Senorcarnival From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1231 times:
I didn't find the tailnumber. Actually, none of the formats on that DB match what I saw. I saw an "XL (1) 844" (couldn't exactly tell due to heat haze) on the tail and it clearly says U.S. Air Force on it, but all the formats on that DB show it as a CC or OH format for USAF jets.
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1213 times:
USAF tail numbers actually come in the format xx-yyyy where xx is the last two digits of the year of procurement (to keep it simple), and yyyy is a number (It is most often 0yyy but that is not a guarantee). Problem is, nobody ever puts the entire number in that format in any useful locations on the aircraft. For ACC aircraft, it is most often the last 3 digits displayed prominently on the tail preceded by a smaller 'AF' and the year 'xx'. That is the case with the T-38's in your pictures. What you would do is go to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/usafserials.html (appears to be down as I type), figure out what years you could be looking at (unless you can see by magnifying the pictures), and look for T-38's that end in the 3 digits. It is possible but unlikely that there would be more than one possibility. The two large letters on the tail are typically indicators of the wing/base the aircraft is assigned to.
LeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1203 times:
The tail of the first one definitely says -844. According to http://www.aero-web.org/specs/northrop/t-38a.htm , the only T-38's that end in -844 are 61-0844 and 67-14844. According to scramble, 61-0844 is no longer active, and 67-14844 is active, with an XL tailcode. My money's on that one being 67-14844.
Second photo, left:
-750 appears to yield only 62-3750. Scramble lists that with an RA tailcode, but Scramble may just not yet be aware of a relocation of that aircraft. In the absence of another known serial ending in -750 (You're free to look yourself), 62-3750 is my guess.
Second photo, right:
Having an A2, I know it shoots higher-res than that. In the original, can you clearly tell what the middle digit is? -8*8 leaves a lot of possibilities. Or is that a full-res crop of the original?
LeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1191 times:
If it's a full-res crop, I don't think the original will do much good. I just didn't know it was a full-res crop. That zoom does run out a little early, doesn't it...
If you were shooting 3264, there is no higher res. 3264 3:2 is essentially like letterboxing on your TV to show a 16:9 format movie. It just throws away pixels at the top and bottom so that the image is in an SLR aspect ratio.
I shoot RAW, but I don't think it would have helped much in this case. The heat haze is just too much. The A2, like every other digital camera I've ever used, does too much in-camera sharpening for my taste in JPG mode on default settings, and you might try rolling the sharpening back a little and seeing how you like it if you don't want to shoot RAW. That said, it's the heat haze that's obscuring that middle digit, and most of what I don't like about the shots is the heat haze.
As for the identification of the third plane, the only -808 T-38 listed is denoted as withdrawn from use by Scramble. The only -818 is listed as stored. 67-14838, 67-14848, and 67-14858 are possibilities.
Senorcarnival From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1186 times:
I shot those in hard sharpening. That's probably why you got that impression of the oversharpening. The A2 produces extremely soft pictures, IMHO. I used a teleconverter on those shots, btw, b/c that 200mm zoom would run out REALLY soon..