Tupolev Tu204/214: No cargo income??

It has come to my attention that in AirlineSim, Tupolev TU204/214 series in passenger configuration do not seem to carry any extra cargo in operation. I do not know if this is the situation with everyone else of it is just something I did wrong. In a flight from Mumbai (BOM) to Jeddah(JED), carrying only 173 passengers I have or can handle an extra capacity of almost 4 tonnes however this is not being used to carry any available cargo! In a 737-900 HGW with similar route, my extra capacity is quickly turned into profit as it is loaded with cargo!

It is especially disappointing that this should be so with Tu204/214 - an aircraft that has been designed with particular emphasis on extra cargo in mind (the Fuselage is delibrately made oval (3.8m X 4.1m) to accomodate more under-floor cargo space!). Boeing website shows that the B737-900 is capable of handling 52 cubic meters of cargo in its under-floor cargo hold. Tupolev official documents also show that the TU204-100 is capable of handling 43 cubic meters of under-floor cargo in two separate compartments called BGO-1 and BGO-2 respectively! (14.7 Cu. M in BGO-1 and 28.7 Cu. M in BGO-2). It is unfortunate that a lot of facts have been ignored or misrepresented with Russian Aircrafts thus causing an unfair performance -robbing dificit in the final outcome! I also hope to be able to dis-prove the excessive fuel usage attributed to this type in AS! The PS-90 engine is said to be 5-8% more economical than my all time favorite engine- the RB211-535 in B757! However in AS, the PS-90 barely burns better fuel mileage than the venerable Soloviev D-30KU in Tupolev 154M. it is dissappointing, to say the least! I welcome any contributions and opinions.


First of all, I’d like to mention we’re currently working on new aircraft specifications and the data given in the game are not necessarily 100% correct. However, I don’t know whether more detailled information about those Tupolevs will be avaliable in any future game version.

Given the current game version, the TU-204/214 are not able to carry any extra under-floor cargo. This does not mean, there is absolutely no under-floor cargo capacity, but it is not enough to be sold separately. Every aircraft like Canadair Regional Jets, Embraer Regional Jets, Dash 8, ATR… has a certain amount of cargo space for luggage and other stuff. Only those aircrafts with a special emphasis on additional cargo capacity can handle more than this.

We have more aspects than just the engine contributing to a high fuel consumption of the TU204/214. Compared to a 737-900 it is a very heavy aircraft, with a MTOW over 100t (TU-214 over 110t) , whereas the 737 has a MTOW of roughly 80t. The RB211-535 is a pretty old-fashioned engine as well, and it always depends on the used version of the PS-90, the MTOW etc. how much fuel is needed. Another reason for "unrealistic" fuel consumption might be a kind of balancing within the game, because TU-204/TU-214 are much cheaper compared to their Boeing or Airbus counterparts. Given this fact, it would not be very realistic to have thousands of Tupolevs flying around in the USA, Europe or Australia. Some data within the game are more to be understood as part of the "game rules" instead of a 100% transfer from reality.

Even I personally always like russian aircrafts :D we may think about why there are so few TU-204/TU-214 active and on order in reality, if they have such a good performance and fuel mileage. This might be due to political reasons, but even Russian Airlines seems to prefer 737, 320, 757 etc.

Hello and thank you for your insight and contribution.

The reason why there are so few Tu-204/214s is due to very, very slow production rates. This slow rate of production makes it unfeasible and fustrating for even russian airliners to operate the aircraft! When you have such a slow rate of production, it hampers everything including availability of spare parts, commonality of flying equipment is not assured, ability to train and staff crew for aircraft type is constrained, ability to use aircraft freely on any route is limited cos of spare parts and finally, the rate at which teething problems are resolved is even slower. The one big flaw with the early TU-204/214s is the PS-90 engine is very tempermental and unreliable, thus adding a big blow to an already unfavourable situation. Government bureacracy and undue political intervention do not help matters either! in real life, Airline owners and investors simply look at the big picture before investing and go with the established and abundantly available used Boeings and Airbuses! Besides no business wants to wait for 28 months before a single ordered Aircraft could be delivered!

I can certainly understand and appreciate the need for the game designers to execute some form of balancing act (execution rules) within the game so as to reflect reality and balance as much as possible. However, one must admit that some of it is prejudiced at the very least! There are currently thousands of Dash-8 Q400 running all over the game world, are there not?? Much more so than in reality! There are thousands of B737-900s flying routes that are in reality the exclusive preserve of wide-bodies?? How many real airlines fly such long-leg flights with 737-900s in reality?? The aircrafts that have been given the best and most favourable data and performance advantage are the ones players gravitate towards. At the end of the day, the game will carve out its own reality whether you like it or not! But to burden certain types of planes with too many unreal handicaps just so as to discourage widespread use is unfair and smacks of prejudice!

Finally, I must add that with the Tupolevs, I am not talking about mere under-floor space for handling passenger bags. The under-floor space is specifically designed for bulk cargo transportation just as in any other aircraft that is that size! I can understand if this were a small jet however this is a medium sized Aircraft that is as big if not dimensionally bigger than a B737 or A320! Perhaps, A/S does not have the data required to incorporate this feature and thus left it blank! (this is my assumption!). I will supply the documents if I am asked politely (…lol). Anyhow, here is the data for cargo hold in some comparably sized or even smaller aircrafts (all of which are somewhat represented in A/S as capable of carrying extra cargo with the possible exception of TU-204/214 series! Why??, I do not know! SEE BELOW:

  1. YAK-42D : Rear cargo compartment: volume 6.9 cu m; Front cargo compartment: volume 19 cu m; [b]TOTAL AVAILABLE VOLUME: 25.9 m3

[/b]2) TUPOLEV TU-154 : Cargo compartment N 1 (Front): breakpoint weight 6450 kg, volume 21.5 cu m; Cargo compartment N 2 (Rear): breakpoint weight 4950kg, volume 16.5 cu m: [b]TOTAL AVAILABLE VOLUME: 38.0 m3

[/b]3) BOEING 737-400 : Front Cargo cabin: carrying capacity 3305 kg, volume 17.19 cu m; Rear Cargo cabin: carrying capacity 3305kg, volume 17.75 cu m; [b]TOTAL AVAILABLE VOLUME: 34.94 m3

[/b]4) BOEING 737-900ER with WINGLETS: MAX CARGO - (LOWER DECK) : 52m3 (with no auxiliary fuel tank); 47.5m3 (with 1 auxiliary fuel tank); 44.9m3 (with 2 auxiliary fuel tanks)

  1. TUPOLEV TU-204-300 : Front Cargo Compartment BGO-1 :- 7.4 cu m; Rear Cargo Compartment BGO-2 :- 20.1 cu m; [b]TOTAL AVAILABLE VOLUME: 27.5m3

[/b]6) TUPOLEV TU-204-100 : Front Cargo Compartment BGO-1 :- 14.7 cu m; Rear Cargo Compartment BGO-2 :- 28.3 cu m; [b]TOTAL AVAILABLE VOLUME: 43.0m3





For such a critical issue it is suprisingly quiet in here! I suppose the quiet indifference has nothing to do with the fact that this are 'Russian" Aircrafts.

  • It is no "Boeing" or "Airbus" and so no one cares!

If you ask me, there should be considerably more chatter on this topic. It should be interesting to hear what people have to say!

I also hope that the staff will take note of the data that has been supplied above

  • As the data above indicates, the high and mighty Boeing 737-900 HGW with Winglets (which by the way, has two auxilliary fuel tanks in other to achieve its range) , has a near identical cargo hold space as the TU-204-100! The difference being a mere 1.9 cubic meter!!

Unfortunately you are right.

AS is the best airline simulation game on the internet, and we all love it because it’s so detailed in all aspects. But regarding Russian aircraft the team is lacking serious data, but I’m glad volga confirmed what I thought already for quite some time; data is used for balancing "certain things" arbitrarily. See below quote

"[color=#1C2837][size=2]Another reason for "unrealistic" fuel consumption might be a kind of balancing within the game, because TU-204/TU-214 are much cheaper compared to their Boeing or Airbus counterparts. Given this fact, it would not be very realistic to have thousands of Tupolevs flying around in the USA, Europe or Australia. Some data within the game are more to be understood as part of the "game rules" instead of a 100% transfer from reality."[/size][/color]



This is a sad development, but because the majority of players like Airbus & Boeing aircraft, there’s not much for us to do about it and just wait till change comes.

Would you prefer these aircraft to be 20 times more expensive in maintenance? Unfortunately, to ensure that the balance in the game doesn’t go massively towards Russian-built aircraft, certain measures need to be taken.

Besides, manufacturing data from brochures/catalogs aren’t necessarily reliable figures. They are, after all, trying to sell their products. Unless we were to order planes with every single manufacturers, there’s no way for us to find out the actual fuel consumption, other than operating manuals.

In another thread, you refer to plenty of materials being available on RUnet. The problem, I guess, is that these are in Russian, a language that I’m not sure anyone on the team speaks/understands. If you can get us reliable information in english/german, then we can work with that. Other languages, unfortunately, will not be an option.

No, but that is neither based on something as maintenance of Russian aircraft is not per se more expensive than US/EU/Brazilian aircraft.

I agree with the fact that the balance should not go massively towards Russian built aircraft, but now the balance is neither correct. What I tried to say in my earlier post, is that the measures that are taken now, are arbitrarily taken.

I understand not everyone understand Russian, but I’ve send already an email to the team like a year ago, and offered in the forums to help, but they don’t want it/don’t reply. With such a behaviour I guess you possess the data already.

I would indeed prefer that the team takes some time to think up a real, balanced and fair solution. However, TimS’s last response does nothing to reassure one of any such thing happening! His response comes across as indignant, forceful and irritated rather than being interested in the facts that have being presented above and how it could be applied!

One of the websites I provided above is an Official English website for Ilyushin Finance Company (IFC) - This is the UAC subsidiary that finances most civil aviation procurements in Russia. The website is specifically targeted at audiences like us (who do not speak Russian) and it shows detailed data and information about modern Russian Aircrafts. These includes PDF documents about the Tupolev Tu-204/214 family, the new Antonov AN-148 series and the Ilyushin IL-96 family. The website also shows a performance chart/graph similar to the ones adopted in A/S’s Aircraft Performance tool!

If you are looking for possible solutions to make things more accurate and balanced, I am sure there are people here willing to engage in such discussion and possibly be of help! None of us here, by any means thinks this is easy for you guys and the purpose of our criticism is NOT to malign the fabulous team that put this game together! However, it is my desire as well as others, to continuously help find ways to improve the superior quality, realistic and advanced applications that the game has become known for - This is all so that A/S can continue to maintain its pole position in Airline Simulation World!

It is in this spirit that I will offer the following possible solutions:

    1. The TU-204/214 family could be given a fact-based production rate - I would suggest something in the neighbourhood of 10-14 days before delivery!
    1. I would also suggest that the current maintenance cost be retained because this will also reflect the reality - Russian technology has an uncanny ability to keep costs low!
    1. However, I suggest that the time required for daily maintenance could be increased such that you can’t quite achieve the same utility or turn-around frequency as say a Boeing 737! (This will have a massive impact on it’s Utilization factor, it’s Utility value and consequently on it’s cost effectiveness - but this is the REALITY!)
    1. We must however remember NOT to ascribe this same characteristic to the TU-204-120 which uses a Rolls-Royce RB211-535 engine and a Honeywell 331-200ER APU!!
    1. Because the TU-204-120 does infact have a much more reliable engine, APU and western Avionics, it is fair to say that this model would be considerably more expensive!

Suggestion(3) is also fact-based! It is based on the truth that the Aviadvigatel PS-90A engines used by this type have a somewhat fragile and temperamental reputation and thus demand more frequent checks, closer intervals between Engine Components replacements and overhaul. The TA-12-60 Auxiliary Power unit (APU) is also known to be quite troublesome mainly becos it was rushed into production. It is no secret and a documented fact that the owner of the Russian Airline - RED WINGS, which operates one of the largest fleet of TU-204s complained about the unreliable nature of the engines, the APU and the very slow pace at which the Aircraft’s teething problems were being resolved - which stems from the very slow production rate of the type! The fragility of the PS-90A is the primary and key reason why the PS-90A2 was developed for the improved and new TU-204SM. The PS-90A2 has a life cycle cost decreased by 35% with simultaneous increase in reliability between 50% and 100%. In the new TU-204SM, the APU has also been replaced with an upgraded and superior TA-18-APU200 type.

In Suggestion(4), it is no secret that the Egyptian airline - Cairo Aviation was the first operator of the TU-204-120 and has operated (2) examples of these since 1998 with little complaint! The Chinese Air Cargo China had one delivered for a test trial and has gone on to order (2) more because this type proved to be free of the problems exhibited by the TU-204-100 and it’s PS-90 engine! It would be nice if A/S differentiated this model in the game world and ascribed it the actual peculiarities and idiosyncracies that it really possesses!

I responded only to Severnaya’s posts (including one in a related thread elsewhere on the forum). I’m not directly involved in the reworking of the performance system, nor with the analysis of the data required for this, so I couldn’t tell you how things stand on that exactly. I’ll pass on your information though. I do have some remarks/concerns regarding your suggestions:

  1. This would actually increased the delivery time from the current 1/144h. If anything it’d make the aircraft even less desired for players, since they’d have to wait even longer for one to be delivered. 1 per week actually does seem like a fair compromise between real life data and game mechanics.

  2. One of the reasons I posted the bit above is because, on this subject, everyone always seems to forget that parts aren’t ready available all over the world. In the USA, Russian aircraft are very rare, if they’re operated there at all. As such, maintenance is also quite expensive because either spare parts have to be flown in, or the aircraft flown to a location that has the required parts. It’s one of the disadvantages of these aircraft, built in the former USSR. Since parts on its own aren’t simulated in the game, something like this needs to happen through maintenance costs (or others, but that again leads to the ‘unfair’ figures mentioned so often).

  3. Ties in with 2. It sounds like a good and reasonable idea.

  4. I don’t know how hard this is to implement. With the rework of the performance and aircraft system, this could actually be implemented more accurately than with the old system (keyword engine dependency)

  5. Fair point.

With such topics pop-up every now and than I start to agree with Martin’s phrase

that users only push for statistic/properties changes, which profits them directly

and have nothing to do with adjusting AS to reality.

Why can’t we just wait for this new performance system and only

after to try to correct remained mistakes?


I would happily operate Russian aircraft if they were ready available and matched the requirements of my airline. If I haven’t replied before, it is mainly because every discussion about the introduction of new planes is countered with "you have to wait until we have revised the performance calculations of all planes".

By the way, AS was already working on these new performance calculations when I started playing the game 10 months ago. But I guess it is very difficult to change the formulas in an active game… many airlines might be in dire straits if their profit margin dropped by 5 % due to higher fuel consumption. Or imagine what would happen to flight schedules if the new system would require 30 minutes more maintenance time for a popular type of aircraft.

So postings about the introduction of new planes, or changing the specs of existing planes, are only a reminder to the AS-team that we are still waiting for the new performance formula



forget the spare parts, Tim. If Russian aircraft become popular in AS, the spare parts will be available in every AS airport.

In total agreement with Sobelair’s statement above - Boeing/Airbus Aircrafts are NOT commonly used becos there are parts everywhere but much rather it is the other way round! Boeing/Airbus parts are available everywhere becos those aircrafts are commonly used by airlines! In other words, the popularity of the planes brought about the availability of the parts NOT the other way round - simple case of demand and supply!

In the real world, if an Airline decided to keep a fleet of TU-204’s in North America, it would naturally have to sort out maintenance logistics such as special mechanics and part supply/inventory - that is the reality! We have seen Airlines in North America use unusual Aircrafts such as Fokkers and BAE RJs in the past! Aircraft parts are flown all over the world in a matter of hours! Ultimately, with demand comes supply!

I am of a different opinion. Statistics and properties of the game must and should reflect reality - therein lies the appeal of this particular game otherwise I might as well go spend my time and energy in Airline Mongul or some other shitty game!

Also, as far as pushing for changes that profit users - the truth is, none of these issues are mandatory nor are they going to be reflected in any current games! If I do not find the use of an Aircraft beneficial, I could easily move on and use another type - it is not mandatory, is it?? We can all just simply use B737-900s and lets see how that makes for a realistic world! If i do not find business in a particular part of the world feasible, I could simply go set up in Europe or N. America and then, perhaps if we all do that, we will see how much of a realistic global picture you have!

The beauty and joy of the game is the fact that it simulates real life situations and circumstances as much as possible and it is fair to expect people to seek as much fairness as possible. I believe in many instances, (not in all cases), Users push for what they percieve as a bias or an inbalance in the game. However, It may turn out to be or not be warranted - but that is up for debate! And that is the essence of a FORUM!! As long as any USER can use any aircraft and set up an enterprise anywhere in the simulated world, I see no reason why they have to complain for "selfish" reasons!! The issues that are mostly brought up (rightly or wrongly) is because USERS believe it will have a more realistic and gratifying impact on the game and thus bring about a stimulating experience!

It’s all fine with keeping AS close to reality, what bugs me is the way most of the users here

tries to achieve such “realism”. The only time I’ve see some request to downgrade plane’s

properties were demands: "plane XXX does much better, than my beloved YYY, which I believe

is wrong! Downgrade XXX immediately!". All other request were just for some plane improvement,

often unfounded.

Just to illustrate this: no one of you guys(and ladies), fighting for russian planes, had

ever mentioned that all Tu 204/214 should be hampered with 3 man crew, although it’s

a sad reality. Pretty basic fact, I’m not even talking about LD3 containers incompatibility

for Tu 204, or lack of international certification for Tu 204-100, which should made this plane

worthless for AS

Also, I believe all of the posters here are long enough on this forum to know about

planned changes to performance system. That’s why I don’t understand why to go through

same drama about hampered/non-added planes all over again when you know that all

those request would be shelved until new system is competed.

Why would this make the plane worthless for AS? Russian airlines are still able to fly it domestically and internationally.

Hm… you can use my signature if you like. Or are you not old and grumpy ?


I have never understood why people (guys like you) can’t smarten up and get rid of your prejudices! The point you raise about Users throwing tantrums is unfounded because no one is asking anybody to downgrade any Aircraft.

Much rather, what is being discussed here is the accurate representation of an Aircraft (as has been done with others!). No one has mentioned or referred to any Aircraft as being a "favorite" as deduced by you! If Tu-204 is an Aircraft that is physically and dimensionally capable of handling bulk cargo, why should it be denied that attribute?? If you look at any of the Worlds where I am currently operating, I do not even have a single one of this Aircraft (TU-204/214) in my fleets. I happen to be someone who likes to explore attributes, characteristics and possibilities in the game and thus I have (at different times) set up different enterprises to try out different Aircrafts in different countries for different purposes - it is all part of the fun!!

You make references to things which you obviously know very little about or you are too closed minded to research. So let me lay it out to you.

First of all, there is no such thing as "International Certification" for Aircrafts! The only known international standards in Civil Aviation is what is called the ICAO noise abatement standards - these are the noise regulations standards described in Chapter 4 of Supplement 16 of ICAO manual. Otherwise, what you have are essentially nationally recognized certifications or regional certifications! However, generally speaking, most national governments agree to recognize the certification and standards of other countries or regions

In the US, there are both the FAA and the CAA certifications, but these are not the only Certifications in the world (it is merely a standard defined by the US government for US and by extension North American applications). The specific certification in question in this instance is the FAA’s FAR-25 also known as the Airworthiness Standards: transport category Airplanes.

In Europe, most national aviation certifications have been merged to create a regional unifying standard called the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) certification. In more recent years, this certification process is being handled and administered by European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Under the current dispensation the specific Airworthiness Standards certification is called JAR-25. Airbus products are obviously certified to this standard.

As was in the former USSR, Russia along with other member states of CIS have their aviation certification standard handled by one agency - a Russian/CIS Agency called the Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC). the CIS/Russian Agency’s specific Airworthiness Standards certification is called AP-25. Since the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, the AP-25 has been harmonized as much as possible with FAR-25 and JAR-25.

The Tupolev Tu-204/214 family was certified to AP-25 standards and thus by extension is deemed competent to operate anywhere in the world! I do not see anyone questioning the competence of the A320 family on the basis that it was not certified by FAA, do I???. Nor do I see DHL or any of the operators complaining about the airworthiness of their aircrafts?.

Finally, I must point out the validity of your illustration about the 3-man crew on the TU-204-100 and I think it is a valid point that could be incorporated into the game. However, as far as the LD3 containers compatibility, you have once again exposed your prejudice and ignorance. Is LD3 container specs not a mere standard?? There were and are always going to be other standards of bulk cargo transportation other than LD3 container standards. There were/are LD1, LD2, LD3, LD6, LD7, LD8, LD11 and much more! LD3 may be the most popular ULD (Unit Load Device)), however it is not the only Unit load device in use all over the world! I do not see popular aircrafts such as MD-80 series, B727, B737 and many others suffer any penalty because they do not conform to LD3 standards? Many Aircrafts use the Aviation pallet systems which is an alternative!

Just so that you are educated, the Tupolev Tu-214/204-100 does indeed handle LD3 containers. It specifically handles LD3-46 containers, carrying 3 units in the forward Hold (BGO-1) and 5 units in the rear hold (BGO-2), all for a total of 8 units. The Tu-204/214 can also carry the USSR ULD type called the AK-07 containers, depending on customer specification! It is also very telling and unfortunate that while you are willing to chastise the Tupolev (wrongly so, …I might add!), you are not so quick to point out the fact that the Boeing 737 is actually incapable of handling the LD3 unit but you and others are willing to give it a pass when it comes to handling bulk cargo!

This mindset - the one that insists that the only good or acceptable standard is one that we are familiar with, is a sad and pathetic attribute of many - especially Americans! (I hate to make such broad generalizations because I am one and this makes it untrue!). There are many standards in the world and the world is a better place for it! There are a lot of contributing factors to each nation or regions perspective on how things should be done yet NONE should presume to have a monopoly of knowledge! Unfortunately this is what we often witness with many half-educated folks. Yet, do we not see the same American government entrusting the transportation of it’s space program elites into the hands of the Russians for the foreseeable future?? How come this is so, if the Russians were so incompetent??? Let us learn to separate sentiments and prejudice from facts and reality - it serves humanity no good purpose to persist in fostering insular views!

I did some digging recently while researching information for a little project I’m working on for AS, and part of that dealt with ULDs. The wikipedia article actually lists a long list of aircraft that operate with ULDs, and I’m afraid the Tu 204/214 isn’t listed there. Now, that’s not to say it doesn’t have it, since as a public resource, Wikipedia isn’t a suitable stand-alone source. In fact, it doesn’t seem to be an exhaustive list anyway (I’d love to have a list that tells me which aircraft types all operate with ULDs, even if only as an option. If anyone has one, please send me a PM ).

I wouldn’t be surprised though if the same ULDs that go into the A320 would also be used for the Tupolev 204/214 line. The airframe looks to be big enough for it to fit.

Anyway, let’s calm this discussion down a bit. The performance system is still in works. It’s closely tied in with the aircraft config tool which martin has already given a few sneak peeks at, so they’ll probably release at the same time. Maybe by then, there will also be an adjusted turnaround system, maybe not. That all depends on how much time we can take to program stuff, and to properly research things.

I also saw something about backward compatibility. I’m sure Martin could say some more about this, and I suspect he will in one of the upcoming logbook entries. In fact, there’s already a small reference to it in the Convention recap. Hopefully we can find a way to make it work. It’s all still too early in development to be sure about anything. Until then, let’s wait and see how things develop.

edit: I meant to put the links in here as well, and subsequently for got. Here are the 3 sources I found regarding ULDs:



I appreciate your input here and will have to agree that wikipedia is a good source of information but since it is written by a bunch of different folks (like me) , it cannot and should not be the only source for information. Anyhow the list in wikipedia (as you rightly pointed out) is not exhaustive and is sometimes questionable.

The sources of my information are indeed numerous and stand up to scrutiny. I will go ahead and drop some references and sources, hopefully guys will have enough interest and patience to thumb through the somewhat eclectic details.






PS: My primary and reliable source for such information is "[size="-1"]Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 1999-2000", however since it is a subscription based website it is very diffcult to give active (working) URL links!![/size] Ithe ones that won’t work above are for Jane’s Aviation Encyclopedia)

The URL below may prove invaluable for those who want some concrete, useful and recent update on this Aircraft type:


Just so that I could bury all doubts and unreasonable deductions. Here is a fabulous video/documentary on Tupolev TU-204/214/334 series in excellent english!

The video is almost 13 minutes long and does put to rest some miscontrued information while offering interesting perspective on the Russian Aviation industry.

The documentary also shows a Tupolev Tu-204 being loaded or unloaded with underfloor ULDs. I believe the particular ULD shown here are of the CIS/Russian AK-07 ULD container type.

I hope that shuts up the nay sayers!!

For those looking to learn more about this type - this is an excellent documentary. Enjoy!!