i know the discussion of roll aboard bags comes up periodically, so i thought i'd share this.
it's interesting to see the capacity and weight of two bags that have the same dimensions - one being a roll aboard and the other a non-rolling bag that you carry.
consider the tom bihn aeronaut that many of us know and love -
dimensions: 22" x 14" x 9"
capacity: 45 liters
now, consider this high quality roll aboard bag from another manufacturer.
dimensions: 22" x 14" x 9" (same as the aeronaut)
weight: 7.5lb (almost 3 times that of the aeronaut)
capacity: 35.7 liters (almost 80% of the capacity of the aeronaut)
so, this rolling bag weighs more than the aeronaut and holds less than the aeronaut. well, maybe the overall weight will be the same as the aeronaut - but made up of more "bag" weight and less "stuff in the bag" weight than the aeronaut.
now, if you go with the roll aboard alternative (provided you want to not check anything in), you'll need a (larger) second bag to hold what the roll aboard won't hold but that the aeronaut will in the same footprint.
what's more - while the aeronaut and the roll aboard in this example are the same size (sized to be allowed as carry on luggage on most flights) - something to keep in mind is that when these bags exceed the carry on sizing limits on some smaller jets, the aeronaut is more likely to be overlooked compared to a rolling suitcase with the same dimensions because it appears smaller when it's on your back.
unless your back or shoulders just can't handle carrying a bag, the aeronaut's the way to go!
just something to consider when you are trying to decide between a bag you roll and one you carry...