Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321  
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 14964 times:

I was just wondering how the Tu-204 compares to the 757, 737-900ER and A321 in efficiency, range, passenger comfort, pilot feedback, dispatch reliability rate, etc. The Tu-204 is a beautiful aircraft and seems like it's a more advanced aircraft, but I don't know enough about it and was wondering how it stacks up to the it's Western counterparts. It is too big, too late to compete with the 739ER and A321 seeing as though is doesn't seat any more passengers???


We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 14950 times:

How is it more advanced?


Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9810 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 14838 times:

Quoting EA772LR (Thread starter):
The Tu-204 is a beautiful aircraft and seems like it's a more advanced aircraft,

That's very wrong. The 739ER has been around less than a year. The A321 is pretty new as well. The Tu-204 might be a good aircraft, but it is hard to compare. It's sales are limited. An airline would have high expenses with training and maintenance of the plane outside of the vicinty of where it was made. It's a design that's older than the 737NG, so it isn't more advanced.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinePelican22 From Ireland, joined Mar 2006, 65 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 14832 times:

Although,it is an advanced looking aircraft and due to lack of finance its development has been extremely slow and it lags way behind the 757,737-900ER and A321,its inservice reliability is problematical,but I think this more so the engines,as most are fitted with the Perm PS-90s,those that are fitted with the RR RB-211 are much more reliable,thats why I think the TU-204s being built for Air China and China Southern are being fitted with the RB-211 and IRC it has a flightdeck crew of 3 or more,but on the bright side ,I was reading recently that ILFC were looking at the aircraft fitted with a version of the IAE 2500 engine.
Atlantic Airlines operate 2 Egyptian registered TU-204Fs with RB-211s for TNT in full colours and they seem to very reliable.


User currently offlineSIBILLE From Belgium, joined Jun 2005, 483 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 14784 times:

I read Egyptair who was operating The Air Cairo passenger Tu-204-120 with RB-211 was happy with them. They used them on domestic flights (I flew from Luxor to Aswan and return on a Tu-204-120 operated by Air Cairo on behalf of Egyptair in 2001, flights MS 137 and MS 234. Was very confortable).

User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 14635 times:

A321 my favourite. But this size of plane has never found a market like 738 or A319

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14605 times:

Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 5):
A321 my favourite. But this size of plane has never found a market like 738 or A319

One, the 738 and A319 are different sizes. Second, the 757 sold more than 1000 aircraft, I would say that qualifies as a market for that size.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePavlovsDog From Norway, joined Sep 2005, 661 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 14599 times:

The fact that the Russian aviation authorities are up-sizing the MS-21 project into the Tu-204's size range would seem to indicate that it is viewed as an inferior aircraft even within Russia. Aeroflot has shunned the Tupolev as well even though on paper it would seem to be a great fit for long, thin routes.

Dissing aside I'd love to try the 204 on the non-stop from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok. World's longest single-aisle route IIRC.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 14486 times:

Quoting Jetfuel (Reply 1):
How is it more advanced

Isn't the Tu204 FBW.Not sure thats a qualification for advance though  Smile
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 14409 times:

MEL
Yes, IIRC, Quad FBW with three channel analogue back up! *beat that backup Boe-Bus!* LOL
I think the 204 is another "underrated" design because it's Russian...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 14224 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 6):

One, the 738 and A319 are different sizes.

Wow really?


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 14128 times:

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 9):
I think the 204 is another "underrated" design because it's Russian...

Guess the Russians need to sell more to change that view.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13947 times:

Quoting Jetfuel (Reply 1):
Quoting EA772LR (Thread starter):
The Tu-204 is a beautiful aircraft and seems like it's a more advanced aircraft,

That's very wrong.



Quoting Jetfuel (Reply 1):
How is it more advanced?

My apologies. I was talking about more advanced than the 757. Sorry



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineShannoninAMA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 13402 times:

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 9):
I think the 204 is another "underrated" design because it's Russian...

 checkmark  My thoughts excactly  yes 


User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13291 times:

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 9):
MEL
Yes, IIRC, Quad FBW with three channel analogue back up! *beat that backup Boe-Bus!* LOL
I think the 204 is another "underrated" design because it's Russian...

and because it's less efficient, less reliable, and has a far less broad support network.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 13074 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 14):
and because it's less efficient, less reliable, and has a far less broad support network.

Reliability goes mostly hand to hand with maintenance, and it's up to the airlines, and the people at Tupolev to change that by making contracts with Western MROs or at least MROs in Russia that are in some way afilated with any of the big majors. If they do that, it'd be an important first step in the right direction, and it may even make the public opinion towards Russian planes more favourable, at least progressively.

As for fuel efficiency, the PS-90A may well be an over 20 year old design and may start to get outdated by now, but the problem is that this is basically the only high bypass turbofan that is being offered in Russia. And getting the version with the RB211-535E4, which is a derivative of the over 35 year old RB211 design introduced on the L-1011, may be much too difficult for Russian carriers because it's simply too expensive. Then again, there may have been no reason to continue with frequent R&D because of the now even more limited sales of aircraft.

However, we should take into account that the PS-90A is a good engine and has variable uses. It's not the most efficient, but it's a an engine with still lots of life in it and more efficient than the older Kuznetsov and Soloviev engines, that is now even used for the IL-76 re-engining programme, of which I believe VI is a customer. However, in order for Russia to have the chance to get back into the game completely, they need a new high bypass turbofan engine.


User currently offlineJetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days ago) and read 12294 times:

Quoting EA772LR (Reply 12):
Quoting Jetfuel (Reply 1):
How is it more advanced?


My apologies. I was talking about more advanced than the 757. Sorry

I guess if you consider FBW an advancement, although I am still to see any real benefits in FBW

The big problem with Russian built planes is that they build them for Russia. By this I mean Russian parts, Russian languages everywhere. It is impossible to sit in the cockpit and understand what is going on. I think the language barrier is a big problem,

However, I have had the chance to sit in, play with and crawl over a TU-204 when one was downunder. IT is definitely a rip off of the 757. The build quality is fairly cheap and nasty - think Lada Niva Car. The interior plastics and trims seem very cheap. On the other side of the coin the structural parts almost seem very over engineered. Landing Gear seemed like it was off a B747.

Operationally, I understand they are not as efficent as a 757. I think in a Russian environment they may well do fine, but ina high utilisation western fleet they would be a nightmare



Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 2 days ago) and read 12162 times:

Quoting Jetfuel (Reply 16):
The big problem with Russian built planes is that they build them for Russia. By this I mean Russian parts, Russian languages everywhere. It is impossible to sit in the cockpit and understand what is going on. I think the language barrier is a big problem,

English language labels and flightdeck are a customer option. CU ordered IL-96s and TU-204 and those have an English language flightdeck, the same with CA's brandnew TU-204CE. Granted, those aircraft are mostly built for Russia, but with today's requirements, they have to offer an option for non-Russian speaking (or at least non-CIS) customers, which in the case of CU and CA, they did.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1723 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11514 times:

Quoting Jetfuel (Reply 16):
By this I mean Russian parts, Russian languages everywhere. It is impossible to sit in the cockpit and understand what is going on. I think the language barrier is a big problem,

That's a myth. Ruskies are perfectly capable of making a cockpit in english, be it fighters or airliners.


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11303 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 18):
That's a myth. Ruskies are perfectly capable of making a cockpit in english, be it fighters or airliners.

This may not entirely be a myth, because it may have been possible for this customer option to not have been available during Soviet times.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © fishair
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tomas Mellies

Look at these two pictures from an old IF IL-62. Most of the labels are in Russian, and only a few labels can be seen that are not even in English or Russian, but in German (in the first picture anyway). However, due to modern requirements and EFIS technology, Russian OEMs can offer an English language option, but this may not have been possible in the Soviet Era, or specifically in the times when IL-62s, IL-86s and TU-154s dominated the skies in Eastern Europe.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1723 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10954 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 19):
This may not entirely be a myth, because it may have been possible for this customer option to not have been available during Soviet times.

Well, this thread is mostly about the Tu-204 which wasn't availble in soviet times, either. But I was speaking of current times, heck, I've sat in the cockpit of a Mi-35M2 which had all its switches and buttons labeled in spanish(with the MFD's you had up to 26 languages but it doesn't count being digital and all that), and it was a new-built one directly from the Motherland


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26795 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10925 times:

Quoting Jetfuel (Reply 16):

I guess if you consider FBW an advancement, although I am still to see any real benefits in FBW

The main benefit is weight savings. If, however, a conventional flight control airliners are lighter anyway, as is the case between the 737 and A32S, FBW doesn't have much of an advantage at all.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10832 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 20):
But I was speaking of current times

I see, but if you go up to reply 17, you'll see that I already brought that up, using CU's IL-96 and TU-204s and CA's TU-204s as an example. ,)


User currently offlineFlyABR From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 688 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10820 times:

all i know is that i've never been in any airliner that put me back in my seat to the degree the 752 does! wish those babies were still in production...  Sad

User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8193 posts, RR: 54
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10448 times:

Flew on the Mahan Air 204 from Tehran IKA to DXB in Sep 06.

Quoting Jetfuel (Reply 16):
The build quality is fairly cheap and nasty - think Lada Niva Car. The interior plastics and trims seem very cheap.

This is completely true. I was thrilled to get a ride on such a rare machine but the passenger experience itself was poor. The cabin wall panels were chipped at the edges and from this I could tell they were made of a very poor material. The trays on the back of the seats were some weird plastic that had actually been painted. Of course, this is, to some extent, a customer option, but still, if you buy an Airbus or a Boeing, you don't have to ignore the mnfr's standard fittings. Also, the cabin was very hot, throughout the flight, and I was quite uncomfortable, even in just a t-shirt. I think there are a tonne of airlines out there who would like an alternative to Boeing and Airbus, certainly countries alienated by the US who would, for political reasons at least, like another alternative to Boeing, such as Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria et al, some of which have huge aviation markets. But the Russians are not even close to being competitive. If I worked for Iranair I would not, on the strength of the Tu204, be considering Tupolev as a serious contender for my fleet renewal. It's still all about Airbus and Boeing.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineUA76Heavy From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (7 years 4 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9885 times:

Per an article in AW&ST a few years back, two major problems that have plagued Russian built airliners and discouraged sales are (1) engines and (2) after sales support. Russian built engines aren't known for their reliability or efficiency, but I'm unaware of the performance of western built engines on a Russian airframe (you can't just slap on a couple of RRs and expect the same results on a comparable aircraft). Getting any kind of manufacturer support outside the former Soviet Union has been a major pain which has led to lengthy down times.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Match Up...737-900ER VS 757-200 posted Tue Aug 29 2006 14:52:15 by Socal
A321 Vs. 757 posted Mon Jan 9 2006 02:13:20 by Fvyfireman
Difference Between 757/A321 And Tu-204 posted Mon Aug 2 2004 05:12:34 by Aerohottie
A321 Vs 757 - Cost posted Fri Oct 3 2003 23:18:33 by FLY777UAL
737-900ER Who Will Order Them To Replace 757? posted Fri Aug 17 2007 21:10:20 by DAYflyer
Is The 737-900ER Extra Door Same As A 757 Door 3? posted Mon Aug 14 2006 18:35:04 by Speedmarque
Tupolev TU-204, Is It Like The A320 Or The 757 posted Fri Aug 17 2001 01:55:29 by DUB
Tu-204/757 posted Fri Apr 2 1999 17:56:43 by Aircanada B767
Tupolev Tu-204-300 For Rossiya And 204C For ABC. posted Mon Aug 13 2007 17:00:18 by SIBILLE
Two New Tu-204 Cargo Delivered posted Fri Aug 3 2007 19:11:49 by SIBILLE