Air Support?

Debrief · November 18th, 2012, 22:48

Wondering if anyone has made successful use of fixed-wing air support for outdoor games, and if anyone can offer any input to make it worthwhile.

A couple of the players here are pilots (myself included) and have access to Cessna 172s and Citabrias. We are hoping to integrate a work-able system for air support for the larger milsim games next season, while remaining in the bubble of legality while using the aircraft.

Here's the system I'm planning for, Let me know if you have any recommendations:

Basically the aircraft would operate as "armed" reconnaissance. The aircraft would be controlled by a point on the field equipped with a radio with the ability to communicate with an observer in the aircraft. Opposing teams would have to capture this point and hold it to maintain control over the aircraft (Much like the AC-130 system in Battlefield). Teams would have to forward all comms to the operator at the point to forward instructions to the aircraft.

Once a team gains control of said point the aircraft would orbit overhead at 500' AGL (any lower is prohibited by Transport Canada). The observer in the aircraft would be able to communicate enemy troop movements and the location/condition of objectives to the radio operator, which would then be forwarded to the team controlling the point.

The team controlling the aircraft would also have the ability to call in "air strikes". Operators would mark a target with a smoke grenade/grid reference and forward it to the aircraft. The aircraft would then make a pass over the target, and opposing players finding themselves in the area would be "dead". (Again, Transport Canada unfortunately prohibits the dropping of any object from an aircraft).

There would also be "Stinger Missiles" scattered randomly around the field (PVC pipes) which would be the defense against the aircraft. They could only be used once per tube, and would result in the aircraft flying away from the battlefield for a determined amount of time. Their use would have to be radioed to the operator at the point by the opposing teams comms, and then forwarded to the aircraft.

That said, any input or ideas?

R.I.T.Z · November 18th, 2012, 23:09

it sounds cool, and expensive

Danke · November 18th, 2012, 23:14

As long as the plane is camo'd up.

Kill Shot · November 19th, 2012, 04:35

The idea has a lot of potential - I've pondered it as well, though the airspace in my area (Greater Vancouver) is way too busy, and the local field locations are in built up areas for the most part, preventing flight down to 500 AGL (field neighbours would get pissed). Ah well.

Your idea seems workable. Just keep in mind that it's all based on the ability to communicate with someone on the ground via radio. You may need to test this out beforehand, as well as secure permission from the aircraft owner prior to using non-aviation band radios inside the aircraft. The blister-pack GMRS radios likely won't have enough range to reach an orbiting aircraft, whereas the more powerful UHF radios (carried by the passenger) may cause interference with the aircraft's radios and navaids (though I'm not 100% sure if it would be an issue). As well, check the CARs regarding electronic device usage before you do anything, just to be sure.

I like some of your scenario ideas - they would work well in a longer milsim (i.e. weekend-long types). Larger games would help offset the cost, where a small portion of each entry fee could go towards paying for the flight time.

Hope your plans come to fruition sometime soon - Cheers!

Brian McIlmoyle · November 19th, 2012, 09:48

Game Control staff, on the ground serving as observers can fulfill the same role, without having to burn AVGAS--

ManateeMatt · November 19th, 2012, 10:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

Game Control staff, on the ground serving as observers can fulfill the same role, without having to burn AVGAS--

Unless you can make baddass plane noises coming from overhead, not quite the same thing...

Brian McIlmoyle · November 19th, 2012, 10:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManateeMatt

Unless you can make baddass plane noises coming from overhead, not quite the same thing...

Predator Drones are nearly silent from the ground

Gerkraz · November 19th, 2012, 11:12

What would be the operational cost for the aircraft, and how would that translate to the players?

Increased fees?

Brian McIlmoyle · November 19th, 2012, 11:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerkraz

What would be the operational cost for the aircraft, and how would that translate to the players?

Increased fees?

Lots of pilots who need flight time. it's really just a matter of co-ordination.
The comms issue though needs resolution

Berkut · November 19th, 2012, 11:59

As far as comms go... 2 people in cockpit - pilot and spotter. Spotter has radio for contact with ground. Relays information to pilot as necessary.

PS. I think Ultralights would be perfect for this kind of work. Can loiter around for a while, quiet, cheap.

Kill Shot · November 19th, 2012, 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerkraz
What would be the operational cost for the aircraft, and how would that translate to the players?

Increased fees?

Operational cost depends on the plane used. I assume that most of these pilots the OP is referring to would be renting, as opposed to owning their own aircraft. Rentals for a Cessna 172, in my area at least, go for around $125-$145 per hour of flight time (time that the engine is turning). After taxes, miscellaneous fees, fuel surcharges, etc., you could be looking at $150-$175 per hour flight time. The Citabria the OP refers to might be cheaper, but I'm not quite sure - I've never flown one.

Factor in all required checks, engine run-up, taxi/take-off, and enroute time between the airfield and the game location, you could be looking at a few hours, and perhaps between $300-$500. Lots of new pilots would be happy to spend that as they work at building up their hours, but a couple of dollars from each entry fee could ease the burden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Berkut
As far as comms go... 2 people in cockpit - pilot and spotter. Spotter has radio for contact with ground. Relays information to pilot as necessary.

PS. I think Ultralights would be perfect for this kind of work. Can loiter around for a while, quiet, cheap.

The comms issue isn't the physical setup of who sits where, it's more to do with the usage of non-aviation band radios inside the aircraft, and the potential interference with the aircraft's radios and navigational instruments.

Your thought of ultralights is interesting, though a separate type of licence is required for flying ultralights, versus a regular single engine Cessna. It would require those pilots to actually go through some conversion training to get an ultralight endorsement. However, it could end up being cheaper after a while, and ultralights are much easier to operate from unprepared airstrips. Hell, they might even be able to operate from the airsoft field itself (with the appropriate safety measures in place, of course).

Scotcho1.0 · November 19th, 2012, 13:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManateeMatt

Unless you can make baddass plane noises coming from overhead, not quite the same thing...

when I am up north it is not uncommon for small planes to fly by low and loud. Its a sweet feeling and a wicked sound when those guys haul ass overhead.

Sent from my T8788 using Board Express

Berkut · November 19th, 2012, 13:18

Well, never had any problems with use of non -aviation transmitters inside the aircraft before... since you will be flying VFR anyway NAV interference should not matter either.

As far as licensing goes, normally people get their REC license for ultralights. Your PPL/CPL should be fine. Get type rating and you are good to go. Can log hours too! Here is CARS for ya! http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviatio...073.htm#401_26

Debrief · November 19th, 2012, 14:25

The rate for the 172 is a flat $110/hr, gas included. From the ramp to overhead to the field ranges on 15 minutes to 35 minutes depending on which of the fields in is play for the day, so the overhead ranges for $120 to $50 for ferry time. Endurance is 4.5 hours, the maximum loiter time is about 3 hours. Maximum cost for a sortie is $440. At a larger milsim with ~80 players, an additional $5 per player on top of game fees covers 100% of the cost, with the aircrew taking no cash. Additional players results in less additional cost per player.

There's no issue with comms interfering, no radio NAV aids are used during VFR operations. VHF radios should be able to communicate with no issue, seeing as there's no obstruction between the operator and the aircraft when airborne, and the area of operations isn't father than 5NM away from the field.

Kill Shot · November 19th, 2012, 18:05

Berkut - Coulda sworn that ultralights were an endorsement as opposed to a simple check flight on type if you have a PPL. Indeed you're right - just requires the appropriate check flight. Having only flown 152/172, it's been ages since I've even thought about what else the PPL covers. That being the case, yeah, I'd have a look at the possibilty of ultralight usage. Cheaper, plus the slower airspeeds would make it easier for observation. That being said, $110/hr for a C172 is not all that bad.

And OP, if you've had no issues with using the radios up there, and the aircraft owner is cool with it, then have at 'er.

Home	Forums	Register	Gallery	FAQ	Calendar
Retailers	Community	News/Info	International Retailers	IRC	Today's Posts

British Columbia	Alberta
BCAC	EAR
Op-For	JOC
Northern Arms Airsoft	Skunkworx Airsoft
Airsoft Kelowna	RAAT
Prince George Airsoft	Manitoba
Saskatchewan	MAA
SK Airsoft	Ontario
PDW	Airsoft Ottawa
South Sask Mercs	Snow Dragons
Quebec	1st Ranger Platoon
PQAC	Wolfpack Tactical
1st Pathfinders Regiment	TTAC3
Quebec Airsoft
MTX Airsoft	Atlantic
FAQc	Atlantic Airsoft

November 18th, 2012, 22:48	#1
Debrief a.k.a. HKpro Trader rating Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Deadmonton	Air Support? Wondering if anyone has made successful use of fixed-wing air support for outdoor games, and if anyone can offer any input to make it worthwhile. A couple of the players here are pilots (myself included) and have access to Cessna 172s and Citabrias. We are hoping to integrate a work-able system for air support for the larger milsim games next season, while remaining in the bubble of legality while using the aircraft. Here's the system I'm planning for, Let me know if you have any recommendations: Basically the aircraft would operate as "armed" reconnaissance. The aircraft would be controlled by a point on the field equipped with a radio with the ability to communicate with an observer in the aircraft. Opposing teams would have to capture this point and hold it to maintain control over the aircraft (Much like the AC-130 system in Battlefield). Teams would have to forward all comms to the operator at the point to forward instructions to the aircraft. Once a team gains control of said point the aircraft would orbit overhead at 500' AGL (any lower is prohibited by Transport Canada). The observer in the aircraft would be able to communicate enemy troop movements and the location/condition of objectives to the radio operator, which would then be forwarded to the team controlling the point. The team controlling the aircraft would also have the ability to call in "air strikes". Operators would mark a target with a smoke grenade/grid reference and forward it to the aircraft. The aircraft would then make a pass over the target, and opposing players finding themselves in the area would be "dead". (Again, Transport Canada unfortunately prohibits the dropping of any object from an aircraft). There would also be "Stinger Missiles" scattered randomly around the field (PVC pipes) which would be the defense against the aircraft. They could only be used once per tube, and would result in the aircraft flying away from the battlefield for a determined amount of time. Their use would have to be radioed to the operator at the point by the opposing teams comms, and then forwarded to the aircraft. That said, any input or ideas?

November 18th, 2012, 23:14	#3
Danke Prancercise Guru Trader rating Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Danger Zone	As long as the plane is camo'd up. __________________ Airsoft, where nothing is hurt but feelings.

November 19th, 2012, 09:48	#5
Brian McIlmoyle 8=======D Trader rating Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Toronto	Game Control staff, on the ground serving as observers can fulfill the same role, without having to burn AVGAS-- __________________ Brian McIlmoyle TTAC3 Director CAPS Range Officer Toronto Downtown Age Verifier OPERATION WOODSMAN If the tongue could cut as the sword does, the dead would be infinite

November 18th, 2012, 23:09	#2
R.I.T.Z Crackers Trader rating Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: The Shwa	it sounds cool, and expensive

November 19th, 2012, 04:35	#4
Kill Shot a.k.a. XK Red 27 Trader rating Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Langley, B.C.	The idea has a lot of potential - I've pondered it as well, though the airspace in my area (Greater Vancouver) is way too busy, and the local field locations are in built up areas for the most part, preventing flight down to 500 AGL (field neighbours would get pissed). Ah well. Your idea seems workable. Just keep in mind that it's all based on the ability to communicate with someone on the ground via radio. You may need to test this out beforehand, as well as secure permission from the aircraft owner prior to using non-aviation band radios inside the aircraft. The blister-pack GMRS radios likely won't have enough range to reach an orbiting aircraft, whereas the more powerful UHF radios (carried by the passenger) may cause interference with the aircraft's radios and navaids (though I'm not 100% sure if it would be an issue). As well, check the CARs regarding electronic device usage before you do anything, just to be sure. I like some of your scenario ideas - they would work well in a longer milsim (i.e. weekend-long types). Larger games would help offset the cost, where a small portion of each entry fee could go towards paying for the flight time. Hope your plans come to fruition sometime soon - Cheers! __________________

November 19th, 2012, 11:12	#8
Gerkraz Trader rating Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: St. John's, Newfoundland	What would be the operational cost for the aircraft, and how would that translate to the players? Increased fees?

November 19th, 2012, 11:59	#10
Berkut PinkEagle Trader rating Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Toronto	As far as comms go... 2 people in cockpit - pilot and spotter. Spotter has radio for contact with ground. Relays information to pilot as necessary. PS. I think Ultralights would be perfect for this kind of work. Can loiter around for a while, quiet, cheap. __________________ G63 Last edited by Berkut; November 19th, 2012 at 12:12..

November 19th, 2012, 13:18	#13
Berkut PinkEagle Trader rating Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Toronto	Well, never had any problems with use of non -aviation transmitters inside the aircraft before... since you will be flying VFR anyway NAV interference should not matter either. As far as licensing goes, normally people get their REC license for ultralights. Your PPL/CPL should be fine. Get type rating and you are good to go. Can log hours too! Here is CARS for ya! http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviatio...073.htm#401_26 __________________ G63 Last edited by Berkut; November 19th, 2012 at 13:25..

November 19th, 2012, 14:25	#14
Debrief a.k.a. HKpro Trader rating Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Deadmonton	The rate for the 172 is a flat $110/hr, gas included. From the ramp to overhead to the field ranges on 15 minutes to 35 minutes depending on which of the fields in is play for the day, so the overhead ranges for $120 to $50 for ferry time. Endurance is 4.5 hours, the maximum loiter time is about 3 hours. Maximum cost for a sortie is $440. At a larger milsim with ~80 players, an additional $5 per player on top of game fees covers 100% of the cost, with the aircrew taking no cash. Additional players results in less additional cost per player. There's no issue with comms interfering, no radio NAV aids are used during VFR operations. VHF radios should be able to communicate with no issue, seeing as there's no obstruction between the operator and the aircraft when airborne, and the area of operations isn't father than 5NM away from the field. Last edited by Debrief; November 19th, 2012 at 14:29..

November 19th, 2012, 18:05	#15
Kill Shot a.k.a. XK Red 27 Trader rating Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Langley, B.C.	Berkut - Coulda sworn that ultralights were an endorsement as opposed to a simple check flight on type if you have a PPL. Indeed you're right - just requires the appropriate check flight. Having only flown 152/172, it's been ages since I've even thought about what else the PPL covers. That being the case, yeah, I'd have a look at the possibilty of ultralight usage. Cheaper, plus the slower airspeeds would make it easier for observation. That being said, $110/hr for a C172 is not all that bad. And OP, if you've had no issues with using the radios up there, and the aircraft owner is cool with it, then have at 'er. __________________ Last edited by Kill Shot; November 19th, 2012 at 18:21..

Air Support?

Tactics, Techniques and Procedures