12 replies to this topic

[hayhaa]

I'm going to start an airline in Russia soon, so I need to use Russian planes so I don't look like those retarded spam lines running 742s before 1991. Anyways, do you guys know what is a good Russian plane?

[Iones]

Year?

[vistaraR1]

Tu-114
IL-18D

[hayhaa]

Year?

any

[Zacca]

Communism 666-300ER

[Stevphfeniey]

If you're making a Soviet airline then the only thing you should be doing is creating a monolithic flying bus service whose aim is to support the Soviet aircraft manufacturing sector. 

 

So what I'm saying is you're going to operate pretty much every Soviet aircraft available, order lots of them, then put them on every single conceivable route within the Soviet Union.  

[JP.]

Russian airplanes are sh*t.

[konj1]

Tu-114
IL-18D

+1, great planes in that age.

 

Later, for long range you'll have to use Il-62(M) for a very long time if you want realism, since Ruskies screwed up Il-86 that came to market too late and underdeveloped with only mid-range capabilities... Like other early LR jets like 707 or VC-10, Il-62 will seem barely profitable compared to A300 or L-1011, but since AE is too easy, you don't have to worry about money too much if you have only some of your routes profitable...

Il-86 is very profitable but also very limited for its age when all other wide-bodies went long-range, but you can easily find it a few routes from Moscow to Europe...

 

Tu-134 and Tu-154 will obviously be your mainline short- and mid-range workhorses in this era, they are not perfect but they do the job. Again, in AE money comes too easy, they're worse than most variants of 737, 727, DC-9, 1-11, Trident or whatnot, but good enough for you to make more money than you'll need and keep expanding a big "realistic" fleet.

 

An-24 is simply the best turboprop of its age, people neglect props but if you're into realism take them.

 

Yak-42 is just fine compared to RJs of the era, not better or worse than F100, and it has longer range but it's less profitable than the really economical BAe146/AvroRJ.

 

 

...

If you want something more modern after 1991, Tu-204-100/Tu-214 and Il-96-400 are solid, in use you won't feel much difference to A321, 757 or A330 on a same route. If you must have more efficient planes of course Western competitors are better, but if you're into realism or flooding the market, these are reasonably profitable, I never regretted buying them. But watch out for Tu-204-300 and Il-96-300, they have more serious deficiencies.

 

Finally, Sukhoi SJ is great, the only Russian plane I'd really prefer compared to any competition on the open market along with Il-18 and (Ukranian actually) An-24.

[Iones]

Russian airplanes are sh*t.

They are not s... They just have or high fuel consumption, or they are too small, or they have high amounts of track, or they are too f...... slow, or they have a small range.
There is always a but.

[JP.]

They are not s... They just have or high fuel consumption, or they are too small, or they have high amounts of track, or they are too f...... slow, or they have a small range.
There is always a but.

They look just horrible and the quality of the aircrafts is just poop, The only good Russian aircraft is the Sukhoi Superjet.

[Max Devo]

+1, great planes in that age.

 

Later, for long range you'll have to use Il-62(M) for a very long time if you want realism, since Ruskies screwed up Il-86 that came to market too late and underdeveloped with only mid-range capabilities... Like other early LR jets like 707 or VC-10, Il-62 will seem barely profitable compared to A300 or L-1011, but since AE is too easy, you don't have to worry about money too much if you have only some of your routes profitable...

Il-86 is very profitable but also very limited for its age when all other wide-bodies went long-range, but you can easily find it a few routes from Moscow to Europe...

 

Tu-134 and Tu-154 will obviously be your mainline short- and mid-range workhorses in this era, they are not perfect but they do the job. Again, in AE money comes too easy, they're worse than most variants of 737, 727, DC-9, 1-11, Trident or whatnot, but good enough for you to make more money than you'll need and keep expanding a big "realistic" fleet.

 

An-24 is simply the best turboprop of its age, people neglect props but if you're into realism take them.

 

Yak-42 is just fine compared to RJs of the era, not better or worse than F100, and it has longer range but it's less profitable than the really economical BAe146/AvroRJ.

 

 

...

If you want something more modern after 1991, Tu-204-100/Tu-214 and Il-96-400 are solid, in use you won't feel much difference to A321, 757 or A330 on a same route. If you must have more efficient planes of course Western competitors are better, but if you're into realism or flooding the market, these are reasonably profitable, I never regretted buying them. But watch out for Tu-204-300 and Il-96-300, they have more serious deficiencies.

 

Finally, Sukhoi SJ is great, the only Russian plane I'd really prefer compared to any competition on the open market along with Il-18 and (Ukranian actually) An-24.

 

This, a thousand times.

To add on: 

 

The Tu-154M is IMO one of the best planes in the game, and is the variant you should stock up on.

 

I recommend replacing your Il-62s more often than the rest of your fleet. Once their value dips into the low eight figures, near seven, they become more expensive to operate and less profitable. Easily replaceable as well after 1991.

 

Don't even try the Tu-144 SST. Don't even.

 

 

They look just horrible and the quality of the aircrafts is just poop, The only good Russian aircraft is the Sukhoi Superjet.

 

If your plane can land gear-up and not disintegrate, or overrun a runway and just be towed out and flown back to the main airport for repairs, or be 30 years old and still be in regular service in the terrifying, merciless wastelands of Siberia, or have a better safety record than either the 707 or the DC-8, I'd say that the quality of the aircraft isn't near what you say it is.

 

Also, The Il-62 and Tu-154 are absolutely beautiful and I cannot be told otherwise.

[konj1]

Better yet, only lease Il-62 because its depreciation is screwy. Just lease and you'll be fine.

 

 

---

When it comes to design, I really don't understand what makes them "look horrible", sounds like simple prejudice from people who don't know what they're looking at.

 

Il-62 looks awesome, rear-quad is so rare but so impressive.

 

Tu-134 is one of the best looking small jets imho, CRJ reminds me of them... Pretty birds.

 

I don't like the look of trijets very much but Tu-154 is so similar to 727, only big difference is additional landing gear wheels that makes it more capable for rugged airfields.

 

From the outside A340 looks like Il-86/96 (A340 is newer), Tu-204 like A320 family (Tu-204 is newer here). Very vanilla and I can't see big difference in most most designs in 1980s and later.

 

Also Tu-114, maybe the most elegant and certainly the fastest passenger prop ever, very large and with long sleek fuselage and counter-rotating propellers, but its problem was that it's basically a variant of a military bomber Tu-95 and too loud with supersonic propeller blades , I'd probably be thrilled to get a ride but most other passengers probably not, so whatever you think about "Russian crappy design" they halted its production despite reliability.

[davedave]

Tu-114, maybe the most elegant and certainly the fastest passenger prop ever, very large and with long sleek fuselage and counter-rotating propellers, but its problem was that it's basically a variant of a military bomber Tu-95 and too loud with supersonic propeller blades , I'd probably be thrilled to get a ride but most other passengers probably not, so whatever you think about "Russian crappy design" they halted its production despite reliability.

I'd probably be thrilled to get a ride

 

It's not relevant in AE, but the Tu114's big downside was much more serious: the airframes were only rated for 14,000 hours in the air. In service that meant about ten years, but in AE that's 2 years for a spamline

 

You might be less than thrilled with a longer ride, since the interior volume - in the region of 110 dB - is enough for permanent hearing loss over longer periods. For comparison, it's like being 3' from a loud chainsaw. 

 

http://www.gcaudio.c...s/loudness.html

 

That page also has OSHA maximum permitted daily hours for various volumes. For the inside - and I stress, the inside - of a Tu-114, the maximum without earplugs or ear defenders would be 30 minutes.