Just visiting :)

[DispatchDragon]

Hiya John- Gents

Not sure if you noticed - or that if it played a part in UK sched service
but I have just added the Short Skyvan to the database over at Flynet
(and ordered 7 for VHAVA ) - I would think there might be
fun routes and paintschemes appropriate for the Transit - Hey DaveB
you might try it instead of your beloved Vapide (ducking) its a little
jewel to fly


Mahalo

Leif

Oh yes and thank you for the support about convertibles at the Flynet
forum John - Im not sure if they understand how QCs work - I
remember seeing Britannia 737s fly the bucket and spade brigade
all day then be stripped out and fly race horses at night -- put cargo
on the seats indeed :roll: :roll:

[Garry Russell]

Thanks Leif

The Skyvan ishould be a useful addition

South West Aviation used Skyvans on scheduled service as did BEA Scottish Division. Those became Interstol. The BEA/Interstol ones were technically Skyliners but externally differed only in 4 bladed props and readar nose. They didn't last.
Loganair also flew a Skyvan on schedules as did Hunting Air cargo.

As to QC some aircraft have sections of seating complete with windows, carpets seats and all the trim mounted on standard freight pallets.

These can be loaded through the doors for a really quick change.

Safe Air did that with Bristol Freighters and Argosys.

Other times all the seats can be removed and put back quickly like BIA used to do with Heralds.

BEA originally had seats that folded against the wall in Viscount 802's to allow freight in the cabin.

So there has never been anything rare about airliners being part time freighters QC or not.


Garry

[DaveB]

Hi Leif,

Tks for that but please.. don't utter the words Rapide and Skyvan in the same sentence!! :tuttut: The former is a gentlemans aircraft full of grace and beauty.. the latter is a flying dustcart!! No offence to the author mate but I'm chosey about what I fly

We've talked in the past about the possibility of getting some Islanders or perhaps Twin Otters for the Scottish routes but it went no further :think:

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[DispatchDragon]

Sorry Dave

Couldnt resist But as Garry says the ugly little bugger did serve on
BEAs route structure so I thought you might like it - actually its rather
a joy to fly - (to my mind more so than the twotter) and like many
a speckled pup runt -its so ugly you gotta love it - I wish there was
an easier model of the Islander than M. Kuhnts it would make a nice
replacement/addition to Dereks Dove - Im still hoping the Flynet can do
something with the QC capability - of course some of the little pieces
of heaven we fly into (say 1700' crushed coral strips) make for fun
flying and the Transit gets in and out handily - BTW Ive been flying
the Rapide on floats out of BoraBoras lagoon and its great fun although
(no offence) I cannot see how you can make a profit with the bloody thing


Leif

[DaveB]

Like so many aircraft, you have to use it on the intended route for it to make money and this is perfect on the Island runs.
Jer to Guer
tickets: 480v$
fuel: 126v$ (and that's for the round trip to Alderney and back!)
catering: 40
bonus:63
salary:37
=341v$ before multiplyer

Gue to Ald
tickets:480v$
fuel: 0
catering:40
bonus:88
salary:52
=476v$ before multiplyer

The trip from Ald back to Jer will have it breaking even and leave me with my 'little extra' in the tank (I'd let it run down to 10kg before picking it up again at Jer :shock: ). Block fuel for each leg is only around the 13kg mark if I go like stink (well.. 130mph!) It's certainly not a big earner but it keeps it's head above water even without the multiplyer if used on the right runs Of course, it doesn't carry many pax so if chasing the numbers is your game.. this is not the baby to spend a lot of time in. Keeps me sane and out of trouble so that's what counts

ATB

DaveB

[DispatchDragon]

LOL Dave I see your point

Numbers chasers -- Its funny - ALL of Rick and Davids models
have been money makers - as I said probably the most profitable being
the Guardsvan (Which as Garry says it was in reallife a beancounters
dream) - Its odd that the DC8 - which again in reallife was a moneymaker
is a total failure in Flynet -and the 1011 is no more profitable the the
VC9 on 2000nm legs (ATA operated the Tristar from PHX/LAX/SFO to
HNL so we have a precendent - I would have used the VC10 but no
Western carrier ever used them so I couldnt really validate its use)

Oh well - back to the real world of MD80s and MidContinental Weather


Leif

[Garry Russell]

As to the Vanguard

139 pax and baggage it could make money.......but in addition there was extra space in the enormous underfloor hold to carry commercial freight in commercial quantities...not just a few packages in the back, space permitting.

Does FlyNet allow you to sell freight on pax flights?

Garry

[DaveB]

Hi Garry,

The way flynet works at the mo, it attributes income from whatever info is in the database.. which for the VC9 is incorrect (strictly speaking) and one reason why it makes gallons of money. The info is very much either/or but is taken by Flynet as both so the majority of our flights give a loading of 28.4T (or thereabouts). Come the time when Flynet uses MZFW, things will have to be sorted out as presumably, it will always try and give us a MAX load. While the either/or data works ok, a combination of the two exceeds MZFW. We'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it as the Vanguard is not alone.. not by a long way I'd imagine

ATB

DaveB :tab:

[Garry Russell]

The Vanguard was first but it became standard

The reason BEA did away with the scheduled Merchantman services was the introduction or the TriStar.

They could fit the Merchantman loads on TriStars that passed through where ever the Merchantmen did the schedules, except for Belfast and the CI.

Such was the spare capacity.

At LHR they shift more cargo by air than ever before...but there are fewer not as many pure freighters there in relation to the tonnage.

In Paris I even saw a car on a pallet forked out of an A.310 underfloor

So many modern aircraft are freighters and pax at the same time.

Garry

[DaveB]

Yup.. got that Garry

The relationship between pax and cargo on the Vanguard I referred to above is that Flynet doesn't currently differenciate between the two areas as it doesn't access the models MZFW figure plus.. it automatically assumes a 25kg baggage load for each of the souls onboard :shock: Therefore, a 953 flight will say on the flight briefing pax: 11.4T + Cargo 17T towit we are credited with revenue from a full pax flight PLUS revenue off 11.4T of cargo. Given a dry (empty equipped) weight of 37421kg (952) plus 11400kg for pax plus 17000kg for cargo, this gives an AUW of 65821kg. Given that the MZFW is 55560kg, the Flynet revenue earning load is already 10,261kg overweight and thats without a drop of fuel to turn the little tinker over!! :roll:
What this means is that it makes (on the VA) a lot more money than it should but.. I am certain that the Vanguard is not the only aircraft used (on the VA) that suffers this problem.. the relationship between pax load and cargo load not being recognised correctly

Hope that made sense as it's made my head hurt.. the single cell being worked overtime!! As John pointed out in another post, we (the end user) MUST have some ability to control pax load and cargo load as many of the routes wouldn't be attainable but until this software is in place.. we are all busy getting rich

ATB

DaveB :tab: