Classic British Flight Sim

Hi Tonks,

It's one of the ideas I've been thinking about - RAF passenger/cargo flights using 'military' aircraft. It'd be nice to use the RAF '10's and also the Andover if we can get past the 'no military aircraft' allowed rule at FlyNET. I think the rule was probably aimed at the aircraft that are 'fighting' aircraft. Aircraft that were used in a transport role, be it passenger or cargo, that have also been used by civilian operators have merit to be included on the database.

Just out of interest, what callsign do you use when communicating with civilian atc/airports. I seem to remember 'Ascot' was one callsign but wasn't sure if that was reserved just for Queens Flight aircraft.

Rgds

John

Interesting :think: some stuff plodding to Aden would be fun, spent 3 years there as a lad. My old man was in the RAF for 24 years and I went against his wishes and joined a cavalry regiment lol. Ooops sorry meandering again

Regards

Sean

Hi Tonks

Do the QF still use special callsigns on Royal flights?

ATB

Garry

Thanks Tonks

I wondered if they still used the age old callsigns


Garry

So who want's to do the brize to the falklands run EHHH!!!
21 wonderful hours with no inflight movie and to top off 1 hours sitting at accention islands on the flight pad waiting for the refuel. and it was bloody hot.
naughty boys trip, posted for four months down there.great!

I do

The no military aircraft was aimed at preventing "military" VA's from making money unfairly over "civilian" ones. We unfortunately had 2 VA's pop up and purchase butt-loads of C-130s, C-5s, C-17s, etc at military prices (way below civilian cost) before we could catch it and start making lots of money flying cargo and passengers while having maintenance costs well below those of competing civilian VAs. It was unfair and the practice was stopped and the rule enacted.

Hi Chris,

I can understand that. Where there are direct comparisons though, I think there is merit in pushing the boundaries if you want to call it to enable certain aircraft to operate within FlyNET. The Andover is directly comparable to the 748 and the C1 is directly comparable to the VC10. If they were at the same price then maintenance costs would be the same. There are some simmers that are quite happy to fly around in an aircraft if it has RAF markings but wouldn't dream of flying an aircraft in airline liveries. Lets be realistic, the Boeing/Airbus jockeys are hardly going to say we would have an unfair advantage with the profits we make compared to theirs. Just trying to open up FlyNET to the maximum number of people as possible. It would be rather fun for the guys to shed their civvies and do some clandestine troop movements in the dead of night

Now, who's going to make a Shorts Belfast so we do some Heavylift charters ?

Rgds

John

Chris Trott wrote:The no military aircraft was aimed at preventing "military" VA's from making money unfairly over "civilian" ones. We unfortunately had 2 VA's pop up and purchase butt-loads of C-130s, C-5s, C-17s, etc at military prices (way below civilian cost) before we could catch it and start making lots of money flying cargo and passengers while having maintenance costs well below those of competing civilian VAs. It was unfair and the practice was stopped and the rule enacted.

Maybe I am missing something, but to me it does not look like flynet airlines are really compeating. Two airlines can have dozens of flights each between podunk and nowhereville and as long as there prices are standard and there reputations are good all the flights will be full. Sure they may 'compete' to get the highest market cap but if you dont really care about that (like we at the CBFS VA don't seam to be worried about it) I don't see an issue.

TBH I have been flying XX914 in the sim on some of the VC10 routes :shock: :tuttut: