Glennstewart From Australia, joined Jun 2003, 1124 posts, RR: 54 Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2129 times:
Been happy chewing on a bit of the queue today. I've been sick at home, but screened a good batch or two and the stuff coming through is fairly good.
But I am a bit peeved. I nearly rejected a shot for NOA_Info based on incorrect registration. I was a nice guy and corrected it and marked it as HQ.
If you shoot USAF, please know how to upload them with correct information.
What you see on the aircraft is more often than not, NOT the full registration (some F-16's and F-15's are the exception to the rule).
This visible portion is 90014
Real registration is ?9-0014
How do you find the correct registration from this?
1. Know the rough year of manufacture - in this case the 60's and 70's
2. The first number is the second half of the year - so 9 is probably 69
3. Look up the registration you think it is - i.e. 69-0014 on: http://www.scramble.nl/milbase.htm
4. Sure enough it is correct - the database verifies it as a C-5A
Please get it right first time and save both the screeners and the database administrators some time.
Respected users.... If my replies are useful, then by all means...
On this one, the serial has five digits behind the fiscal year, as 92,098 aircraft were funded in FY 1944 Can you imagine that?
This system was established when no aircraft survived ten years in service, so little confusion was possible. But why on earth does the USAF still skip that digit? To confuse the Russians and Al-Qaida, as well as us and themselves?
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
Dlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 544 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2044 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
USAF registrations are a pain. US Army registrations are downright awful. I hope to produce a guide to them in the near future. I just finished cleaning up all the Sikorsky and Westland entries in the database and I'm now working on the Agustas and Bells.
Irish251 From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 966 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1923 times:
In my view there may be some excuse in relation to very old serials but there is none when it comes to transport types that have been with us for decades and which are well documented. Unless people uploading shots have no internet access, I would suggest that a few minutes' research should provide the correct answer. The following site provides lots of links to a variety of authoritative and comprehensive on-line sources. Effort made by uploaders to get the information correct must also greatly reduce the need to correct the database later.
Ghostbase From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 354 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1869 times:
Personally I always check with Joe Baugher's website which IMHO is the best internet based reference, though Scramble is very good as well.
Be very careful with:
F-4E Phantoms - there is some duplication of the 'last three' digits shown on tail fins within this type, they can be different fiscal years.
SR-71A Blackbirds - shown on tail fin as '17979' for example, many respected sources quoted these as fiscal 64-xxxxx but in fact they are fiscal 61-xxxxx series. I do know that A.Net has purged the database of these errors.
T-38A Talons - these will often show a five figure number starting with '1' eg 13168 however this does not include the '64' fiscal which it really is, this is not a 61-xxxx which one might expect. There are also '65' fiscals which start at 10316 and appear to be lower than the previous year.
Confused yet? I have been since I started military photo taking in 1985, always pays to have a network of friends who you can ask!