The Tu-204 with PS-90 powerplants suffer from low thrust causing a lot of fuel consumption especially if used
on longer flights since the engines need more fuel to produce the same thrust a higher-rated engine needs.
The weight problem of the Tu-204 reduces slightly with the Tu-214 but it would need the RR 190 kN engines to
be properly powered, but Tupolev only offers it with way too low uprated PS-90As causing this plane to be
worthless against A321-200 and 757-200 (after the opened markets). The Tu-204SM upgrades the Tu-204 to
the 1982's 757-200 which wasn't as wanted as it was when the RB.211-535E4 kicked in in 1984/85.
The Il-96 has exactly the same problem as the Tu-204 and the A340-300. Low thrust. The Il-96 is a fat, short
A340-300 (and with the -400 version just fat). The Il-96-400 with new engines would have been great 10 years
ago - would have. Now it's just a waste to even develop (except for seeing what's going wrong^^). The wing is
additionally way too small for such a wide body, the same problem caused the demise of the MD-11 in the end.
You can't get long ranges like 10,000 km with 400+ pax and some extra payload when all you have to bring into
equation is high thrust but basically no lift.
The Il-114 could use high wings and a shorten fuselage (by 1m) and a longer fuselage (by 3m), high wings being
an option here depending on what you want your plane to be.
The SSJ is a bit too late and has the wrong engines. The PowerJet with a diameter of the D-436 would be a nice fit.
(120cm to 140cm) The thrust is fine here but with a larger fan you can reduce (if you have the right engineers^^) the
consumption pretty good (if the engine is not going to be too heavy).
Now, to respond more specifically to the fallacies which you spewed earlier. The Tu-204 is indeed designed to be a heavier aircraft than A321 and B739 however this would be because it is designed to be comparable to the B757! The Tu-204 was the first narrowbody aircraft to use winglets as a standard fit. It uses super-critical wings with high aspect ratio and winglets giving it superior lift and cruise performance. The Tu-204's development came at a time when the Russian aviation industry was going thru incredible financial hardship (after the break-up of USSR) and so some of the vital components specifically the engine and avionics were sub-par in performance until later upgrades. Tu-204 wing area = 1983 sf (square foot). Boeing 757 wing area = 1924 sf. IL-96 wing area = 3767 sf while A340-300 has 3892 sf. As you can see, the russian boys had capable and competently designed wings. The Tu-204's wings were actually design to be scalable, meaning there was consideration for a stretched version of Tu-204 just like the 757-300. The aircraft was not designed to compete with B737 or A320, much rather it was designed for trans-oceanic flights like B757. Sadly the implementation (engine) and politics did it in.
Infact reading your submissions again, I have to express my disappointment - where in the world did you get those suppositions??? “Suffers from low thrust” - what the heck is that?? The PS-90A pumps out 16000kgf at take-off (35,200 lbs ft) and is capable of 17400kgf (38,240 lbs ft) in the PS-90A1 variant. How exactly is that low thrust? IAE’s V2500 or CFM’s powerplant, both of which are fitted to A321 or B739 do not produce any more than 33,000 lbs ft at best. The CFM powerplant used in A340 was only able to produce 34000 lbs ft at its very best output and yet that airplane was heavier than the IL-96 at take-off. It is noteworthy that the A340-300 has an MTOW of 276 tons as against the more powerful IL-96’s 250 tons. Yet even the ill-favoured A340-300 is said to be 6% more fuel efficient than a Boeing 777-200ER (plane to plane). You see,…4 engines is not the problem, much rather the hype and politics plays a big part!
There seems to be an erroneous impression that the Tu-204 is a gas-guzzler - well, it is not!! You have been taken in by A/S and their interpretation which is used as a balancing mechanism. In A/S, they deliberately make the Tu-204 thirsty to balance out the low cost (so that players will not overtly gravitate to this product for advantage). Anyhow, the Tu-204 uses a pair of PS-90s which have a sfc of 0.595 at cruise - better than the RB-211-535 which has NEVER been accused of being a gas-guzzler. The issue with the PS-90 is that the engine was touchy and delicate and needed too much attention and care! Keeping it reliable required lots of man-hours which meant money and down time! Over time, the reliability issue was resolved in PS-90A2 (with some cooperation from P&W).The avionics issue was also vastly improved as more money was pumped into aviation research. The improved PS-90A2 engines have increased reliability to an acceptable level and increased performance which allows the new planes to lower fuel consumption by a further 10-12%, producing a maximum of 18000kgf while also meeting or surpassing all noise and certification requirements. The Tu-204SM is actually a very good aircraft which now only suffers mostly from internal conflict rather than performance shortfalls. (UAC’s current executives favour Sukhoi/Irkut over the more experienced Tupolev design bureau - like I said, there is a lot of politics in Russian aviation industry and their decision making).
The IL-96-300 was too short (fuselage length)and uneconomical just the same as the A340-200 - the CASM for these short wide-bodies was simply too high to be competitive and this is why Airbus designed longer variants. Ilyushin did design a longer IL-96-400 but demand had evaporated due to Aeroflots disenchantment with the PS-90 and the fact that production was snail speed. Aeroflot had already committed to Boeing and Airbus who both had readily available products. As far as aerodynamics and wings, the IL-96 had incredible performance and stability in this regard, which was enough to threaten Boeing and cause them to block any attempts to develop the westernized IL-96M which was suppose to use PW2000 engine and honeywell avionics! (go figure). Ilyushin had thereafter planned to equip the IL-96-400 with the newer and more powerful PS-90A2 along with more modern avionics however now, as reported above, the decision has been made to go for the jugular using the new PD-14M thus skipping the PS-90A2 altogether which will make the IL-96 a very, very capable and competitive widebody aircraft! Apparently, Putin is tired of his mediocre Il-96-300 and now demands blood!! :D
I won’t even bother to respond to the ridiculous statements about Il-114 or the SSJ-100. It is nothing but hogwash! IL-114 has been in heavy use with Uzbekistan Airways for a long time. Design-wise, there is absolutely no aerodynamic disadvantage to low wing over high-wing or vice-versa - It is all a question of function and objective. The Il-114 also used a western P&W engine and so that makes your claims baseless! The biggest issue with the Il-114 was the fact that the alternate russian engine (the Klimov TV7-113 engine) was not ready in time and when it was, it was a little too late. The demand, production and politics all worked to rob the plane of any chance of success. It was also competing against Antonov’s An-140 which was somewhat better suited until the Ukrainian war caused relationships to deteriorate. IL-114 is actually a very capable platform which has demonstrated impressive operational economics and loitering capabilities.
Russians decided to develop a brand new SSJ even though they already had the lovely and capable An-148 in operation just to learn and understand capitalist development and manufacturing processes (too many of the Russian old boys could not get themselves to stop thinking like Communists and they needed to approach issues from a capitalist perspective) The MS-21 project is applying and perfecting what they learnt with the SSJ project. The PD-14 is virtually ready (lessons learnt from PS-90) and the Avionic boys have become very adept with glass cockpits.
The truth is this - the transition out of communism into democracy screwed up the Russians and their ability to produce for a long time.They lost the command chain and finance which unified their processes and drove their demands. Motivation was killed and there was general chaos and confusion. Money dried up, demand evaporated and knowledge fled. It was a very difficult time. Imagine if USA was to lose its private sector - everything will come crashing cos the government depends on private enterprise for every innovation and production! It was the exact opposite in USSR! In the communist system, the people depended on the government for everything - even innovation and production! When the USSR crashed and broke up, the government lost its cohesive ability, there was no private enterprise (not even the culture much less the infrastructure!) and therefore there was a gaping vacuum in the place of innovation, research, enterprise and production!
Today, the Russians are slowly working their way back. After 20 years, they have finally grasped how capitalism really works - It may be simple to you but it was a culture shock to the Russians for a long time. They struggled and continued to look to the government for everything! The things that really screwed the success of Russian products were as follows:
Internal conflict and politics in Aviation industry - this was a traditional approach that had been encouraged in the communist era. The communist party always pitched sides and design bureaus against each other and forced them to compete. While the competition was good, the acrimony was not. The political patronage and ensuing acrimony would become an unfortunate part of the aviation development cycle. Which ever design bureau had the strongest political ally in Kremlin often won the design and development rights to a new product unless there was a disaster!
After the USSR breakup, the politics of the region and the tradition of acrimony meant that the Russians often failed to recognize the need to work with their Ukrainian counterparts. The Ukrainians were indeed superior in Engine design and development knowledge but politics prevented meaningful cooperation. The PS-90 issue could easily have been resolved in a joint project with Ivchenko-Progress. The IL-86 engine issue could easily have been resolved by using Progess D-18T. The PS-90 itself was rushed into production because there were no suitable modern powerplants and they did not want to cooperate with Ukrainian Ivchenko-Progress. There had been an intermediate Soloviev D-30KP3 which was a vastly improved and modernized variant of the engine used in the Tu-154M but this option was quickly killed by Aviadvigatel-Perm (the reigning political champion).
The issue of production (manufacturing processes). In the former USSR, things were done differently. A lot of processes were not mechanized because the communist structure favoured labour intensive activities to generate jobs. This model could not be carried into modern production environment because it was simply not competitive. Also a lot of the production factories had become run-down through the years of indolence and decay - some were even stripped!. The urgent need for the modernization, overhaul and re-tooling of this manufacturing concerns was crucial and could no longer be avoided - UAC is finally focusing finances on this aspect. This has been the problem and what is responsible for the very slow production rates seen in Russia! The SSJ project was the first one in which the problem had been sensibly resolved (direct investment by UAC into the assembly plant).
The final and often overlooked issue is that of finance. By finance, I mean the financing of finished products - this is essentially how Airbus and Boeing manage to sell so many of their products! The two giants (Boeing and Airbus) over the years have managed to assemble a vast array of financial concerns and implements which are willing to finance purchases of their product. Such massive financial concerns include AerCap, ILFS, GECAS, Ex-im Bank of US, Airbus Asset Management, Boeing Capital finance, CIT group, RBS aviation and a slew of finance companies! The Russians have come to understand this and have created Ilyushin Finance Corporation (IFC) however they have not yet put their money where their mouth is! The one country that suffers much because of a lack of finance for its products is Ukraine - it is forced to depend on piece-meal transactions!