Tu-204SM

OAK is supposed to have finalized the specifications for Tu-204SM.

What are they like? How does the range and fuel burn of the existing Tu-204 compare against Boeing 757-200, and how shall the new Tu-204SM compare with B757?

I am not sure about the PS-90 fuel burn, but it might use V2500's or CFM56's, giving it great fuel burn. Its hard to find information on Russian aircraft, but I don't see the point, with the MC-21 coming soon.

Consider this:

[www.flightglobal.com]

There is a demand for 757 replacement, and neither Boeing nor Airbus are going to make anything new. Does it mean US Airways will have to settle for Tupolev?

US Airways are replacing the 757 with the A320 family.

Yes, but the range of both the 737 and A320 is limited, compared to the 757.
I VERY highly doubt that any western airline will buy Tu-204SM's, there are not enough in service for spares and as advanced as it is, Airbus and Boeings are aircraft are miles ahead.
If anything, they could go for the MS-21.

you have for gotten that Boeing somewhat intended the 737-900ER as a 757-200 replacement.

The range of the 739ER is not as good as the 752. It can do the smaller routes, but not the transatlantic routes.
The wing is much smaller and not suited to long 752 routes.

Then US really would have no choise but to go A330 seeing a russian plane in North America would be very uneconomical and no other boeing or airbus aircraft that can do Trans-Atlantic routes with that kind of capacity are available, that are still being built.

> Then US really would have no choise but to go A330
> seeing a russian plane in North America would be
> very uneconomical and no other boeing or airbus
> aircraft that can do Trans-Atlantic routes with
> that kind of capacity are available, that are
> still being built.

A310 is officially shut down, and B767-200 non-ER is also shut down, but does Boeing build new 767ER-s?

There is a gap for 180-250 (1 class) with 4,000-5,500nm range it seems.
The 787-8 could get the high end of that market, but the A332 is too large, A321/739ER too small.
I couldn't see Airbus or Boeing modernizing the A313 and 762 respectively.

GCA333 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a gap for 180-250 (1 class) with
> 4,000-5,500nm range it seems.
> The 787-8 could get the high end of that market,
> but the A332 is too large

Why?

787-8 is 57 m long. 330-200 is just 2 m longer, at 59 m. 787 is about 30 cm wider, so that while a few very cramped A330-s are 9 abreast, and a minority of luxury airlines are 8 abreast on 787, 787 is usually 9 abreast. Therefore, 787-8 is bigger than A330-200.

Now that I look at it, the 788 and 332 are not really suited for it.
A shorter 788 with the 783 wing might be a better solution, but Boeing seems more determined to work on a 787-10.
A and B have no aircraft able to fit the 757 long range need. The A330 family would need a smaller wing, as would the 787 family.
762 is even too large, closer to the 753.

IF a 48m long, 38m wingspan aircraft was designed, new engines would also be needed- the RB211 and PW2000 are no where near as efficient as airlines would want, more than likely.
A new one based off the V2500 or CFM56 would be needed, but pretty much a brand new engine overall.
The largest V2500, the V2533-A5 only produces 147kN, the 757's engines producing 160kN at the lowest.

I wouldn't expect the PS90 to go on it (if it was built by A/B ).
The LEAP-X or PW1000G would need uprating too, but both engines are not expected to be in service for many years, the LEAP-X at the 2017-20 time frame.

2020 is too long away for airlines needing a 757 replacement now, and the MS-21 only reaches the lower end of the 757's capacity and range. Assuming the Tu-204SM has the range of the Tu-204-300 (9,000km) and increased capacity, it could be an effective replacement for the 752. The PS90 needs much enhancing to get it on par with the RB211/PW2000 and even more to attract customers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2009 09:25PM by GCA333. (view changes)

> Now that I look at it, the 788 and 332 are not
> really suited for it. A shorter 788 with the 783 wing might be a better
> solution, but Boeing seems more determined to work
> on a 787-10.
> A and B have no aircraft able to fit the 757 long
> range need. The A330 family would need a smaller
> wing, as would the 787 family.

Like A310 had?

> 762 is even too large, closer to the 753.
>
> IF a 48m long, 38m wingspan aircraft was designed,
> new engines would also be needed- the RB211 and
> PW2000 are no where near as efficient as airlines
> would want, more than likely.
> A new one based off the V2500 or CFM56 would be
> needed, but pretty much a brand new engine
> overall.
> The largest V2500, the V2533-A5 only produces
> 147kN, the 757's engines producing 160kN at the
> lowest.
>
> I wouldn't expect the PS90 to go on it (if it was
> built by A/B ).

38 m is the wingspan of 757 and Tu-154, but Tu-204 wingspan is bigger, at 41,8 m. Therefore, it might make sense to build a narrowbody with a wing even bigger than Tu-204, but smaller than B767. Maybe A310-sized?

Similar to A310, yes, but not widebody of course.
A larger wingspan would be needed for longer range flights (wing compared to Tu-204).

For the record, the Tu-204SM has now been purchased by Atlant-Soyuz.
Sounds like a temporary design until the MS-21 is sorted. New engines will be installed on the MS-21, but Irkut/UAC want western engines. The GE, RR and PW have already been approached for a powerplant offering.