Apologies in advance if this comes across as a bit ranty.
So I've been doing some digging and investigating and have come up with some interesting yet strange findings about this aircraft series.
- Why does the 204 have a 60-minute turn around time compared to the 737-900 and 321 when they're all about the same size?
- Why does the 204 require 1 or 2 more cabin crew compared to the Boeing and Airbus?
Is it because it is using older tech compared to Boeing and Airbus?
The second thing I wanted to mention is all of the strange modernisations that I've come across which conflict quite nicely with each other.
The 204-300 is the strangest in this regard because as we know, the base model is in the sim and is really not the best (I've tried to make it work). Yet, this game only models one version, the one with the PS90A turbofans. There is another variant apparently powered by the PS90A2 (can't find solid info yet) that has a range of 5,000 nm. The big difference between the 90A and the A2 is that it has a 40% reduced maintenance cost and fuel consumption (apparently) at 737/320 levels (still no solid evidence on that point).
Even more interesting is that there is another, shorter ranged 204-300 variant called the 204-500 with a max range of 1,900nm for short-haul routes (info is sketchy on this point).
Then there is the 204-SM or CM which is a modernised version of the 100/200 variants featuring more modern controls which should help drive down maintenance costs along with the use of the PS90A2 powerplant which have a 35-40% reduced fuel burn over the PS90A.
Also, the 204C which is derived from the 100 series. Just below is one of the only really solid sources that I've managed to find. It's a web capture of the specs straight from the UAC's website:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130429092432/http://www.uacrussia.ru:80/en/models/civil/tu_204_214/tu-204c/
Ultimately, what I'm trying to get at is that I want to be able to use something other than the 737 or A320 for my domestic/international routes to allow for more variation in that sector because right now you simply gimp yourself by choosing the TU-204. Yet most of the information that I've come across is hazy and most of it is impossible to read because Russian which is definitely hampering my efforts.
Thanks for your time.
Hi,
This subject has been discussed before in general terms about Soviet aircraft.
Just a few points:
You're comparing it to B737-900/A321 but it's more comparable to the B757.
Compared to the B757 it has the same crew requirement although in reality the first versions had 3 in the cockpit.
Turn around time compared to the B757 is shorter by 10 minutes.(204 uses containers instead of bulk loading).
You will find the TU204 are very cheap to purchase but have 3 main drawbacks:
1. High maintenance cost
2. High fuel consumption (Ps90 engines were not very reliable but actually at least as fuel efficient as the PW/RR engines on the 757)
3. They are programmed to be less desirable by passengers. meaning if you have western aircraft as competition on a route, the 204
will capture less market share, everything else being equal and it's quite noticeable.
Point 3 is the main reason I didn't use them again. If the cargo version were added, I'd probably give them another try though.
Cheers!
Mike
Does this undesirability transfer over to the Sukhoi superjets? Or is only for aircraft designed around the time of the Soviet Union?
Frankly, I used Soviet aircraft extensively in current GW4 and I didn't have any problem taking market share in heavily competed routes between US and Mexico. IL18s did very well against DC6s, DC7s, Caravelles, Connies and even 707s and early DC-8s in longhauls. I'm only phasing them out because 737s and DC8s flying nonstop came into play.
I'm mentoring a guy who's using TU204s. The biggest problem, I think, is its tiny space left for cargo (only 1.25 m3), which doesn't make much opportunity to increase revenues with belly cargo, which is becoming more and more relevant for overall revenue. I recommended him to look for other models.
By the way, Ilyushins are in general the best Soviet/Russian aircraft available in this game. Tupes, Yakovlevs, Antonovs etc always suffer from heavy defficiences in certain aspects compared to Western aircraft intended for similar roles.
Quote from: wilian.souza2 on September 20, 2018, 11:29:02 AM
(.../...)By the way, Ilyushins are in general the best Soviet/Russian aircraft available in this game. Tupes, Yakovlevs, Antonovs etc always suffer from heavy defficiences in certain aspects compared to Western aircraft intended for similar roles.
Antonovs have their use. The A140 is very useful if you need modern props that go beyond 1000NM, and the Q400 are too big for your markets. The A148 is slightly more costly at use than other RJs in the same era(15% more fuel, which is 5% more costs, plus double maintenance, which is not such a big problem, honestly) - but it's dirt cheap to buy/lease, and is an excellent plane for growth. Older antonovs I did never try.
TU114s have been sabotaged with their new turn around time, and are not as useful as they were. There are some tactics with TU104s or TU154Ms that can work well, either, depending on the specific situation.
And, honestly, I played IL12/14, and they are just insanely bad. I took them only because they were the only planes available now, while the CV240s had a 5 years waiting list(double capacity, double range, same costs).
All of the jet age Russian aircraft are on the whole, rubbish compared to the western offerings except the Superjet, IL-114 and perhaps the AN-148/58.
The point that I'm trying to make is that it would be nice and possible to have a 3rd option to choose from for the 100-200 pax routes especially when there are modernisations available to make them more competitive in the long run.
Quote from: yoshininja on September 20, 2018, 12:23:50 PM
All of the jet age Russian aircraft are on the whole, rubbish compared to the western offerings except the Superjet, IL-114 and perhaps the AN-148/58.
The point that I'm trying to make is that it would be nice and possible to have a 3rd option to choose from for the 100-200 pax routes especially when there are modernisations available to make them more competitive in the long run.
Three options:
B737
A32x
MD-90
<ducks>
Quote from: schro on September 20, 2018, 01:12:28 PM
Three options:
B737 Yawn
A32x Yawn
MD-90 Can't be used on 2000nm+ routes and is too costly by 2015
<ducks>
<also ducks>
Quote from: yoshininja on September 20, 2018, 01:34:45 PM
MD-90 Can't be used on 2000nm+ routes and is too costly by 2015
Check out the range on the MD-90-50.
I would heartily disagree with you (and raise you a couple of 1000+ MD90 fleets from prior game worlds running until 2030) that they are too costly by 2015.
In a normal GM I would agree. However, from purely screwing around in the BW's trying stupid crap I can tell you that the MD90's fall off by 2016 since all but a few of the still available ones are over 12 years old in 2011 and with no chance of replacements since the production run ended before the GW even started.
Quote from: yoshininja on September 20, 2018, 02:13:50 PM
In a normal GM I would agree. However, from purely screwing around in the BW's trying stupid crap I can tell you that the MD90's fall off by 2016 since all but a few of the still available ones are over 12 years old in 2011 and with no chance of replacements since the production run ended before the GW even started.
In that case, sure - in the long game worlds the MD90 is still in production at that point.
If you're willing to dump a ton of fuel into a Soviet plane just to carry 100-200 pax, may as well fly a CONC and at least get the pax there faster. :laugh:
Even better, the Tu-144 just to keep it soviet.