Anyone notice that the TU-204 and TU-214 seem to be Russian copies of the Boeing 757-200. The TU-204 even uses the same RB211 engines.

It would be nice if Boeing re-started production of the Boeing 757. Seems to be a market out there for this type of plane.

Boeing products are much better than anything the Russian's can come up with.

 

That's a pretty broad statement...proof? I'm inclined to believe you, I'd just like to know some facts.

 

One can make a similar argument for the 727, the Tu-154 and the British Trident. Design points make similar designs.

And the original Tu-204 did not use the RB211 but the Aviadvigatel PS-90. Like some other Russian aircraft, the Russians realized that to tempt western sales they needed western engines. Russian engines were not particularly noted for long life.

They did.. its just called the 737-900.

 

Boeing products just impress me. Plus they are built here in the USA.

The B737-900ER seems to be Boeing's replacement for the B757. I will have to go over the specs of the two types to see how they compare.

I am impressed how close the TU-204/TU-214 look compared with the B757. I guess I'll call the Tupolev's the "75ski".

Take care everyone.

 

Many plant species look very similar and behave similar, so I don't think every Russian/Soviet era plane is a direct copy. The BAC111 came before the DC-9, and the Caravelle before the BAC111.

Since the fall of the "wall"/cold war, etc., I've been able to talk with many pilots who flew Russian/Soviet aircraft who had also flown comparable western aircraft. I've also been able to talk to westerners with 50+ years in commercial aviation who have been able to get into Russian aircraft. The general agreement is that the Russians have excellent build quality, efficient wings, and good handling. The shortfalls were (are?) with engine efficiency, power output, longevity and especially with advanced electronic systems. Some time ago I was able to get a hold of some performance numbers of a later variant of the TU-134 and compared them with the DC-9-30. The TU-134 weighed about 30% more, used about 30% more fuel, 30% more runway, and had 30% less range, and probably had a 3rd crew member. That was awhile ago, so I don't know if the ratios are still the same. One exception was a pilot who preferred the TU154 over the B727, but he said he wasn't paying for the fuel.

 

Chazbird,

Thanks for the info. Some really good stuff. As I understand, the TU-154M with those upgraded engines are really popular in the eastern block. The thrust to weight ratio is better on the TU-154M than the B727, so I bet it is pretty "sporty".

I would like a pilot who has flown both the B757 and the TU-214 to respond. The comparison would be really interesting to hear.

GG

 

There was a -154M that landed gear up. They jacked the airplane up, dropped the wheels, did some skin repairs, and it flew again. I don't remember which airplane or airline specifically (Aeroflot comes to mind, naturally...) but that's a rather impressive display of strength for a jet transport.

 

More correctly they are ASSEMBLED in the USA. Boeing had companies in Japan, Italy, England, Australia and many others on the 777. No single country builds airliners.

 

I have a few thousand hours in the 727 and a few patterns in the Tu-154. They handled similarly. The -154 was a bit larger airplane as I remember and the pattern work we did was at a relatively light gross weight but acceleration was very good in the -154. Neither aircraft could be called light on the controls.

The -154M is about the only version still in service and it is relegated to many second or third tier carriers.

Note the -154 also uses a six wheel main gear unlike the 727.

 

to me the 727 was light on the controls,but then I was coming from the DC3,and piston Convair. Whose Tu154 did you fly?