Singapore PC-21 tie-ups - Can the Australians on here help

[ACW367]

I am struggling to find tie-ups for the Singapore PC-21 aircraft that have ADS-B.

The codes starting at 76E721 relate to 9V-YYA etc.  But the aircraft actually carry military numbers 9101 etc.

Can any of our Antipodean users help with a list of the tie-ups, so we can add them to the database project.

Regards
ACW367

[Runway 31]

Got two this morning and entered their details. 9102 and 9118

[Marpleman]

Hi ACW

I've got tie ups for all the PC21 production list including the Singapore Air Force

I've been offline all day - give me a couple of hours and I'll pm them to you this evening

Regards

Rich

[Marpleman]

Hi ACW

Please see attachment - I've also pm'd you

Regards

Rich

[John Hargreaves]

Can give you a start -
Civil regn are 9V-YYA to 9V-YYS and mil are 9101 to 9119 in that order.
Hexcodes are 76E721 to 76E726 for YYA to YYF, 76E000 for YYG (miscoded), 76E728/729 for YYH/YYI, 76E72A to 76E72F for YYJ to YYO,76E730 to 76E733 for YYP to YYS. All hexcodes follow in ascending order. They used to be regulars in the Perth,WA area.

[ACW367]

Thank you all

Have updated the full PC-21 construction list

[RodBearden]

There seems to be a problem with these tie-ups, or possibly with the dual mil/civ registrations you have entered in the database. I'm not getting data in the data panel now, see my screenshot.

And I guess there's no way we're going to get pictures from Airliners.net with this entry in the AR field.

Perhaps you can look at this.

Rod

[DaveReid]

There seems to be a problem with these tie-ups, or possibly with the dual mil/civ registrations you have entered in the database. I'm not getting data in the data panel now, see my screenshot.

And I guess there's no way we're going to get pictures from Airliners.net with this entry in the AR field.

Yes - if you think about it, having a slash in the registration column is going to mess up both the Airliners.net URL and the thumbnail filenames.

Take it out and you'll be fine:

[Runway 31]

As a side issue I took the opportunity and filled in the blanks on the database with the 2 aircraft with missing detail.

Alan

[ACW367]

There seems to be a problem with these tie-ups, or possibly with the dual mil/civ registrations you have entered in the database. I'm not getting data in the data panel now, see my screenshot.

And I guess there's no way we're going to get pictures from Airliners.net with this entry in the AR field.

Yes - if you think about it, having a slash in the registration column is going to mess up both the Airliners.net URL and the thumbnail filenames.

Take it out and you'll be fine:

Dave
As you are aware there is currently an issue with the displaying of photographs.  As Updaters we have the ability to attribute two photo links, with the idea that this will mean we can get the pictures right, for example with Mil aircraft with more than one air force using a numerical registration.  It also means we can exclude photos of older aircraft carrying the ID.

Therefore once the issue is fixed it will not matter if we have dual registrations in the registration field.  We will have searched Anet for appropriate pictures and added the correct URLs for all users, when they download it.

[DaveReid]

Therefore once the issue is fixed it will not matter if we have dual registrations in the registration field.  We will have searched Anet for appropriate pictures and added the correct URLs for all users, when they download it.

But what about thumbnails ?

[ACW367]

That will include the thumbnails.

[DaveReid]

That will include the thumbnails.

OK, I'll take your word for it - I'm just curious to know what filenames RadarBox will give to stored thumbnail JPGs of an aircraft that has "9105 / 9V-YYE" in the AR column.

[RodBearden]

So am I ;-)

And none of this explains why my data panel was empty, except for the Flight ID, even though all the data was there in my database. Could it be a bug caused by the strange entry in the Reg field?

Rod

[Marpleman]

Slightly off topic, but are we entirely sure the civil part of the registration is worthy of inclusion?

Everything I've seen on these rascals leans solely to the military serial anyway?

They're not just either delivery registrations relating to some odd Singapore import legality are they (wouldn't be the first time they've bee somewhat tetchy over military purchases)??

Maybe we just go with the military serial alone if that's what's only carried on the aircraft?

Rich