[1] https://maximumeffort.substack.com/p/the-tyranny-of-the-wago...
Boeing B-52 Stratofortress: dry weight 38.25 tonne, fuel capacity 141.6 tonne, ratio 3.7:1. Max takeoff weight: 221.3 tonne. If at max fuel, that's 63% fuel. In practice, this aircraft refuels, often multiple times, on missions, which may span the globe.
Boeing 747-8: dry weight 220 tonne, fuel capacity 238.6 tonne, ratio 1.08:1. Max takeoff weight: 447.1 tonne. If at max fuel, that's 53% fuel.
Much of the fuel burn is on take-off and climb, meaning that cruise portions of flight are already at significantly less than take-off weight, and further reduce with time. You'll occasionally see long-distance flight profiles in which the altitude of the aircraft increases over the flight (in 1,000 ft increments given air traffic regulations) as fuel load decreases and maximum efficient altitude increases.
It looks more like a Civ5 game board than a neat equation like the ideal rocket equation.
A planet's mass doesn't matter so much as the density. If you look at a planet like Saturn, it is almost 100x heavier, but it's surface gravity is nearly identical to Earth's. What really matters for rockets though is the surface escape velocity, which scales like the square root of mass divided by radius. So for large radii it is slightly worse than density, which scales like mass divided by radius cubed. Ideally you would live on a small rocky planet (Mars ftw).
Reasoning: Acceleration is GM/R^2 and planets R is like (x * Me / 4Pi / density)^1/3 . Directly proportional to M and inverse square root of radius, while the radius is directly proportional to (x)^(1/3)
Though the density for 2 planets made of the same stuff and different masses would probably be different due to differences in pressure in its internals? Just a guess.