Aircraft Takeoff Weight: Mission Fuel Fraction Sizing
Estimate aircraft takeoff mass from payload, mission range and loiter. Compare jet, propeller and battery electric designs, with empty weight iteration and growth sensitivities.
This aircraft takeoff weight estimation tool answers an early design question: how much gross mass is needed to carry a payload through a specified cruise and loiter mission? It is intended for aerospace engineers, students and builders comparing fixed-wing concepts before detailed geometry and component weights are available. The mission fuel fraction method connects the mission requirements to fuel mass, then iterates the empty weight estimate until all mass components close.
Choose jet, propeller or battery electric propulsion. Enter payload and crew separately, then specify the total cruise distance and the time spent loitering. An out-and-back mission needs the sum of both cruise legs. Reserve cruise and reserve hold are separate from the main mission. Use the additional fuel or energy allowance only for contingency and unusable storage that those segments do not already cover.
For fuel-burning designs, warm-up and takeoff, climb, descent and landing use editable retained mass fractions. Cruise follows the Breguet range equation, and loiter follows the corresponding endurance equation. Jet fuel consumption is entered as weight-flow TSFC in inverse hours. Propeller fuel consumption uses kilograms per kilowatt-hour of shaft energy. The propeller hold can maintain constant speed or constant lift coefficient; the latter reduces speed as the aircraft burns fuel. Enter an L/D appropriate to each operating point.
Select a conventional aircraft type for the statistical empty weight fit, supply custom coefficients, or use a fixed empty fraction. The historical coefficients use gross weight expressed in pounds internally, even when the interface displays kilograms. The empty weight multiplier supports technology and growth studies. Keep crew and payload outside empty mass, and exclude the complete battery pack from an electric aircraft's empty estimate.
Battery sizing uses constant aircraft mass and sums segment energy demands. Installed pack specific energy, usable energy fraction, motor efficiency and propeller efficiency determine the required pack mass. Climb includes height gain and drag work; the other short segments use explicit energy allowances. A conventional fuel-aircraft correlation should be replaced with an electric design estimate.
Read gross mass, storage mass and the payload and range growth factors together. The parameter sensitivity chart shows how errors in L/D, fuel consumption, pack energy or empty weight propagate through the sizing loop. A 1% parameter increase changes gross mass by approximately the displayed elasticity in percent. The range and payload charts re-solve the design at every point; gaps indicate no solution within the search ceiling.
This Raymer sizing calculator implements the first-estimate approach also described by Sadraey and Roskam. It does not size a wing or engine, check takeoff distance, predict stability, or establish an approved loading envelope. The mission's initial gross mass includes the combined warm-up and takeoff allowance. Use detailed performance, component weight, energy storage and certification analyses as the design develops.
How it is calculated
Mission segments are multiplied as retained mass ratios . For a jet, and , with weight-flow TSFC in s⁻¹. For a propeller, replace the cruise coefficient by and the hold coefficient by , with mass-flow power SFC in kg/J. Constant-speed holds use the exponential; the constant-lift-coefficient propeller option uses , obtained by integrating . Reserve cruise and hold form a separate segment. Loaded fuel is .
Empty fraction is , where kg. A fixed fraction is implemented with . The numerator of the sizing equation is payload plus crew: . A bracketed Newton iteration solves this nonlinear balance and rejects a root outside the mass ceiling.
Battery flight holds mass constant. Cruise and hold use and energy per gross mass. Climb adds potential energy and drag work along the climb path. Warm-up, descent and landing energy allowances are inputs. Battery fraction is . The constant-weight range equation follows Staack, Sobron and Krus (2021), Eq. 2; other segment energy equations are derived from work and power balance here.
For , payload growth is and range growth is . Range differentiation uses 0.01 km; parameter elasticities use a 0.01% perturbation. Each plotted design point is solved independently.
An independent adaptive ODE integration of mass depletion checks the closed-form hold equation, including the propeller constant-lift-coefficient case.
Assumptions
Payload and crew remain aboard. L/D, SFC, propeller efficiency and drive efficiency are constant within each segment. Jet TSFC is fuel weight flow divided by thrust; a mass-flow TSFC in kg/(N·s) must first be multiplied by standard gravity. Propeller SFC is fuel mass per shaft energy.
Range is total cruise distance, excluding the separately modeled climb, descent and reserve. A constant-lift-coefficient hold starts at the entered loiter speed each time. Electric climb is at constant speed; energy recovery in descent is zero. Pack specific energy includes battery enclosure and management hardware; usable fraction includes discharge and aging limits. Empty mass includes propulsion and aircraft systems but excludes crew, payload and the entire battery pack or loaded fuel.
In the segment table, storage draw fraction means fuel burned divided by loaded fuel mass, or battery energy used divided by nominal installed pack energy. Extra allowances remain outside the phase draw.
In the parameter sensitivity chart, the propulsion parameter is cruise/hold SFC for jet and propeller aircraft, or installed pack specific energy for battery electric aircraft.
Where it applies
First-estimate, fixed-wing conceptual sizing. The conventional aircraft coefficients are historical statistical fits, not component weight estimates; select or calibrate a custom fit for the aircraft class and weight scale. For battery aircraft, use a defensible custom correlation or fixed empty fraction excluding the pack. Technology multipliers do not prove structural feasibility.
As in the Raymer mission method, m₀ is the initial design gross mass before the combined warm-up / takeoff allowance. It is not the runway mass after taxi. The final mass shown is after the modeled reserve is flown; normal trip landing mass, with reserves retained, is available in the calculation steps. Reserve distance, hold and extra allowance are user design choices, not a regulatory fuel policy; avoid counting the same reserve twice.
Mass closure establishes only this model's accounting consistency. It does not establish wing area, installed thrust or power, climb performance, stability, CG, structural strength, stall speed, field length, pack power capability, cooling, battery fire protection, usable tank volume or certified limits. Do not use the tool as an operational loading or dispatch calculator. Check a developed design with component buildup and a detailed mission analysis.
The solve is bounded by the entered mass ceiling and relative closure tolerance. Gaps in trade curves are rejected designs; they are not interpolated feasible points. All curves have 81–101 independently solved samples.
References
- Raymer, D. P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, 6th ed. (2018), Ch. 3 and Table 3.1. https://doi.org/10.2514/4.104909
- Sadraey, M. H., Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach (2013), Ch. 4. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118352700
- Virginia Tech, Air Vehicle Design, Course Module A4: Initial Sizing—Takeoff Weight Estimation (13 Aug 2024), pp. 18–19, 55, 63–66. https://www.aoe.vt.edu/content/dam/aoe_vt_edu/people/faculty/praj/avd-fundamentals/A4%20-%20Initial%20Sizing%20-%20Takeoff%20Weight%20Estimation.pdf
- Roskam, J., Airplane Design, Part I: Preliminary Sizing of Airplanes (1989); mission fraction guidance reproduced by HAW Hamburg. https://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/dimensionierung/equ1.htm
- Staack, I., Sobron, A. and Krus, P. (2021), The potential of full-electric aircraft for civil transportation: from the Breguet range equation to operational aspects, CEAS Aeronautical Journal, Eq. 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13272-021-00530-w
Inputs
| Input | Symbol | Unit | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Propulsion | propulsion | Jet | |
| Payload mass | m_payload | kg | 8000 |
| Crew mass | m_crew | kg | 360 |
| Empty weight model | empty_model | Aircraft type correlation | |
| Aircraft type | aircraft_fit | Jet transport | |
| A (pound basis) Use coefficients for W₀ expressed in pounds. | A_custom | 1.02 | |
| C exponent | C_custom | -0.06 | |
| Empty mass fraction Exclude payload, crew and fuel or battery. | empty_fixed | 0.55 | |
| Empty weight multiplier Scale the selected empty weight estimate for a technology or growth study. | empty_scale | 1 | |
| Cruise distance Total cruise distance; enter both legs for an out-and-back mission. | R_km | km | 2500 |
| Mission loiter | t_loiter | h | 0.3333333333 |
| Reserve cruise distance | R_res | km | 0 |
| Reserve hold A separate reserve segment, additional to mission loiter. | t_res | h | 0.3333333333 |
| Cruise airspeed | V_cr | m/s | 210 |
| Loiter airspeed | V_lo | m/s | 100 |
| Cruise L/D | LD_cr | 16 | |
| Loiter L/D | LD_lo | 18 | |
| Cruise jet weight TSFC Fuel weight flow per thrust; 0.5 h⁻¹ corresponds to 0.5 lb/(lbf·h) at standard gravity. | ct_cr | 1/h | 0.5 |
| Loiter jet weight TSFC | ct_lo | 1/h | 0.4 |
| Cruise power SFC | cp_cr | kg/kWh | 0.28 |
| Loiter power SFC | cp_lo | kg/kWh | 0.3 |
| Propeller loiter schedule At constant lift coefficient, the stated loiter speed is the entry speed of each hold. | loiter_law | Constant airspeed | |
| Cruise propeller efficiency | eta_cr | 0.82 | |
| Loiter propeller efficiency | eta_lo | 0.8 | |
| Warm-up / takeoff retained fraction | r_warm | 0.97 | |
| Climb retained fraction | r_climb | 0.985 | |
| Descent retained fraction | r_desc | 0.99 | |
| Landing retained fraction | r_land | 0.995 | |
| Extra fuel / modeled burn Additional contingency and unusable fuel; explicit reserve flight is already included. | fuel_extra | 0.01 | |
| Installed pack specific energy Use the installed pack value, including enclosure and battery management. | e_pack | Wh/kg | 300 |
| Usable battery energy fraction | usable | 0.8 | |
| Motor / controller efficiency | eta_drive | 0.92 | |
| Climb height | h_climb | m | 1000 |
| Climb path distance | s_climb | km | 20 |
| Climb L/D | LD_climb | 12 | |
| Warm-up / takeoff energy per gross mass | e_warm | Wh/kg | 1 |
| Descent energy per gross mass | e_desc | Wh/kg | 0.3 |
| Landing energy per gross mass | e_land | Wh/kg | 0.5 |
| Extra energy / modeled demand | energy_extra | 0.05 | |
| Sizing mass ceiling Reject a design whose mass closure lies above this search ceiling. | m_ceiling | kg | 1000000 |
| Maximum sizing iterations | n_iter | 60 | |
| Relative mass closure tolerance | root_tol | 1e-9 |
Results
With the default inputs above, the calc gives:
| Result | Value |
|---|---|
| Takeoff gross mass | 27,187.9 kg |
| Empty mass | 14,332.2 kg |
| Fuel / battery mass | 4,495.7 kg |
| Mass after reserve flown | 22,736.7 kg |
| Storage mass fraction | 0.1654 |
| Empty mass fraction | 0.5272 |
| Payload growth factor | 2.949 |
| Range growth factor | 2.799 kg/km |
| L/D elasticity | -0.294 |
| SFC / pack energy elasticity | 0.294 |
| Empty estimate elasticity | 1.554 |
Checked against sources
Each case below was calculated by this calc and agrees with the value from its source (within the tolerance where one is shown).
Raymer ASW mission and weight closure
Source: Raymer 6th ed., Ch. 3.6.4, ASW worked example, reproduced in Virginia Tech A4 pp. 63–66: approximately 56,700 lb. This calculator uses exact unit conversion and exponentials rather than rounded segment ratios.
Inputs: Payload mass = 4,536 kg; Crew mass = 362.9 kg; Cruise distance = 5,556 km; Mission loiter = 3 h; Reserve hold = 0.3333 h; Cruise airspeed = 181.9 m/s; Cruise L/D = 13.9; Loiter L/D = 16; Descent retained fraction = 1; Extra fuel / modeled burn = 0.06; Aircraft type = Military cargo / bomber; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Storage mass fraction | 0.3773 ± 0.002 | 0.3767 |
| Takeoff gross mass | 25,719 ± 130 kg | 25,649 kg |
| Mission loiter retained mass fraction | 0.9277 | 0.9277 |
Published 20-minute jet reserve hold
Source: Virginia Tech A4 p. 65, Raymer ASW mission, 20-minute hold at loiter TSFC 0.4 h⁻¹ and L/D 16.
Inputs: Reserve hold = 0.3333 h; Loiter L/D = 16; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Reserve retained mass fraction | 0.9917 | 0.9917 |
Mass closure exactly at ceiling
Source: Independent reviewer boundary regression supplied by the user: with no fuel and a fixed empty fraction of 0.5, mass conservation gives gross mass 500/(1−0.5)=1000 kg and payload growth 2. The ceiling equals this exact solution, so it must be accepted.
Inputs: Payload mass = 500 kg; Crew mass = 0 kg; Empty weight model = Fixed empty fraction; Empty mass fraction = 0.5; Cruise distance = 0 km; Mission loiter = 0 h; Reserve hold = 0 h; Warm-up / takeoff retained fraction = 1; Climb retained fraction = 1; Descent retained fraction = 1; Landing retained fraction = 1; Extra fuel / modeled burn = 0; Sizing mass ceiling = 1,000 kg; the others as above.
| Result | Source | This calc |
|---|---|---|
| Takeoff gross mass | 1,000 kg | 1,000 kg |
| Payload growth factor | 2 | 2 |
| Relative mass closure residual | 0 | 0 |
Related Resources
Related articles
-
Stiff Multi-Species Chemical Kinetics Simulation Using Analytical Jacobians and Sensitivity Analysis in MATLAB -
Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motors (PMSM) for Minimizing Electromagnetic Vibration in MATLAB -
Matlab’s Guide to Sensitivity Analysis and Monte Carlo Simulation in Multi-Criteria Decision Making: Making Decisions You Can Trust

Responses