Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Codes On Aircraft  
User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 833 posts, RR: 24
Posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4754 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Hello everyone,

As we are in the midst of airshow season, especially here in the UK with Waddington just done and RIAT about to happen, we'd just like to remind you about how to use the code field on uploaded photos.

This particularly applies to military types, but civil aircraft too, especially airliners.

Many aircraft carry codes other than their registration. On Airliners.net we list these in the Code field. For example, this Buccaneer carries the code T in addition to it's registration, so we list T in the code field:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jim Groom



If the code is just a constriction of the registration however, we don't list it in the code field. Hawk XX225 also carries the numbers 225 on the tail, but we don't use that as a code as it is just a shorter version of the registration:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jim Groom



In the next example, Hawk XX284 carries the code CA on the tail. This has nothing to do with the registration so we do list that in the code field:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jim Groom



It's the same for airliners. If a sequence on the aircraft is a shortened version of the registation, we don't use it as a code. This Mahan A310, registered F-OJHH, carries the letters HH above the cockpit and on the landing gear doors. It's a contraction of the registration so we do not use it as a code:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jim Groom



However, if there are letters or numbers added to make the code different from the registration, then we will list that as a code as it is more than just a contraction of the registration. A good example in Europe are the codes on KLM aircraft, which we do list. In this exmple of PH-KZB, the code ZB-002 is carried on the nose doors. That is more than just part of the registration, so for us it gets it's own mention in the code field.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jim Groom



A good example from North America is shown by this Delta aircraft:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stefan Sonnenberg



Registration is N550NW and the carried code is 5650. To make the code they have inserted a 6 into the 550 taken from the registation. Although 550 is from the registration, the addition of the 6 makes all the difference, making it a code we need to list. If it had been left as 550, we would not list it in the code field.

I hope this helps out some of you who are unsure about how to use the code field where codes may be derived from constrictions or mutations of the registration.

In a related matter, it might be of benefit to quickly go over how to list codes for US military aircraft. For USAF aircraft we do not list the unit as a code if it is carried. In this example, a C-5 carries the letters ANG on the tail, which stands for Air National Guard. We don't use that as a code:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Cary Liao



In this next example, the unit '439th AW' is shown, we don't use that as a code:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jim Groom



This photo also shows the number 6021 on the nose. This is a contraction of the registration, 86-0021, so that is not a code either.

However, we do list base codes in the code field if they are carried:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jim Groom
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jim Groom



The F-15 is listed with the code LN and the F-16 with the code AV.

For US Navy aircraft, the formula is to list the unit code (two letters, usually visible on the tail) followed by a hyphen, then the modex number (three numbers, usually found on the nose).


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © James Shelbourn



Here the code should be listed as NE-201.

Don't worry if you have uploads in the queue in a different format to those listed above. Nobody will be penalised for having an incorrect code, but it does help the Editors spend less time making updates to images which means we can spend more time tackling other areas.

Thanks in advance for your assistance on this topic and have fun uploading your photos.

Best regards,

Jim
Airliners.net Head Database Editor


Erm, is this thing on?
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLGW340 From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 317 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4606 times:

I asked about priority screening my RIAT images on saturday. I had a reply to which I asked how to proceed with the priority screening and I have had no reply so now it is out of the 24 hour priority screening time. Can you help me please because I have missed out because nobody has replied.

Thanks

Chris



Live life from the window seat...
User currently offlineaussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1757 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4600 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting LGW340 (Reply 1):

Chris,

The reply you got from the Headscreener about RIAT was its a air display and not classed as a Airshow so priority screening will only be given to newsworthy stuff like new schemes or new aircraft.

You didnt reply to that so we assume your images are neither new color schemes or new type of aircraft.

Cheers Mark


User currently offlineLGW340 From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 317 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4597 times:

Hi Mark,

Thanks for clearing that up. I did reply asking how the priority screening works but I see now that it doesn't qualify anyway.

Thanks

Chris



Live life from the window seat...
User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 914 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4546 times:

Quoting aussie18 (Reply 2):
RIAT was its a air display and not classed as a Airshow

Looked like an airshow to me!

Quoting GPHOTO (Thread starter):
If the code is just a constriction of the registration however, we don't list it in the code field. Hawk XX225 also carries the numbers 225 on the tail, but we don't use that as a code as it is just a shorter version of the registration:

The military use this as a code though. Presumably this is an A.net-ism like Messerschmitt Starfighters and the almost blasphemous use of Arabic numerals for Spitfire marks before the XX. Its a Spitfire Vb not a 5b. Grrrrrr



Whatever.......
User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 833 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4518 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Hello Derek,

Quoting derekf (Reply 4):
The military use this as a code though. Presumably this is an A.net-ism

It is indeed. For us the code field is for codes that are not the registration. We include shortenings of registrations as being a partial repeat of the registration and therefore not a seperate code. And before I go any further, I would like to make it clear that I am not having a dig at you with what follows! Your points are very valid and well worth explaining more fully.

We do need to make some standardisation considerations to make things work. Unfortunately whatever we do, there will always be things that break any system and we need to find the best overall fit. We have made some changes in the last 12 - 24 months to reduce the rigidity and make things more flexible, but it makes work behind the scenes more complicated and time consuming. Still, we thought this would be worth the benefit to the site users so we have begun the process. I know we'll never keep everyone happy no matter what we do, but we'll do our best. Sometimes we even break our own rules, just to make things work better for site users (but please don't tell anyone).

By all means mention codes in the photographers remarks field, as they are painted on the aircraft. Same with the official designation schemes, there is nothing to stop anyone mentioning Spitfire Vb in the remarks - many do! In fact, I would encourage you to do so as we are not anti-official designations at all, just that we have to work with a one-size fits all solution in the various data fields. Remember that to a computer a Spitfire 5b, Spitfire 5B, Spitfire Vb, Spitfire VB, Spitfire V.b (and so on ad nauseum) are all different aircraft, yet to a human those terms mean the same thing. We need to make sure that only one format is ever used to make searches work properly. If you start going through old documents you'll find that both manufacturers and operators have a habit of NOT sticking consistantly to their organisations rules in any case. This plethora of real-world formats is why Airliners.net found one that it could work with in most cases and stuck to it. Incidentally, I use Spitfire 5b in my personal records, because I'm a metric person and find it more natural to work with. I can assure you I am in a minority on this and it has nothing to do with the way the site lists the aircraft, in fact we have a specialist covering the Spitfire category who is VERY well aware of documentation matters in the aviation industry and in history and we are very lucky to have him on the team.

Things would be so much easier if organisations never changed their names, never changed designation systems (especially during the life of a product), never allowed other manufacturers to build their aircraft and so on. It would also help if they published reliable dates on organisational changes, released production lists and stopped creating new marketing names for what is in reality the same product. Have a look at the history of the Hawker 400XP on wikipedia for a good example and that one isn't really particularly complicated compared to some.

Much of the Editors time is spent researching such things. Sadly (but also interestingly for us), things often turn out to be much more complicated than they appear at first (or on wikipedia). Even worse, much of the required data is unavailable, especially just when you need it. Then there is the need to check the accuracy of the data that is available. There is some really good data available online and in print, but also some duff stuff too - how to tell the difference? Even the experts can't agree on facts a surprisingly large amount of the time. Finding one source of information can be difficult. Finding two that agree is even harder. It's all interesting to us backroom historians, but also problematic when trying to present things on the site.

Each member of our team uses their own preferred format within their personal records and I'm pretty sure most of them will vary from the Airliners.net standardisation in many places. No matter what our personal views on data formats, we are all aware of the need to provide a standardised system for use on the site. We gnash our teeth as much as the rest of you on some of the solutions we have to apply, but we know that if we don't do it, we will simply replace one problem with another - out of the frying pan and into the fire as it were. We have the advantage over the site users in being able to see the problems other remedies may create and that is some comfort when we have to choose 'the least worse option'.

Airliners.net does not use official designations for it's naming conventions and we don't pretend that we do. But we DO base them on them as closely as we can.

Quoting derekf (Reply 4):
Messerschmitt Starfighters

Have a look in the Photo Index for Aircraft types under 'F', then click through to the section for Fokker F-16. Some progress is being made.....more will follow.

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 914 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4502 times:

Thanks very much for the reply Jim. My comments were slightly tongue-in-cheek but I appreciate the efforts that are being made in the data base.

There will always be irritants such as the BAe/HS Hawk situation - when I click to see all Hawks it only brings up BAe or HS ones, depending on which one is originally selected. From an aircraft point of view they are the same and were not in the slightest bit affected by a name change. I would have thought that the generic name would be the place to trap these anomalies.

What I need to do is sort my own records and try make them consistent as well!



Whatever.......
User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 833 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4481 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Hi Derek,

Quoting derekf (Reply 6):
My comments were slightly tongue-in-cheek

I know, but still a valid point.

Quoting derekf (Reply 6):
There will always be irritants such as the BAe/HS Hawk situation

Yes, it is annoying that we cannot currently give you all these with a simple keyclick. Unfortunately this is a technical, not a choice issue. A few years ago, we did come up with a scheme that would have given everybody their cake and allowed them to eat it, but this could not be put into place, again due to significant technical issues.

The situation with the Hawk is worse than you think - bear in mind we have three generic categories for the Hawk, not two. HS, British Aerospace and BAE Systems. Don't forget the McDonnell Douglas and Boeing machines too! We'd like you to be able to see them all together as much as you do, we don't like the fact that you would be required to have extensive knowledge of a types history to achieve this. We've experimented with the Generic names and it works in a few cases, but it mostly gets very messy, very quickly. Rest assured it is a thorn in our side that annoys us constantly - if we can find a way to solve it that does not involve re-writing the site from scratch, we will.

In the meantime, there are some little known features on the site that can help a little. Take the Hawk for example. If you type 'hawk' into the search engine, it will find every mention of hawk in the database, including an awful lot of Cessna's.

If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you'll see a little used feature hidden in plain view. There is some text - 'View unique entries matching your search query'. Click on this and the page reloads. You'll find yourself back at the top of the screen, but now with a number of new boxes with interesting titles. In our case, we want to click on the 'Aircraft' box. It will also tell you how many aircraft types are hidden behind it. Once you click on the 'Aircraft' box (you may need to do it twice) you will be presented with a list of all the aircraft types that the search has returned, in order of the number of photos in the database. Number 1 is for over 8000's Cessna aircraft in our Hawk search. You can scroll down this list and see what aircraft types are there. The three Hawk names we are looking for are listed:

British Aerospace Hawk - 3385
Hawker Siddeley HS-1182 Hawk - 1015
BAe Systems Hawk - 524

You can CTRL plus 'left click' on the names to open them in a new tab or window so that you can see all the Hawks you are interested in. Not quite together, but almost. While I accept this is a work-around and not as ideal as a true 'one-click' solution, it does help unravel some of the mysterys of the Airliners.net database. A little history knowledge helps here, but I think many users would have quickly worked out that there are three entries of interest for the Hawk we are talking about. The fact that there are seperate BAe Systems and British Aerospace entries might well be a surprise for some (most?). Also note that it does not find the T-45 Goshawk as it only works on whole words, you'd need to do another search for those.

The 'View unique entries' tool (or VUE as we shorten it to) is quite powerful when you get to know about it. It is particularly useful for those interested in researching the history of airlines for example. We also use it to find rogue entries. I never noticed it or used it until I became an Editor. I wish I'd known about it earlier as it is a powerful and flexible tool. Try re-doing the Hawk search with the text 'hawk uk air force' to see a different set of results that you can also apply the VUE to. It works hand in hand with the search text you apply, so a well chosen search phrase coupled with use of the VUE function can get you right to the images you want with just a few extra clicks compared to a normal search.

I hope the VUE is of interest to some. Please do have a play with it. It can help narrow down searches to what you really want to see, though a little experimentation is required to get the best out of it.

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlinederekf From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 914 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4443 times:

Thanks very much for that Jim. I'll have a play with that.
I have to say that the database is so good now that I use it for all sorts of information; fleets, registrations, serials, codes etc.

Keep up the good work.  



Whatever.......
User currently offlineIRISH251 From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 982 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4326 times:

On the subject of codes, it would be great also if the upload page did not automatically insert codes that may well not be correct, or at least prompted people to check if a code applies to the aircraft in question. A code may have applied to an aircraft at one time in its life, but not permanently, or just not be relevant to it all.

A common example is the Irish Air Corps Gulfstream IV. Its serial is 251 but it is regularly uploaded as having the code 12-XH, as here:


IV/1916880/L/" target="_blank">View Large IV/1916880/M/" target="_blank">View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jay Selman - AirlinersGallery



The code 12-XH is offered by the database because a Broussard (No. 251) that is also in the database wore this code.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gerard Helmer



User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 833 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4301 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting IRISH251 (Reply 9):
it would be great also if the upload page did not automatically insert codes that may well not be correct, or at least prompted people to check if a code applies to the aircraft in question.

The Editors would like this fix too, it is on our wishlist. It is one of the things that takes up our time keeping things tidy.

At the moment, all I can do is ask uploaders to do is be aware of this issue and please double-check that the code that the auto-complete suggests does apply to that aircraft. I'm sorry it's inconvenient, I know.

Ok, now I'm off to fix the codes on Irish Air Corps Gulfstream 251!  

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlinegaec From Netherlands, joined Jun 2011, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4207 times:

Hi Jim,

Many thanks for this very useful and interesting thread.
Just now, I uploaded a photo of which I am unsure if I did it right code-wise.

http://www.airliners.net/addphotos/b...eady/k1311831725.251ph-frl_grq.jpg

I filled in "TNI-AU" in the code field and didn't list the "01". Could you please advise if that was the right way to do it?


Thanks,

Kas


User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4006 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4195 times:

Hi Kas,

TNI-AU is not a code, it's the Indonesian Air Force.

I think the aircraft is Military but the registration is PH-FRL at that point and you can use 01 as code, editors please correct me if I'm wrong.

Peter 



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4006 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4180 times:

Quoting gaec (Reply 11):

In case you don't have this information, the construction number is 10536, its a -400M Troopship and the photo must have been taken in 1976. The full Indonesian serial is T-2701, later A-2801. Last noted in 2005 according to Scramble.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 833 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4180 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Hi Kas,

Peter is right on all counts! TNI-AU is the short version of the Air Force name, like RAF or USAF.

The correct registration is PH-FRL. Now, this is where it gets interesting in this case!

The 01 on the nose is actually part of the future registration. When the aircraft was finally delievered and the registration PH-FRL removed, the aircraft became first T-2701 and later A-2701. The 01 on the nose is a contraction of the military registration, so normally we would not show it. But this photograph is taken before that registration was applied and valid, so for the period when the aircraft was registered PH-FRL, 01 should be shown in the code field. However, as soon as it moves to its Indonesian military registration, 01 should no longer be used in the code field. The time of a photograph can sometimes be important  

Uploaders need not worry too much about these things when the situation is a little more complicated than normal. Do what you think is right when you upload and the team of Editors will sort it out for you when the photograph is accepted, if changes are needed. It's why we are here.  

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4006 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4171 times:

Quoting GPHOTO (Reply 14):

Another case, please, Jim.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Peter de Jong



This oldie wears no registration, but I believe it is your policy to list the last registration, if known, to ease identification. In this case, an East German military registration number. But the lack of roundels makes it Untitled? And is it, then, still in the Military category?

Another thing, is it maybe an idea to publish somewhere your cutoff points in construction numbers where a Christen Husky becomes an Aviat Husky, for example? I know most photographers wouldn't care, but some would and would ease your work.



The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlinetonyosborne From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 62 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4167 times:

While the subject of database editing is online, is there any chance of sorting out the designation of aircraft like the Bell 429 which isn't called the GlobalRanger, and the EC725 which is called the Caracal regardless of whether it serves with the French Air Force or Army.


Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineairkas1 From Netherlands, joined Dec 2003, 4030 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4161 times:

Hey Peter/Jim,

Thanks for the info about the code! I did have all the other info (c/n, version, date, etc.) and I'm getting real handy in looking up that stuff for the old photos by now haha.

What I did not know however is that TNI-AU is short for Indonesian Air Force, lesson learned!   I wrote in that comment to the screeners that I would submit a correction in case I uploaded it with the wrong code, so if you and the screeners don't mind it if we I solve it that way, I will do it like that.

Regards,

Kas


User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 833 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4153 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 15):
This oldie wears no registration, but I believe it is your policy to list the last registration, if known, to ease identification. In this case, an East German military registration number. But the lack of roundels makes it Untitled? And is it, then, still in the Military category?

Context is important. In this case I would treat the aircraft as being preserved and preserved as the last aircraft it was painted as, which in this case appears to be an East German serial. The last carried serial was a military one, so it is classed as Military when uploading. It does not matter that there are no roundels showing if the registration is a military one. From the Upload Help for the military category - "Check this box if the aircraft on the photo has military nationality markings (roundel, star-and-bar, cross, etc) or a non-civil registration".

Just be careful with warbirds. These are civil registered aircraft carrying military markings. They are not to be put in the military category, they have their own, warbirds. The Mig is not capable of flying at the moment, so it is not a warbird  

I'll look into the Husky cut-off point for you.

Quoting tonyosborne (Reply 16):
While the subject of database editing is online, is there any chance of sorting out the designation of aircraft like the Bell 429 which isn't called the GlobalRanger, and the EC725 which is called the Caracal regardless of whether it serves with the French Air Force or Army.

Again, I'll look into these.

I need to check up on the 429 and see if the GlobalRanger needs to be dropped, which seems possible. The Bell 429 has been referred to as the GlobalRanger (with and without space) quite widely, although Bell do not seem to be using it (and that is a key point). From my own personal notes on this aircraft : "Note: GlobalRanger name not always used."

Companies sometimes use names for short periods then drop them, sometimes the names are official, sometimes not. We need to make decisions on which names we use and sometimes it is not at all clear which is official or not.

Likewise, I'll look into the Caracal name.

Quoting airkas1 (Reply 17):
I wrote in that comment to the screeners that I would submit a correction in case I uploaded it with the wrong code, so if you and the screeners don't mind it if we I solve it that way, I will do it like that.

That works for me - just use the "Correct Info" button when the photo is accepted. It's the quickest way to alert us to any changes that need making.

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
User currently offlineptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 4006 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4150 times:

Quoting GPHOTO (Reply 18):
just use the "Correct Info" button when the photo is accepted. It's the quickest way to alert us

And you're very quick these days!

Thanks for the answers. The Husky was just an example I run into recently, I don't really need information on it specifically.

Peter 

[Edited 2011-07-28 11:03:39]

[Edited 2011-07-28 11:04:19]


The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
User currently offlineGPHOTO From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 833 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 19 hours ago) and read 4117 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 19):
And you're very quick these days!

We have a very good and hardworking team, it never ceases to impress me that the corrections queue is always kept very short. It also helps that we have some site users who are regular contributors to the corrections queue, but who are not Editors. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank them for their inputs as well, it is very much appreciated and your contributions are highly valued by us.

It also helps us when corrections include a note of the source of the data if possible. That might be a website, a book or a magazine article. We need to check the source for accuracy where possible. Some sources are very good and some are known to have problems. Those that have problems obviously need to be treated with extra care.

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 19):
The Husky was just an example I run into recently, I don't really need information on it specifically.

I don't have a Husky production list to hand unfortunately. However, it might be useful here to explain how we split up such situations. For each individual aircraft we use the date of first flight (ff) and compare it to the company name on that date. It can be tricky to sort out exact splits in production as we don't have data on all the first flights for every aircraft type. It is therefore not unusual for there to be a grey area surrounding what name to use close to name change times, but we keep researching.

I won't go into too much detail for the Husky as I am busy with many matters, but I'll cover it quickly as it might be helpful to see an example. The initial Husky design was by Christen and the prototype N6070H ff in 1986. The company name changed to Aviat in 1988, so any ff's in 1986 or 1987 would be Christen aircraft while any from 1989 onwards would be Aviat. For aircraft with a ff in 1988 you (or the Editors) would have to determine if the ff was before or after the date of the name change.

As I mentioned before, we don't want uploaders to worry too much about the names. We don't want people to be put off from uploading because they are not sure of the name to use. The Editors will sort that out for you. It's great if people can upload their photos with the data exactly to the Airliners.net standard if they know it, but if you are not sure, just get as close as you can. We don't expect photographers to become experts in all the many aircraft designs that exist!   You may have noticed when uploading that the drop down menus for aircraft types contain versions that include three dots like this example: "Aviat A-1... Husky" which is for you to use when you are not sure exactly what type the aircraft is. It gives us a big hint that here is a photo that needs our attention. Don't be afraid to use it!

Best regards,

Jim



Erm, is this thing on?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Help Needed On Aircraft Identification Please posted Tue Feb 22 2005 21:30:31 by Fergulmcc
Aircraft With Most Pic On Airliners.net? posted Wed Apr 6 2011 11:32:04 by rw774477
Aircraft On Dusk/dawn... posted Thu Feb 2 2006 00:29:02 by Eadster
What Lens When Traveling On An Aircraft posted Tue Dec 6 2005 15:15:10 by Columbia107
Rule On Same Photographer/Same Aircraft Uploads... posted Sun Feb 22 2004 20:07:17 by Maiznblu_757
Zooming On In Coming Aircraft posted Mon Jul 28 2003 07:51:42 by Paulinbna
The Most Phototgraphed Aircraft On Airliners.net? posted Sun May 27 2001 08:38:47 by Andyhunt
Help Identify Covered Aircraft posted Wed Jul 6 2011 21:05:19 by Meejahor
Shooting On Cockpit Of Saab 2000 posted Sun Jun 19 2011 13:46:35 by Redcoat78
Need Some Advice For Aircraft Videography posted Tue Jun 14 2011 00:10:50 by flightsimer