EA772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:57 am

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.
 
jetfuel
Posts: 1027
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:27 pm

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:02 pm

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....
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:08 pm

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!
 
pelican22
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:56 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:12 pm

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 avatar
sibille
Posts: 230
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:33 pm

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).
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:09 pm

A321 my favourite. But this size of plane has never found a market like 738 or A319
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:26 pm

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
 
PavlovsDog
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:28 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:28 pm

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 avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:36 pm

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
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
mandala499
Posts: 6458
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:25 pm

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 !
 
cobra27
Posts: 939
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:57 pm

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Mon Aug 20, 2007 8:52 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 6):

One, the 738 and A319 are different sizes.

Wow really?
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29867
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:42 pm

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
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
EA772LR
Topic Author
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:32 pm

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.
 
ShannoninAMA
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 1:37 pm

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:04 am

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

 checkmark  My thoughts excactly  yes 
Shipwreck alert. Head on over to Airspaceonline.com.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:15 am

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 avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13066
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:33 am

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.
 
jetfuel
Posts: 1027
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:27 pm

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:51 am

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 avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13066
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Tue Aug 21, 2007 5:05 am

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.
 
Acheron
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:23 am

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 avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13066
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:46 am

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.
 
Acheron
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:37 am

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
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:41 am

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 avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13066
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:55 am

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. ,)
 
flyabr
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:42 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:56 am

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
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8101
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Tue Aug 21, 2007 9:05 am

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
 
ua76heavy
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:37 am

RE: Tu-204 Vs. 757 Vs. 737-900ER Vs. A321

Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:05 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 57echo, Abeam79, asqx, Baidu [Spider], doulasc, flyDTW1992, jimbo737, legacyins, predling, qf789, SaUL, SFOA380, United1, william, YLWbased and 215 guests