posted:

> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> It still remains to be seen if pax will be willing to sit in a
>> blended wing aircraft. There will be almost no windows and the seat
>> configuration will be more like a theater than a traditional
>> airplane. It will result in considerable disorientation for the pax.
>> Maybe people will get used to it, but maybe they won't. I don't have
>> high hopes for it.
>
> Sitting in the middle seats of a 747, or in a BWB would be much the
> same.
>
Exactly what I was thinking.

> If you give all of the passengers a LCD in front of them, and the
> ability to switch to different views, I'll bet most will have no
> problem with it.
>
It's only recently that LCDs were available on 747s, and people weren't
complaining about not having them. I'd think that there would be some kind
of in-flight entertainment system that would satisfy most pax.

Neil

Kingfish
November 7th 06, 06:44 PM
Morgans wrote:
>
> If you give all of the passengers a LCD in front of them, and the ability to
> switch to different views, I'll bet most will have no problem with it.
> --

I had the same thought. Large panel LCD displays flush-mounted around
the cabin and/or individual screens at each seat. Add a few outside
view cameras (top of tail, belly, side view, etc) tied into the
entertainment system and maybe it wouldn't feel like a cattle car...

Paul kgyy
November 7th 06, 10:17 PM
Robert M. Gary wrote:
> It still remains to be seen if pax will be willing to sit in a blended
> wing aircraft. There will be almost no windows and the seat
> configuration will be more like a theater than a traditional airplane.
> It will result in considerable disorientation for the pax. Maybe people
> will get used to it, but maybe they won't. I don't have high hopes for
> it.
>
> -Robert

Half the time I fly lately, people in the window seats just pull the
shades down anyway.

Larry Dighera
November 8th 06, 09:33 AM
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:13:10 -0800, Richard Riley
> wrote in
>:

>
>The problem isn't the passenger views out the windows. It's the
>vertical accelerations the outboard pax will get when the beast rolls
>into a bank and back out.

That rate of acceleration would seem to be entirely at the control of
the person operating the aircraft's controls, or am I missing
something?

Jose[_1_]
November 8th 06, 03:16 PM
> That rate of acceleration would seem to be entirely at the control of
> the person operating the aircraft's controls, or am I missing
> something?

Yes, it's under pilot control. The pilot would have a choice of using
standard roll rates and subjecting outboard passengers to (relatively)
high accelerations, or limiting the outboard acceleration, resulting in
roll rates which may be inadequate in some circumstances.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Kingfish
November 8th 06, 03:37 PM
Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> That rate of acceleration would seem to be entirely at the control of
> the person operating the aircraft's controls, or am I missing
> something?

The further from the acft centerline the greater the distance traveled
in a bank. Even with standard rate turns the rolling motion might be
uncomfortable for some in the seats furthest from the center. Then
agan, if you're the type that likes rollercoasters...

Larry Dighera
November 8th 06, 05:58 PM
On 8 Nov 2006 07:37:34 -0800, "Kingfish" > wrote
in om>:

>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> That rate of acceleration would seem to be entirely at the control of
>> the person operating the aircraft's controls, or am I missing
>> something?
>
>The further from the acft centerline the greater the distance traveled
>in a bank.

How far from the longitudinal axis do you figure the furthest
passenger will sit; what's the arm?

>Even with standard rate turns the rolling motion might be
>uncomfortable for some in the seats furthest from the center.

A standard rage turn usually refers to the rate at which the aircraft
changes azimuth, not the roll rate, which is what we are discussing.
With the number of degrees per second of roll rate specified and the
arm, we can calculate the acceleration passengers might experience.

>Then agan, if you're the type that likes rollercoasters...

Do you really feel it might be that severe?

Kingfish
November 8th 06, 06:47 PM
Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> How far from the longitudinal axis do you figure the furthest
> passenger will sit; what's the arm?

Hard to say, as the BWB aircraft hasn't been built yet. My guess is
it's significantly longer than a conventional fuselaged jet.


> >Even with standard rate turns the rolling motion might be
> >uncomfortable for some in the seats furthest from the center.
>
> A standard rage turn usually refers to the rate at which the aircraft
> changes azimuth, not the roll rate, which is what we are discussing.
> With the number of degrees per second of roll rate specified and the
> arm, we can calculate the acceleration passengers might experience.

Hmmm, not my area of expertise here. I was using Jose's term to
illustrate the vertical acceleration the outboard pax might feel in a
turn.

> >Then agan, if you're the type that likes rollercoasters...
>
> Do you really feel it might be that severe?

Not at all, I'm just being a wiseass here... ;o)

Peter Duniho
November 8th 06, 06:53 PM
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
>>Then agan, if you're the type that likes rollercoasters...
>
> Do you really feel it might be that severe?

Today, passengers are generally within 10 feet or so of the longitudinal
axis. In a "flying wing" design, they could be as much as 50 feet or more
(depending on the airplane, of course). So for a given roll rate,
acceleration could be as much as 5 times as much. A 1.25g acceleration
becomes about a 6g acceleration.

So, you tell me...do you think you'd notice a 6g acceleration as being
significantly different from a 1.25g acceleration?

Personally, I find the difference between 1g and 2g to be very significant
(eg in a coordinated 60-degree bank). I think 6g is probably more than most
rollercoasters ever offer. Even if acceleration at the outboard seats was
limited to 3g, I think the average passenger would find that uncomfortable
(especially if they also have no way to see outside the airplane).

That said, I stick by my contention that most passengers put up with all
sorts of crap today without any real complaint. They'd probably put up with
any disadvantages of a flying wing too, as long as it meant cheaper plane
tickets.

Pete

Larry Dighera
November 8th 06, 08:59 PM
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:53:16 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> [...]
>>>Then agan, if you're the type that likes rollercoasters...
>>
>> Do you really feel it might be that severe?
>
>Today, passengers are generally within 10 feet or so of the longitudinal
>axis. In a "flying wing" design, they could be as much as 50 feet or more
>(depending on the airplane, of course). So for a given roll rate,
>acceleration could be as much as 5 times as much. A 1.25g acceleration
>becomes about a 6g acceleration.

I would like to see your calculations used in arriving at that number.
If today's passenger 10' from the axis feels an additional 1/4 G
during a roll (doubtful), intuitively it would seem that a passenger
at 50' from the axis would only feel 2.25 G if the rate of roll was
the same.

>So, you tell me...do you think you'd notice a 6g acceleration as being
>significantly different from a 1.25g acceleration?

I didn't say it wouldn't be noticeable, however if the roll rate were
reduced it might not be.

alexy
November 8th 06, 10:42 PM
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> [...]
>>>Then agan, if you're the type that likes rollercoasters...
>>
>> Do you really feel it might be that severe?
>
>Today, passengers are generally within 10 feet or so of the longitudinal
>axis. In a "flying wing" design, they could be as much as 50 feet or more
>(depending on the airplane, of course). So for a given roll rate,
>acceleration could be as much as 5 times as much. A 1.25g acceleration
>becomes about a 6g acceleration.
>
>So, you tell me...do you think you'd notice a 6g acceleration as being
>significantly different from a 1.25g acceleration?

I think your numbers are WAY off. If by 1.25g in a current plane you
mean .25 g from the roll plus 1 from mother earth, then five times the
arm gives you a 2.25g total. Still not feasible, but certainly not 6g!
(on the other hand, if you mean 1.25 from the roll alone, I've never
seen a passenger plane roll so fast that those on the side of the
dropping wing floated up off their seats.
>
>Personally, I find the difference between 1g and 2g to be very significant
>(eg in a coordinated 60-degree bank). I think 6g is probably more than most
>rollercoasters ever offer. Even if acceleration at the outboard seats was
>limited to 3g, I think the average passenger would find that uncomfortable
>(especially if they also have no way to see outside the airplane).

I think you may be confusing g forces due to the turn (which will be
no different (or insignificantly different--I've forgotten my physics
here) for those on outside seats versus inside) and the g forces due
to the angular acceleration as the plane begins and ends its roll into
a turn.

Here's an approach to figuring it out:

Let's say that the plane enters a 25-degree bank, and takes 5 seconds
to roll to that bank. So its average roll rate is 5 degrees per
second. But it starts and ends at zero roll rate, so using constant
angular acceleration and deceleration, it will accelerate to a roll
rate of 10 degrees per second over the first 2.5 seconds, and
decelerate back to zero roll rate over the next 2.5 seconds. Assuming
seats 60 ft from centerline so I can use the 1:60 = 1 degree rule of
thumb, this angular acceleration of 4 degrees per second^2 translates
to 4ft/sec^2, or about 1/8 g on the outside pax.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Grumman-581[_3_]
November 8th 06, 11:12 PM
"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> Today, passengers are generally within 10 feet or so of the longitudinal
> axis. In a "flying wing" design, they could be as much as 50 feet or more
> (depending on the airplane, of course). So for a given roll rate,
> acceleration could be as much as 5 times as much. A 1.25g acceleration
> becomes about a 6g acceleration.

Not sure about the math that you're using there... Since 1G is standard, you
would only multiply the 0.25G, so even assuming the rest of your assumptions
are correct, you're only looking at a 1.25G increase or 2.25Gs total...

To properly figure out the accelleration, we need the bank angle and the
time it takes the pilot to go to that bank angle... From there we can figure
out the vertical change which will then give us the acceleration necessary
to change it...

Peter Duniho
November 9th 06, 12:03 AM
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> I would like to see your calculations used in arriving at that number.
> If today's passenger 10' from the axis feels an additional 1/4 G
> during a roll (doubtful), intuitively it would seem that a passenger
> at 50' from the axis would only feel 2.25 G if the rate of roll was
> the same.

Yes, you are all right. Brain-dead moment, I guess.

The .25 is just a wild guess (though it seemed reasonable at the time).
Obviously, I applied it incorrectly, and the resulting force is nowhere near
the 6g's I said.

Even so, even a 2g force during the roll would be significantly more than an
airline passenger typically *ever* experiences during an airline flight
today.

Of course, as I keep saying, I don't think airline passengers will really
complain that much. They go through all sorts of other, worse things IMHO
and they seem happy to sheep along with that stuff. Why would they bother
to comment on excessive g forces?

Pete

Bob Noel
November 9th 06, 12:42 AM
In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> Even so, even a 2g force during the roll would be significantly more than an
> airline passenger typically *ever* experiences during an airline flight
> today.
>
> Of course, as I keep saying, I don't think airline passengers will really
> complain that much. They go through all sorts of other, worse things IMHO
> and they seem happy to sheep along with that stuff. Why would they bother
> to comment on excessive g forces?

The "negative" g's would probably bother people way more.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Jose[_1_]
November 9th 06, 12:52 AM
> Even so, even a 2g force during the roll would be significantly more than an
> airline passenger typically *ever* experiences during an airline flight
> today.

I don't usually fly in the tail of a commercial airliner. However, some
time ago I had that opportunity, and was quite surprised at the
horizontal components I was feeling during taxi on the ground. I was
also amused, as it was in the opposite direction of the turn.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Grumman-581[_3_]
November 9th 06, 02:28 AM
"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> The "negative" g's would probably bother people way more.

Very good point... When the drinks start coming out of the glasses and
floating towards the ceilings, people are going to notice... I suspect that
accelerations will be such that it won't interfere with drinking...

Peter Duniho
November 9th 06, 07:56 AM
"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> I don't usually fly in the tail of a commercial airliner. However, some
> time ago I had that opportunity, and was quite surprised at the horizontal
> components I was feeling during taxi on the ground. I was also amused, as
> it was in the opposite direction of the turn.

Be that as it may, I don't see how that's relevant to the question at hand.
I doubt the horizontal acceleration was even close to 1g, and on top of that
most people are already accustomed to horizontal accelerations, since motor
vehicles cause those any time they turn. I'm not a fast driver, and I still
quite often turn quickly enough to cause packages loose in the trunk to
slide from one side to the other. Not that it takes a LOT of force to do
that, but it probably takes at least as much force as you experience in the
tail of the airplane.

One more time though: even though I believe that the acceleration would be
significant, I doubt people will put up much of a fight.

Pete

Larry Dighera
November 9th 06, 01:53 PM
Here's a little update:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVwebFlash Volume 12, Number 45b -- November 9, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"SILENT AIRCRAFT" DEBUTS LOUDLY
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/736-full.html#193664)
Plans for a quiet, energy-efficient airliner that could be flying
in less than 25 years were unveiled Monday afternoon

(http://www.cambridge-mit.org/cgi-bin/default.pl?SID=6&SSSID=495&NewsID=368)
by researchers from Cambridge University and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT). The design uses technology that
should be ready to fly by 2030. Besides reducing noise around
airports, the airplane would require about 25 percent less fuel.
It would use a flying-wing design, eliminate flaps and slats,
simplify the landing gear, improve its aerodynamics and mount the
engines above the fuselage to screen the noise from the ground.
Variable-size jet nozzles would allow for slower jet propulsion
during takeoff and climb for low noise, and would be optimized for
maximum efficiency during cruise.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/736-full.html#193664

Jose[_1_]
November 9th 06, 04:46 PM
> Be that as it may, I don't see how that's relevant to the question at hand.

Only anecdotally.

A more serious problem may be the slight oscillations that an ariplane
goes through staying level. At the edges, they may become strong enough
over a five hour flight to induce seasickness.

Or not. Dunno. But better to think of it before placing the order.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Morgans[_2_]
November 9th 06, 11:05 PM
"Jose" > wrote in message
m...
>> Be that as it may, I don't see how that's relevant to the question at hand.
>
> Only anecdotally.
>
> A more serious problem may be the slight oscillations that an ariplane goes
> through staying level. At the edges, they may become strong enough over a
> five hour flight to induce seasickness.
>
> Or not. Dunno. But better to think of it before placing the order.

The original YB program had a problem with oscillations, making it a problem for
bombing runs. The B-2 has that problem licked, with super fast fly by wire
flight controls.

I can not see any reason that they would not be able to solve any passenger
comfort issues, with the correct subroutines applied to the flight control
computers.

I look forward to a new type of aircraft. If it is destine to come, I wish they
would get more serious about starting some scaled down aircraft testing program.

If Boeing is really serious about kicking Airbus' butt, that would be the way to
start looking. There is no way to find out, short of starting the first steps.
--
Jim in NC

Google