So when you write these articles are you going to state in them that you didn't want to pay a few hundred pounds for access to the current, definitive information at source, so instead you interviewed a handful of people who may have been through some part of the system five, ten years ago?
And is the RAF expected to be grateful for articles written this way?
Aww, quit being such a misery!
I would imagine that just about every freelancer going tries his hardest NOT to pay for a story. You try flying in civvy street when you're picking up the tab for your juice.
I would imagine too, that such an article would be viewed in a damned sight less prejudicial manner by the readership and about as far removed from the usual hackneyed advertorials they're used to reading as you're likely to get. The fact that real names aren't going to be used (obviously) will lend a conspiratorial air to the piece that will make a refreshing change too. With that in mind, I would imagine that most readers with an interest in military aviation would suss that its 'unauthorised' and treat it accordingly.
Notwithstanding that, when it comes to preserving the editorial proposition, most specialist freelancers know how to present a piece in keeping, and the editorial scalpel will always be looming, so you're possibly worrying unduly.