Russian Airliners: Not as bad as everyone believes

[raptorva]

As the title says, products of the Soviet Union/Russia/CIS have a bad reputation due to maintenance costs and fuel consumption but I believe these aircraft can be operated effectively in AWS if utilized in the designed manner.

Russian airliners all have a high power-weight ratio due to the need to fly into rough/short strips common in the country. As a result, these airliners (Particularly the Tupolev Tu-134 and Yak 40) are designed for short haul routes to isolated airstrips. When fuel prices are low, a Russian airliner can be a great aircraft to use as they are cheap to acquire and there are usually plenty available both to get new from manufacturer or leased from used market (both due to their un-popularity).

The next appropriate game world that starts, I'm going to set myself the challenge to only use soviet aircraft within the Soviet Union only to countries of the Warsaw Pact. I even believe one of these scenarios for a game world would be great to teach players to use something different to the ordinary bland Boeing or Airbus.

Just my opinion.

[Sigma]

Well, obviously, given the qualifer that you gave it yourself "when fuel prices are low", the Russian jets will work just fine.

It's when fuel prices end up not so low that you have a problem.

With the Easy or Medium worlds going on now, you'd likely be fine with Russian jets as long as you didn't make the additional mistake of having too many types.

But, on a Hard world, where fuel hits $1500 and a good size Western plane is burning $1M in fuel a week just to make $100K in profit (rather than the other way around), the Russian planes just won't work.  You'll be burning $2M in fuel and losing $900K a week.

You're not the first person to try what you describe and you won't be the first person to fail when fuel prices skyrocket.  They're quite simply untenable when fuel is much north of $1000.

[GDK]

Fuel price won't affect the Tu-204 catastrophically... 

[raptorva]

yeah, I found that the Tu-134 later model has same fuel burn as DC-9/MD-80 and Tu-204 has fuel burn comparable to a 757/767.
Fuel prices will always get the early Russian Airliners but if used effectively they can succeed. In a previous game world I flew only Yak 42D's on short hops and they were perfect.

[Sigma]

yeah, I found that the Tu-134 later model has same fuel burn as DC-9/MD-80 and Tu-204 has fuel burn comparable to a 757/767.
Fuel prices will always get the early Russian Airliners but if used effectively they can succeed. In a previous game world I flew only Yak 42D's on short hops and they were perfect.

Why in the world do people always compare the Tu-204 and the 757 let alone the 767?  They are, literally, as different as a 737 and a 757.  Sorry, it's just a peeve of mine because it's a comparison that makes absolutely zero sense and I can't imagine where it's started let alone proliferated.

For one, it's fuel burn is nowhere even remotely comparable to a 757.

It burns 30% more fuel.  And moves 30% fewer passengers.  That's a lot less ticket revenue to cover a lot more fuel cost and it nets out to an increase of well more than 50% fuel burn per passenger.  That's massive.

It's the same story with the Tu-134.  The fuel burn is FAR from "the same" -- it's fully 30% more.  That's huge by itself.  Then there's the huge fact that a DC-9/MD80 (unless you're talking about a -10 that's about 20 years older than a -134) carries anywhere from 50% to 100% more passengers.  That means that, per passenger, the Tu-134 is burning anywhere from 50% more to a huge 150% more fuel to travel the exact same distance.  A staggering difference.  

You can't look at just fuel burn.  Even if the models you were looking at did have "the same" fuel burn, it's not fuel burn that matters.  It's fuel burn per passenger, and the Russian planes are WAY behind.

No, that doesn't mean you can't use them to make money.  Many successful airlines here have used them at times, especially in worlds with historic fuel tables so you know what to expect.  But you cannot build an airline that relies on them when fuel is $1000+.  It, very simply, does not work, it is economically impossible.

[ucfknightryan]

In the next few posts I'll put up some tables comparing various Russian aircraft to comparably sized western aircraft.  These tables will include fuel burn/passenger to show what Sigma is talking about in the previous post.  I'm splitting it up into multiple posts to make it easier to edit if anyone would like me to add new aircraft types to any of the tables.

These rules apply to all of the following tables unless otherwise noted on the post containing the table.  They are designed to be as generous to the Russian aircraft as possible.

Rule 1: In each Russian Factor column, the percentage value indicates the capability of the Russian aircraft in the first column of the table relative to the western aircraft in the column immediately preceding the RF column, so numbers greater than 100% indicate the Russian aircraft is superior, and numbers less than 100% indicate that the western aircraft is superior.

Rule 2: Passengers are given in an all standard Y configuration.  Fuel burn per passenger is calculated using this same configuration.

Rule 3: When multiple MTOW variants are available I will select the maximum range version of the Russian aircraft, and the shortest range variant of the western aircraft that has more range than the Russian aircraft, unless no version with more range than the Russian aircraft is available, in which case I will select the version with the longest available range.

Rule 4: Unless otherwise noted, when multiple engine types are available on the western aircraft I will select the same engine used on the Russian aircraft if the Russian aircraft has western engines, or the least efficient engine type if the Russian aircraft uses Russian engines.

[ucfknightryan]

First up: The Tu-134B compared to the DC-9-10, the BAC 1-11-475, and the BAe 146-200.  The DC-9 and BAC 1-11 both are substantially older aircraft than the Tu-134B (~15 and ~8 years older respectively), and the 146-200 is a slightly newer aircraft (~3 years newer).

Aircraft Type:		TU-134B		DC-9-10		Russian Factor:		BAC 1-11-475		Russian Factor:		BAe 146-200		Russian Factor:
Speed:		Mach .75		Mach .76		98.7%		Mach .71		105.6%		Mach .65		115.4%
Runway Req:		1600 meters		1510 meters		93.8%		1580meters		98.8%		1560 meters		97.5%
Turn Time:		35m		35m		100%		35m		100%		30m		85.7%
Pilots:		3		2		66.7%		2		66.7%		2		66.7%
Cabin Crew:		3		3		100%		3		100%		2		66.7%
Pax:		80		75		106.7%		75		106.7%		84		95.2%
Range:		920 NM		1190 NM		77.3%		1610 NM		57.1%		1220 NM		75.4%
Fuel Burn:		4640 kg/hr		3370 kg/hr		72.6%		2370 kg/hr		51.1%		2010 kg/hr		43.3%
Fuel Burn/Pax:		58 kg/hr		44.93 kg/hr		77.5%		31.60 kg/hr		54.5%		23.93 kg/hr		41.3%

As Sigma pointed out, the Fuel Burn/Pax is a killer on the Tu-134B.  The extra pilot isn't helping things either.

[ucfknightryan]

Next up: Tu-204

We'll compare two variants of the Tu-204 to the B757-200, B767-200, B737-400 and B737-900.  

For the first table we'll use the base variant of the Tu-204, which is still newer than all of the western aircraft we're comparing it to (~10 years newer than B752, ~13  years newer than B762, and ~5 years newer than B734) except the B737-900, which is ~5 years newer.  
On the B757-200 we'll use the RB211-535C engine and the standard MTOW variant.  
On the B767-200 we'll use the JT9D-7R4 engine and the standard MTOW variant.  
On the B737-400 we'll use the CFM56-3B2 engine and the standard MTOW variant.  
Finally, for the B737-900 we'll use the CFM56-7B and the standard MTOW variant.

Aircraft Type:		TU-204		B757-200		Russian Factor:		B767-200		Russian Factor:		B737-400		Russian Factor:		B737-900		Russian Factor:
Speed:		Mach .79		Mach .80		98.8%		Mach .80		98.8%		Mach .74		106.8%		Mach .78		101.3%
Runway Req:		2260 meters		2040 meters		90.3%		1810 meters		80.1%		1720 meters		76.1%		1820 meters		80.5%
Turn Time:		70m		70m		100%		80m		114.3%		40m		57.1%		40m		57.1%
Pilots:		2		2		100%		2		100%		2		100%		2		100%
Cabin Crew:		5		5		100%		5		100%		4		80%		4		80%
Pax:		180		204		73.5%		216		83.3%		162		111.1%		180		100%
Range:		1560 NM		1830 NM		85.2%		2300 NM		67.8%		1730 NM		90.2%		2140 NM		72.9%
Fuel Burn:		4700 kg/hr		3700 kg/hr		78.7%		4830 kg/hr		102.8%		2780 kg/hr		59.1%		25700 kg/hr		53.2%
Fuel Burn/Pax:		26.11 kg/hr		18.14 kg/hr		69.5%		22.36 kg/hr		85.6%		17.16 kg/hr		65.7%		13.89 kg/hr		53.25%
Purchase Cost:		29 471 310		70 005 190		237.5%		106 293 120		360.7%		45 251 600		153.5%		65 133 420		221.0%
Lease Cost:		373 050		886 140		237.5%		1 345 480		360.7%		572 810		153.5%		824 470		221.0%
C Check Cost:		717 175		471 526		65.7%		533 650		74.4%		446 443		62.3%		380 916		53.1%

Even with the rules set up to favor the Russian equipment as much as possible, the early Tu-204 still gets it's head handed to it by all the western equipment except possibly the B762, but keep in mind that this version of the B762 is almost 10% less fuel efficient than any version people are likely to actually buy in game.  Tomorrow I might build a table using the most efficient versions of the B752 and B762 to show how much worse the comparison is against the versions usually seen in the game.

For this second table we'll be really generous and use the most efficient variant of the Tu-204, the -120, even though it is very new compared to all of the western aircraft (~14 years newer than B752, ~17  years newer than B762, and ~9 years newer than B734)  except the B737-900, which is ~1.5 years newer than the Tu-204-120.  
On the B757-200 we'll use the RB211-535C engines and the +4.6tn MTOW variant.  
On the B767-200 we'll use the JT9D-7R4 engine and the +8.2tn MTOW variant.  
On the B737-400 we'll use the CFM56-3B2 engine and the +5.2tn MTOW variant.  
Finally, for the B737-900 we'll use the CFM56-7B and the +4.6tn MTOW variant.

Aircraft Type:		TU-204-120		B757-200		Russian Factor:		B767-200		Russian Factor:		B737-400		Russian Factor:		B737-900		Russian Factor:
Speed:		Mach .79		Mach .80		98.8%		Mach .80		98.8%		Mach .74		106.8%		Mach .78		101.3%
Runway Req:		2240 meters		2040 meters		91.1%		1810 meters		80.8%		1720 meters		76.8%		1820 meters		81.3%
Turn Time:		70m		70m		100%		80m		114.3%		40m		57.1%		40m		57.1%
Pilots:		2		2		100%		2		100%		2		100%		2		100%
Cabin Crew:		5		5		100%		5		100%		4		80%		4		80%
Pax:		180		204		73.5%		216		83.3%		162		111.1%		180		100%
Range:		2410 NM		2780 NM		86.7%		3190 NM		75.5%		2530 NM		95.3%		2460 NM		98.0%
Fuel Burn:		4320 kg/hr		3730 kg/hr		86.3%		4930 kg/hr		114.1%		2920 kg/hr		67.6%		2570 kg/hr		59.5%
Fuel Burn/Pax:		24 kg/hr		18.28 kg/hr		76.2%		22.82 kg/hr		95.1%		18.02 kg/hr		75.1%		14.28 kg/hr		59.5%
Purchase Cost:		39 522 940		75 781 990		191.7%		115 824 840		293.1%		50 065 600		126.7%		74 087 460		187.5%
Lease Cost:		500 290		959 260		237.5%		1 466 130		360.7%		633 750		153.5%		937 810		221.0%
C Check Cost:		748 529		471 526		63.0%		533 650		71.3%		446 443		59.6%		380 916		50.9%

The newer Tu-204-120 comes off a bit better against it's closest competitors.  It still gets it's clock cleaned however, in spite of being a full four years newer than the original version.  The only aircraft it gets close to in fuel consumption is the B762 and the B762 has almost 800 NM more range than the Tu-204-120.

[Tiberius]

Love your tables, but you should include the price to purchase/lease and possibly prices for maintenance.  The price is a huge factor for plenty of airlines interested in the Russian equipment, next to delivery time.  People don't buy them because they are bigger and better, but usually because they can be substantially cheaper when compared to high-demand western models like the 757 and 737, and Airbus.

[GDK]

Perhaps another table calculating the cost of the plane and how much time needed to earn back the cash used to purchase the plane assuming they fly the same route. Then it will make sense.

[ucfknightryan]

Added purchase cost, lease cost, and C check cost to the Tu-204 tables.  Costs are from ATB on 16 May 2003.

Whenever I get done with jury duty, I'll add the other checks.  The % difference is the same for them, but then I'm going to add a field for total annual maintenance cost, and possibly a field for cost/passenger as well.  It's hard to add earn back time, since that's highly dependent on the cost of fuel and the routes being operated.  I can't add the above information to the Tu-134B table since there is no currently active game where all of those aircraft types are available new.  I'm also going to put up another Tu-204 table tonight comparing it to more realistic variants of the B752 and B762, instead of the absolute least efficient ones that almost no one buys.  I don't know if I'll include the more efficient versions of the B734, since I see lots of both types in games and the differences aren't so drastic.

[GDK]

Thank you for your great work.
I'll still go for the Russian bird if I got to choose between Tu204 and B767.

[lknd]

Yeah, Tu204 is very good, except it's range.

[Sigma]

Thank you for your great work.
I'll still go for the Russian bird if I got to choose between Tu204 and B767.

If you're choosing between a Tu-204 and a 767 (or a 757), then you're doing something wrong.  They're not even remotely comparable aircraft -- that'd be like choosing between an A320 and a 767 -- you're doing something wrong if you're trying to decide between the two.

The Tu-204 is a 737 competitor.  An absolutely gas-guzzling 737 competitor.

[GDK]

But the intention of building the Tu204 is for roles similar to the B757/B767, right? I read that somewhere before this. Maybe from the Wiki or the  Tupolev.

[ucfknightryan]

Well I thought I'd be adding more stuff tonight, but that's not going to happen.  Maybe tomorrow.

[Seattle]

I'm one of the few who have used Russian planes (and not the relativley fuel efficient ones!) in large numbers successfully. I love the Tu-154M......

Some Pro's:

1) It is dirt cheap
2) Holds quite a few people, up to something like 185
3) Decent range
4) Extremely quick delivery time

Con's:

1) Drinks fuel like crazy
2) Can be annoying to fly into airports with shorter runways
3) Extra pilot
4) On routes with moderate competition, you will make less money (significantly)

Also, I have been able to use them successfuly from isolated hubs, such ALG (also a couple other places), during times when fuel prices are low and demand is growing well (like in the late 80s to mid 90s). Once I have recieved like 50-60 with several dozen more on order, I start to order 737-6/7/8/9s to replace them between the late 90's to early 2000's, allowing me to get rid of my planes just before their leases go up and replace them with more fuel efficient ones when fuel rises. A thing I forgot to mention, is that you recieve them so quickly! It's very tempting to just order them when there are only like 10 orders!

Of course, this only works really well in games where prices are simulated like real-world ones.

[GDK]

The combination of delivery time + prices affect our expanding rate. Even though the B737 is more efficient, but the Tu will allow rapid expansion.

[Sigma]

The combination of delivery time + prices affect our expanding rate. Even though the B737 is more efficient, but the Tu will allow rapid expansion.

This used to be the case, but now a Tupolev will be delivered at exactly the same rate as a 737.  In fact, in many cases, it's actually SLOWER due to the lesser production meaning you've got to wait longer in between deliveries.

About the only time it does matter is if you didn't get in line soon enough and you're 3 years deep in the queue.  Then of course it makes sense to run the Tupolevs as long as the fuel is cheap.  If nothing else, get them on 3yr lease until the Boeings arrive.  At least then you can use the money from the Tupolevs to pay for the Boeings that you've got to wait years for.

[GDK]

This used to be the case, but now a Tupolev will be delivered at exactly the same rate as a 737.  In fact, in many cases, it's actually SLOWER due to the lesser production meaning you've got to wait longer in between deliveries.

Yea I noticed that. The production rate is slow(longer time between deliveries) but we get them fast due to less order initially. But when people start ordering, then we still got to wait for long time. So, I usually use them at early game. But it is also dependent on the amount of orders at the time I order it.

And for starting of the game, such as in ATB, Tu-154 is soooo cheap and always available at the market. Get a lease of 1 or 2 year and then replacing with MD or 737. Later on, the Tu154 will be a very heavy load that will make me bankrupt. For Russian planes, only(or maybe some other birds) the Tu204 can make profit in modern days.