Yes. And no.
A mostly composite Airbus A380 would most certainly be more efficient than the current design. The lower weight would automatically translate into lower fuel burn. You see this almost directly in the composite A350–1000 against the similarly sized (slightly larger), but mostly aluminium 777–300ER.
Facts:
Airbus did, however, include an appreciable levels of composite material in the construction of the A380.
- An appreciable portion of the airframe is of composite construction — 22%, as shown in this Flightglobal image.[1]
- The Boeing 787 has a little more than twice the level of composite materials by weight, but also substantially more titanium than any other commercial jetliner.[2]
Discussion — the passenger variants:
The 3-class 525-seat Airbus A380–800 has lower deck cargo volume of 175.3 cubic metres. Boeing’s 787–9 in dual class seats 290 passengers and has a cargo volume of 172.4 cubic metres. What we can see here is that the A380 design is constrained on a crucial element of ancillary revenue for the airlines. The 3-class 365-seat 777–300ER currently sports the largest lower deck cargo hold of any airliner at 214 cubic metres. If Airbus kept the same basic design, but went full composite, it would still have these setbacks. Fully loaded with passengers, a significant share of that A380 cargo volume goes to luggage, not potentially more paying revenue in the form of cargo.
Discussion — the freighter variants:
Airbus had proposed a freighter variant of the A380, called the A380–800F. This aircraft would have had a maximum structural payload of 151 tonnes. The A380–800 has around 40% more floor area than the 747–400, so to carry 151 tonnes, it would need 40% more tare — by pallet base area alone — than the 747–400F carrying 112 tonnes. So at least 40% more tare for nearly 35% more payload — tare included. This five percent difference isn’t earth-shatteringly bad.
Looked at another way, the 747 is capable of cargo densities as high as 10 pounds per cubic foot of volume — the industry standard.
- For the 747–400F — GE CF6 powered, it’s 246,046 pounds (111,605 kg) maximum structural payload, and 24,776 cubic feet volume. The 747–400F has an operating empty weight of about 165 tonnes — the weight of aircraft with no payload, and no fuel. MSP expressed as a share of OWE is 68%.
- Airbus proposed the A380–800F, GP7270 powered, with a MSP of 333,281 pounds (151,174 kg), and 33,139 cubic feet of volume — more than any other commercial jetliner. Cargo density would have been 10 pounds per cubic foot. OWE would have been 251 tonnes. MSP to OWE would have been 60%. That figure is lower than for the Jumbo Jet.
- The 747–8F has the following characteristics: MSP of 292,400 lbs (132,630 kg), total cargo volume of 30,832 ft³, OWE of 197 tonnes. Cargo density is at 9.5 lbs/ft³. MSP to OWE is 67%.
Continuation of drivel – over a month after starting this opinion piece – I’m unsure how to proceed here:
The Airbus A380 set a new benchmark for composite use in a jetliner by weight at 22% up from the 12% high set by the 777 classics, which featured a composite empennage and composite floor beams amongst primary structure applications. From what I’ve seen, the A380 had composite floor beams on the upper deck construction. The Boeing 777x will be at 30% thanks to its new composite wing – the largest composite wing of any aircraft. The A350 composite content exceeds that of the Dreamliner, even as the former’s construction in grounded in traditional airliner assembly compared to the latter’s revolutionary manufacturing techniques in the space.
Could have, should have, would have…
A more structurally efficient design may have helped Airbus with longevity of their aircraft, helped future proof it up to a point. But, as you know, it would still have been up against the tide of point-2-point travel and frequencies. Even a more efficient A380 would still be required to compete against the market forces being underpinned by the mighty 777–300ER, and the follow-on 787. You’d still have to sell nearly 500 seats each time it flew, and you’d still be compromised on ancillary revenues. But, the added efficiency buffer may have kept competition at bay a little longer..
Footnotes
Author – Paulo Martins
