Aircraft empty weight vs number of passenger seats
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To prove the point, here's a blast from the past; the VC10 was possibly the best example of prioritising strength and performance over commercial reality (leaving SST on one side). I think that these numbers are reasonably typical;
Weight ("Operating empty" ie APS)
Standard 66,670 Kg
Super 71,137 Kg
Seats
Standard 109 in 2 classes
Super 139 in 2 classes
Weight per seat
Standard 611 Kg
Super 512 Kg
By way of contrast, the contemporary B707-320B had a typical APS of 66,406kg, with typical 2-class configuration of 147, thus 452 Kg per seat.
A DC7C was about 345 Kg/seat APS. A C172 is about 150 Kg/seat empty. The longer DC8 variants were about 345 Kg/seat APS, with max seating.
However......B787-8 with 457 Kg/seat APS pretty much matches the B707-320B with 452 Kg/seat, built about 50 years ago, if my figures and the figures provided in this thread are right.
And the stretched DC8s were far lighter per seat, at 345 Kg/seat APS.
B747-400 is about 435 Kg/seat APS, depending on configuration.
Airbus A380 is 499 Kg/seat APS.
All these numbers are dependent on configuration, but the main thrust of the argument doesn't change significantly when actual operating aircraft/fleet configurations are looked at.
So the APS/empty operating weight per seat seems to be increasing slightly for long-haul aircraft, in spite of all the new lightweight construction materials etc. Ditched has also pointed this out.
This came as a great surprise, when I started looking at older aircraft to illustrate the point that weights are coming down, only to find that they are not.
Now why is that?
Weight ("Operating empty" ie APS)
Standard 66,670 Kg
Super 71,137 Kg
Seats
Standard 109 in 2 classes
Super 139 in 2 classes
Weight per seat
Standard 611 Kg
Super 512 Kg
By way of contrast, the contemporary B707-320B had a typical APS of 66,406kg, with typical 2-class configuration of 147, thus 452 Kg per seat.
A DC7C was about 345 Kg/seat APS. A C172 is about 150 Kg/seat empty. The longer DC8 variants were about 345 Kg/seat APS, with max seating.
However......B787-8 with 457 Kg/seat APS pretty much matches the B707-320B with 452 Kg/seat, built about 50 years ago, if my figures and the figures provided in this thread are right.
And the stretched DC8s were far lighter per seat, at 345 Kg/seat APS.
B747-400 is about 435 Kg/seat APS, depending on configuration.
Airbus A380 is 499 Kg/seat APS.
All these numbers are dependent on configuration, but the main thrust of the argument doesn't change significantly when actual operating aircraft/fleet configurations are looked at.
So the APS/empty operating weight per seat seems to be increasing slightly for long-haul aircraft, in spite of all the new lightweight construction materials etc. Ditched has also pointed this out.
This came as a great surprise, when I started looking at older aircraft to illustrate the point that weights are coming down, only to find that they are not.
Now why is that?
Last edited by Capot; 14th Dec 2014 at 18:35.
To prove the point, here's a blast from the past; the VC10 was possibly the best example of prioritising strength and performance over commercial reality (leaving SST on one side). I think that these numbers are reasonably typical;
Weight ("Operating empty" ie APS)
Standard 66,670 Kg
Super 71,137 Kg
Seats
Standard 109 in 2 classes
Super 139 in 2 classes
Weight per seat
Standard 611 Kg
Super 512 Kg
By way of contrast, the contemporary B707-320B had a typical APS of 66,406kg, with typical 2-class configuration of 147, thus 452 Kg per seat.
A DC7C was about 345 Kg/seat APS. A C172 is about 150 Kg/seat empty. The longer DC8 variants were about 345 Kg/seat APS, with max seating.
However......B787-8 with 457 Kg/seat APS pretty much matches the B707-320B with 452 Kg/seat, built about 50 years ago, if my figures and the figures provided in this thread are right.
And the stretched DC8s were far lighter per seat, at 345 Kg/seat APS.
B747-400 is about 435 Kg/seat APS, depending on configuration.
Airbus A380 is 499 Kg/seat APS.
All these numbers are dependent on configuration, but the main thrust of the argument doesn't change significantly when actual operating aircraft/fleet configurations are looked at.
So the APS/empty operating weight per seat seems to be increasing slightly for long-haul aircraft, in spite of all the new lightweight construction materials etc. Ditched has also pointed this out.
This came as a great surprise, when I started looking at older aircraft to illustrate the point that weights are coming down, only to find that they are not.
Now why is that?
Weight ("Operating empty" ie APS)
Standard 66,670 Kg
Super 71,137 Kg
Seats
Standard 109 in 2 classes
Super 139 in 2 classes
Weight per seat
Standard 611 Kg
Super 512 Kg
By way of contrast, the contemporary B707-320B had a typical APS of 66,406kg, with typical 2-class configuration of 147, thus 452 Kg per seat.
A DC7C was about 345 Kg/seat APS. A C172 is about 150 Kg/seat empty. The longer DC8 variants were about 345 Kg/seat APS, with max seating.
However......B787-8 with 457 Kg/seat APS pretty much matches the B707-320B with 452 Kg/seat, built about 50 years ago, if my figures and the figures provided in this thread are right.
And the stretched DC8s were far lighter per seat, at 345 Kg/seat APS.
B747-400 is about 435 Kg/seat APS, depending on configuration.
Airbus A380 is 499 Kg/seat APS.
All these numbers are dependent on configuration, but the main thrust of the argument doesn't change significantly when actual operating aircraft/fleet configurations are looked at.
So the APS/empty operating weight per seat seems to be increasing slightly for long-haul aircraft, in spite of all the new lightweight construction materials etc. Ditched has also pointed this out.
This came as a great surprise, when I started looking at older aircraft to illustrate the point that weights are coming down, only to find that they are not.
Now why is that?
Operating empty wt around 74.800 kgs, all Y was 249 seats, so 300 kgs pr seat. Later we had business class installed, and went down to 234 seats, OEW did not change much so it would still be only 320 kgs pr seat.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take the 737-300 and the -700
Similar fuselages (-300 length is 33.4m, -700 is 33.6m) seating approx the same.
OEWs
-300 - 32,700kg
-700 - 38,100kg
So same fuselage, but 5.5T heavier...Must be the wing....28.9m compares to the NG with 35.7m.
But what do you get with it? Another 2 -> 9 T of payload (option dependent) with a significant fuel burn advantage.
But the OEW vs seats installed doesn't show that...Its all about the wing/engine efficiency...
Similar fuselages (-300 length is 33.4m, -700 is 33.6m) seating approx the same.
OEWs
-300 - 32,700kg
-700 - 38,100kg
So same fuselage, but 5.5T heavier...Must be the wing....28.9m compares to the NG with 35.7m.
But what do you get with it? Another 2 -> 9 T of payload (option dependent) with a significant fuel burn advantage.
But the OEW vs seats installed doesn't show that...Its all about the wing/engine efficiency...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the weight/pax may tell part of the story and from this it is smaller aircraft have a lower weight/pax it doesn't tell anything about freight which is a large part of the overall profit on long haul.
Part of the reason larger aircraft weigh more per pax is that they are not optimised for pax weight, but over all profit which includes a large amount of underbelly cargo. This includes the on board handling equipment like strenghened floors, rollers,tie downs, cargo doors and power distribution needed for all this.
Part of the reason larger aircraft weigh more per pax is that they are not optimised for pax weight, but over all profit which includes a large amount of underbelly cargo. This includes the on board handling equipment like strenghened floors, rollers,tie downs, cargo doors and power distribution needed for all this.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point, Wunwing, but maybe only if the cargo volume (and/or the payload available with 100% passenger L/F) per passenger seat has been increased significantly over the years.
The older aircraft also had much of what you describe, but not roller beds as I recall, which along with special cargo doors were found only on cargo aircraft, or combis, and I suspect that's still true.
I'm not sure that power distribution for freight handling purposes is a big weight factor on passenger aircraft.
But I'm sure you are right, and the volume and payload available for freight with a full passenger load could well have increased, thus keeping the total empty weight per seat where it was. Do you have any numbers? I don't.
The older aircraft also had much of what you describe, but not roller beds as I recall, which along with special cargo doors were found only on cargo aircraft, or combis, and I suspect that's still true.
I'm not sure that power distribution for freight handling purposes is a big weight factor on passenger aircraft.
But I'm sure you are right, and the volume and payload available for freight with a full passenger load could well have increased, thus keeping the total empty weight per seat where it was. Do you have any numbers? I don't.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I don't have any current data but a number off comments on this thread seem to be looking at a formula based on aircraft empty weight divided by number of seats and coming to a conclusion of efficiency.
Any modern widebody will have the same inbuilt "inefficiency" on that basis, as all longhaul widebodies will have a fair amount of underbelly freight capacity which may or may not be able to be utilised fully depending on range, market and airport limitations.
A B747 for instance has 3 underbelly freight doors and they are quite large compared to B737/A320. All B747s since the 100 have had powered rollers in the belly. All that requires substantially more wiring, power distribution controls etc than a small pax aircraft. However the fact that is is still there over 45 years of B747 production would seem to indicate that it generates substantial revenue beyond handling the "cans' for pax baggage which only fill one of the 3 holds.
So overall a simple empty weight divided by pax only tells part of the story and any conclusions based on that are far from accurate indication of aircraft type or airline profitability.
Any modern widebody will have the same inbuilt "inefficiency" on that basis, as all longhaul widebodies will have a fair amount of underbelly freight capacity which may or may not be able to be utilised fully depending on range, market and airport limitations.
A B747 for instance has 3 underbelly freight doors and they are quite large compared to B737/A320. All B747s since the 100 have had powered rollers in the belly. All that requires substantially more wiring, power distribution controls etc than a small pax aircraft. However the fact that is is still there over 45 years of B747 production would seem to indicate that it generates substantial revenue beyond handling the "cans' for pax baggage which only fill one of the 3 holds.
So overall a simple empty weight divided by pax only tells part of the story and any conclusions based on that are far from accurate indication of aircraft type or airline profitability.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of thoughts re. the 787 and the fuel savings; whilst the airframe appears heavier, how much of that equates to fit out? All that IFE equipment is pretty hefty and wasn't present in a 70's airframe. The majority of the 787's fuel savings come from drag reduction and the lack of stealing bleed air for pressurisation.
The A380, it should be remembered that it carries a load of freight payload per revenue flight, which isn't costed into the passenger v kg figure.
Anecdotally I was told that when Air NZ stuck winglets on their 763's (soon to be replaced with 789's) they also sent them away to remove excess water from the insulation. The figure quoted was there was approximately 3000kg of water accumulated in each aircraft - more than made up for the weight of the new winglets.
The A380, it should be remembered that it carries a load of freight payload per revenue flight, which isn't costed into the passenger v kg figure.
Anecdotally I was told that when Air NZ stuck winglets on their 763's (soon to be replaced with 789's) they also sent them away to remove excess water from the insulation. The figure quoted was there was approximately 3000kg of water accumulated in each aircraft - more than made up for the weight of the new winglets.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anecdotally I was told that when Air NZ stuck winglets on their 763's (soon to be replaced with 789's) they also sent them away to remove excess water from the insulation. The figure quoted was there was approximately 3000kg of water accumulated in each aircraft - more than made up for the weight of the new winglets.
Boeing elected to make it standard equipment on the 787-8/
9/10 and offers it as Buyer Furnished Equipment on B737NG, B767, B777, 787.
Airbus is also offering it as a customer option on the A350.
Flydubai has also installed Zonal Dryers on all their 737s.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was told that when an A380 is full of passengers that the hold generally nearly bulks out, leaving little room for freight.
The purpose of this excercise is not to compare widebodies to narrow bodies but to compare aircraft of the same category against each other, as far as empty weight, especially older models to newer ones.
I would like to see the numbers for older 747 (-200 and -300) as well as DC-10, MD-11 and L-1011s.
Of course one would have to look at other figures such as the relation between an aircrafts' OEW and its MZFW, and also the relation between the OEW, the MZFW and its MTOW, for significant inceases in the two latter numbers may explain an increase of Empty weight.
Comparing Wiki numbers for the 737-900 and the 757-200. Same manufacturer, same fuselage cross section. The 737-900 is 42.1 meters in length and can carry a max of 220 pax in a single class high density config.
It is listed at 44,700 Kg, which would give it 203Kg/seat.
The 757-200 is 47.3 meters long and can carry a max of 239 passengers. It is listed at 57,800 Kg, which would give it 242 Kg/seat.
No wider holds. No wider fuselage. The difference seems to be in the metal required to reach 115 tonne MTOW, vs 85 tonnes for the 737-900.
There was a time when some manufacturers made wide body medium range aircraft. The Airbus 300-B4s, the A300-600, the A310-200 and the early B767-200s which were mostly used on short domestic routes and were not ETOPS. No such aircraft are being built today.
However, today, it seems more economical to dispatch two 737-700s back to back to a single short range destination than to cover the same short route segment with a larger aircraft having the same seating capacity as the Boeings put together. This was a surprise to me when I discovered it.......
The purpose of this excercise is not to compare widebodies to narrow bodies but to compare aircraft of the same category against each other, as far as empty weight, especially older models to newer ones.
I would like to see the numbers for older 747 (-200 and -300) as well as DC-10, MD-11 and L-1011s.
Of course one would have to look at other figures such as the relation between an aircrafts' OEW and its MZFW, and also the relation between the OEW, the MZFW and its MTOW, for significant inceases in the two latter numbers may explain an increase of Empty weight.
Comparing Wiki numbers for the 737-900 and the 757-200. Same manufacturer, same fuselage cross section. The 737-900 is 42.1 meters in length and can carry a max of 220 pax in a single class high density config.
It is listed at 44,700 Kg, which would give it 203Kg/seat.
The 757-200 is 47.3 meters long and can carry a max of 239 passengers. It is listed at 57,800 Kg, which would give it 242 Kg/seat.
No wider holds. No wider fuselage. The difference seems to be in the metal required to reach 115 tonne MTOW, vs 85 tonnes for the 737-900.
There was a time when some manufacturers made wide body medium range aircraft. The Airbus 300-B4s, the A300-600, the A310-200 and the early B767-200s which were mostly used on short domestic routes and were not ETOPS. No such aircraft are being built today.
However, today, it seems more economical to dispatch two 737-700s back to back to a single short range destination than to cover the same short route segment with a larger aircraft having the same seating capacity as the Boeings put together. This was a surprise to me when I discovered it.......
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt; 15th Dec 2014 at 22:32.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft empty weight vs number of passenger seats
The missing part of this discussion is range, although several people have hinted at it. Simple tabulation of aircraft and weight per seat is not helpful. What is needed is a graph of weight/ seat vs range. Then the long hauls will separate out from the short hauls and a better picture of change over time will emerge.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is what we have so far
Airbus 320 234 Kg/Seat
Airbus 330-200 346 Kg/Seat
Airbus 330-300 352 Kg/Seat
Airbus 380 510 kg/Seat
B707-320B 452 Kg/seat
B737-300 234 Kg/seat (@140 seats)
B737-700 272 Kg/seat (@ 140 seats)
B737-800 224 Kg/Seat
B747-400 490 kg/Seat
B757-200 254 kg/seat
B767-200 304 kg/seat
B767-300 266 kg/seat
B767-400ER 351 kg/seat (Source Boeing Website with 296 seats @ 103872Kg)
B787-800 410 Kg/Seat kg (Source Stampe at 291 seat @ 119.4 OWE)
B787-800 487 kg/seat) (Source Boeing Website with 242 seats @ 117798)
DC7C 345 Kg/seat
DC8-61 345 Kg/seat
DC8-63 300 Kg/seat (@249 seats)
DC8-63 320 Kg/seat (@234 seats)
Q400 243 kg/seat (76 seats @ 18.472kg DOM)
VC10 611 Kg/seat
VC10 Super 512 Kg/seat
Anyone notice which is the lowest in this list so far ? The B787-800, followed closely by the A320. Surprise anyone ?
I hope more people contribute.......
Airbus 330-200 346 Kg/Seat
Airbus 330-300 352 Kg/Seat
Airbus 380 510 kg/Seat
B707-320B 452 Kg/seat
B737-300 234 Kg/seat (@140 seats)
B737-700 272 Kg/seat (@ 140 seats)
B737-800 224 Kg/Seat
B747-400 490 kg/Seat
B757-200 254 kg/seat
B767-200 304 kg/seat
B767-300 266 kg/seat
B767-400ER 351 kg/seat (Source Boeing Website with 296 seats @ 103872Kg)
B787-800 410 Kg/Seat kg (Source Stampe at 291 seat @ 119.4 OWE)
B787-800 487 kg/seat) (Source Boeing Website with 242 seats @ 117798)
DC7C 345 Kg/seat
DC8-61 345 Kg/seat
DC8-63 300 Kg/seat (@249 seats)
DC8-63 320 Kg/seat (@234 seats)
Q400 243 kg/seat (76 seats @ 18.472kg DOM)
VC10 611 Kg/seat
VC10 Super 512 Kg/seat
Anyone notice which is the lowest in this list so far ? The B787-800, followed closely by the A320. Surprise anyone ?
I hope more people contribute.......
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt; 18th Dec 2014 at 14:01.
Here is data from an old spreadsheet that I have in my possession but it doesn't include the newer types. Apologies - the system seems to reduce everything to a single space not making this clear. I'll PP you the spreadsheet.
Type Engines Seats OEW kg kg/seat
A 300-600 CF6-80C2A5 212 90,300 426
A 310-300 CF6-80C2A8 192 79,666 415
A 318-100 CFM56-5B 81 39,035 482
A 319-100 CFM56-5B6 96 40,350 420
A 320-200 CFM56-5B4 109 42,100 386
A 321-200 CFM56-5B3 132 48,140 365
A 330-200 CF6-80E1A4 236 120,500 511
A 330-300 CF6-80E1A4 236 124,300 527
A 340-200 CFM56-5C4 225 125,650 558
A 340-300 CFM56-5C4 260 129,850 499
A 340-500 Trent553 269 170,300 633
A 340-600 Trent556 294 176,900 602
B 737-500 CFM56 3C1 76 31,950 420
B 737-300 CFM56 3C1 91 31,869 350
B 737-400 CFM56 3C1 106 34,810 328
B 737-600 CFM56 7B22 76 36,900 486
B 737-700 CFM56 7B22 91 38,150 419
B 737-800 CFM56 7B27 121 41,150 340
B 737-900 CFM56 7B27 136 42,490 312
B 747-400 CF6 80C2B5F 250 183,810 735
B 747-400 CF6 80C2B5F 358 181,120 506
B 747-400X CF6-80C2B5F 358 183,810 513
B 747-400X GP7000423 190,500 450
B 757-200 PW2040132 58,390 442
B 757-300 PW2043162 63,650 393
B 767-200 CF6 80C2B8F 158 84,690 536
B 767-300 CF6 80C2B7F 194 90,540 467
B 767-400 CF6 80C2B8F 208 102,690 494
B 777-200 GE-90-94B260 143,790 553
B 777-200 GE-90-115B260 155,990 600
B 777-300 GE-90-95B336 158,480 472
B 777-300 GE-90-115B336 169,190 504
B 717-200 BR 715 C1-30 58 32,110 554
MD87 JT8D-217B74 35,003 473
MD83 JT8D-21994 38,737 412
MD90-30 V2528 D5 100 41,178 412
MD11 PW4460 268 132,800 496
CRJ-200 CF343B1 34 13,740 404
CRJ-700 CF348C1 49 19,731 403
RJ-70 LF 507 1F 65 23,600 363
RJ-85 LF 507 1F 77 24,380 317
RJ-100 LF 507 1F 92 24,750 269
ERJ-135 AE3007A 33 511,200 320
ERJ-145ER AE3007A 147 11,840 252
Type Engines Seats OEW kg kg/seat
A 300-600 CF6-80C2A5 212 90,300 426
A 310-300 CF6-80C2A8 192 79,666 415
A 318-100 CFM56-5B 81 39,035 482
A 319-100 CFM56-5B6 96 40,350 420
A 320-200 CFM56-5B4 109 42,100 386
A 321-200 CFM56-5B3 132 48,140 365
A 330-200 CF6-80E1A4 236 120,500 511
A 330-300 CF6-80E1A4 236 124,300 527
A 340-200 CFM56-5C4 225 125,650 558
A 340-300 CFM56-5C4 260 129,850 499
A 340-500 Trent553 269 170,300 633
A 340-600 Trent556 294 176,900 602
B 737-500 CFM56 3C1 76 31,950 420
B 737-300 CFM56 3C1 91 31,869 350
B 737-400 CFM56 3C1 106 34,810 328
B 737-600 CFM56 7B22 76 36,900 486
B 737-700 CFM56 7B22 91 38,150 419
B 737-800 CFM56 7B27 121 41,150 340
B 737-900 CFM56 7B27 136 42,490 312
B 747-400 CF6 80C2B5F 250 183,810 735
B 747-400 CF6 80C2B5F 358 181,120 506
B 747-400X CF6-80C2B5F 358 183,810 513
B 747-400X GP7000423 190,500 450
B 757-200 PW2040132 58,390 442
B 757-300 PW2043162 63,650 393
B 767-200 CF6 80C2B8F 158 84,690 536
B 767-300 CF6 80C2B7F 194 90,540 467
B 767-400 CF6 80C2B8F 208 102,690 494
B 777-200 GE-90-94B260 143,790 553
B 777-200 GE-90-115B260 155,990 600
B 777-300 GE-90-95B336 158,480 472
B 777-300 GE-90-115B336 169,190 504
B 717-200 BR 715 C1-30 58 32,110 554
MD87 JT8D-217B74 35,003 473
MD83 JT8D-21994 38,737 412
MD90-30 V2528 D5 100 41,178 412
MD11 PW4460 268 132,800 496
CRJ-200 CF343B1 34 13,740 404
CRJ-700 CF348C1 49 19,731 403
RJ-70 LF 507 1F 65 23,600 363
RJ-85 LF 507 1F 77 24,380 317
RJ-100 LF 507 1F 92 24,750 269
ERJ-135 AE3007A 33 511,200 320
ERJ-145ER AE3007A 147 11,840 252
Last edited by Peter47; 19th Dec 2014 at 17:24.
I am also interested in fuel consumption per seat. As some of the previous posts have said it is important to quote like with like. I would suggest a metric of square metres of floor available floor area. It would also be necessary to convert hold space to an equivalent of this. For example a 77W has less space for passengers than a 774 but more hold space (obviously not relevant if there is not much freight around or ultra long range routes). Would it be possible to produce a graph of fuel consumption per m^2 of floor space by range. Has anyone got a link of anything is available on the web? (GH has said that published weight data is suspect - finding accurate fuel consumption data is even harder.)
Apologies - the system seems to reduce everything to a single space not making this clear
Type Engines Seats OEW_kg kg/seat
A300-600 CF6-80C2A5 212 90,300 426
A310-300 CF6-80C2A8 192 79,666 415
A318-100 CFM56-5B 81 39,035 482
A319-100 CFM56-5B6 96 40,350 420
A320-200 CFM56-5B4 109 42,100 386
A321-200 CFM56-5B3 132 48,140 365
A330-200 CF6-80E1A4 236 120,500 511
A330-300 CF6-80E1A4 236 124,300 527
A340-200 CFM56-5C4 225 125,650 558
A340-300 CFM56-5C4 260 129,850 499
A340-500 Trent553 269 170,300 633
A340-600 Trent556 294 176,900 602
B737-500 CFM56-3C1 76 31,950 420
B737-300 CFM56-3C1 91 31,869 350
B737-400 CFM56-3C1 106 34,810 328
B737-600 CFM56-7B22 76 36,900 486
B737-700 CFM56-7B22 91 38,150 419
B737-800 CFM56-7B27 121 41,150 340
B737-900 CFM56-7B27 136 42,490 312
B747-400 CF6-80C2B5F 250 183,810 735
B747-400 CF6-80C2B5F 358 181,120 506
B747-400X CF6-80C2B5F 358 183,810 513
B747-400X GP7000 423 190,500 450
B757-200 PW2040 132 58,390 442
B757-300 PW2043 162 63,650 393
B767-200 CF6-80C2B8F 158 84,690 536
B767-300 CF6-80C2B7F 194 90,540 467
B767-400 CF6-80C2B8F 208 102,690 494
B777-200 GE-90-94B 260 143,790 553
B777-200 GE-90-115B 260 155,990 600
B777-300 GE-90-95B 336 158,480 472
B777-300 GE-90-115B 336 169,190 504
B717-200 BR715C1-30 58 32,110 554
MD87 JT8D-217B 74 35,003 473
MD83 JT8D-219 94 38,737 412
MD90-30 V2528-D5 100 41,178 412
MD11 PW4460 268 132,800 496
CRJ-200 CF343B1 34 13,740 404
CRJ-700 CF348C1 49 19,731 403
RJ-70 LF507-1F 65 23,600 363
RJ-85 LF507-1F 77 24,380 317
RJ-100 LF507-1F 92 24,750 269
ERJ-135 AE3007A 33 511,200 320
ERJ-145ER AE3007A 147 11,840 252
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure all the seat numbers add up. Where would you find a 752 with 132 seats and a 753 with 162 seats? Or a 717 with 58 seats?
Doesn't look plausible.
Doesn't look plausible.
Nearly all the seat numbers look way to low - for example there is only one operator of the 757-300/PW2000 (Delta), two layouts, 224 seats and 234 seats.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Montréal
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft Weight spreadsheet
I entered some aircraft weights into a Spreadsheet that I am sharing here. Download it and play around with it.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ht%20data.xlsx
The weights may not all be exact, I got them off the internet. You can correct them yourself if you find correct figures.
When I found different versions of same aircraft (ie a high gross and a low gross, I entered the heavier of the two)
There are six columns:
Aircraft Type
OEW
ZFW
MTOW
Payload (ZFW - OEW)
Useful Load (MTOW - OEW)
When you first download the spreadsheet, the aircraft will be sorted by aircraft type.
By sorting the columns by Payload and Useful Load, aircraft of similar payload or of similar useful load can be compared as far as OEW. Its an interesting exercise.
For example the Boeing 787-8 has a payload (in my spreadsheet) of 43,222Kg, just 1 tonne over the L-1011-500 which had a payload of 42,010Kg. It has a useful load of 110,132Kg, while the L-1011-500 has 120,200Kg.
The B787-8 has an OEW of 117,798 while the L-1011-500 has 111,300.
So the mostly carbon 21st Century 787-8 is 6.5 tonnes heavier than a late 1960s era L-1011-500.
Compare an MD-11ER and a B777-200 which have similar payloads, and the MD11ER is lighter by 8 tonnes in OEW while having a useful load that is 47 tonnes greater.
Comments ?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ht%20data.xlsx
The weights may not all be exact, I got them off the internet. You can correct them yourself if you find correct figures.
When I found different versions of same aircraft (ie a high gross and a low gross, I entered the heavier of the two)
There are six columns:
Aircraft Type
OEW
ZFW
MTOW
Payload (ZFW - OEW)
Useful Load (MTOW - OEW)
When you first download the spreadsheet, the aircraft will be sorted by aircraft type.
By sorting the columns by Payload and Useful Load, aircraft of similar payload or of similar useful load can be compared as far as OEW. Its an interesting exercise.
For example the Boeing 787-8 has a payload (in my spreadsheet) of 43,222Kg, just 1 tonne over the L-1011-500 which had a payload of 42,010Kg. It has a useful load of 110,132Kg, while the L-1011-500 has 120,200Kg.
The B787-8 has an OEW of 117,798 while the L-1011-500 has 111,300.
So the mostly carbon 21st Century 787-8 is 6.5 tonnes heavier than a late 1960s era L-1011-500.
Compare an MD-11ER and a B777-200 which have similar payloads, and the MD11ER is lighter by 8 tonnes in OEW while having a useful load that is 47 tonnes greater.
Comments ?
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt; 9th Jan 2015 at 20:24. Reason: typos
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern aircraft have bigger, high BPR engines, which in turn weigh more. This increases OWE but it's worth it for the fuel burn advantages. That said, compared to some of the really old models engine weight might be ~neutral as structural enhancements will cancel out the extra size.
With all of these /seat calculations though it depends heavily on seat density. A high-density config will nearly always beat a long-haul config with business/first seating, regardless of the actual structural efficiency. Perhaps a measure of OWE per unit of cabin volume would better? But again this obviously wouldn't take into account fuel.
With all of these /seat calculations though it depends heavily on seat density. A high-density config will nearly always beat a long-haul config with business/first seating, regardless of the actual structural efficiency. Perhaps a measure of OWE per unit of cabin volume would better? But again this obviously wouldn't take into account fuel.