Unknown Category

Ztex

Ken,

It seems that the Unknown listing has got a bit weird....

http://www.airport-data.com/search/search2.html?field=tail&code=Unknown&search=Search

I don't know a real solution for this type of entry...

any ideas from the regulars?

Zane

ConnorShepard

It appears that people are creating extra airframes in order to fill in known information about an aircraft. I would keep the "Various Various C/N Various" entry and delete the rest. The known information can then be described in the photo's caption.

Connor

DougRobertson

Suggest the grouped formation flight photos uploaded under UNKNOWN be moved to the Airport category over which they were photographed. Some UNKNOWN photos have 8-10 or so aircraft in each photo so registration numbers lack should not be the driver here. If all of one aircraft type-so state and upload them against the airport or airfield overflown. That would be a logical solution.

Ztex

Like Doug says, I put the unknown formation stuff under airports with my own subcategory of "Airshows"

ConnorShepard

Like Doug says, I put the unknown formation stuff under airports with my own subcategory of "Airshows"

Agreed. Then the "UNKNOWN" registration would be reserved for individual aircraft.

Connor

ChrisHall

just had a quick look through the "UNKNOWN" pages and several are very easy to ID with very little searching

the Qatar C-17 is A7-MAB, the only one in full Qatar colours

Lockheed Neptune SP-2H at the RAF Museum, Cosford is 204

MIG-21PF at the RAF Museum, Cosford is G-BRAM

de Havilland Comet 1A at the RAF Museum, Cosford is G-APAS

I agree with Doug that the photo's with several aircraft in them should be moved to the Airport category, anything I upload without an ID I always add to the Airport category, then amend it if and when I find an ID

PeterNicholson

To follow-on from Chris Hall, four more identifiable photographs for which profiles already exist are:

AC438596 is Typhoon FGR.4 ZJ918

AC438595 is Lynx HAS3 ZD251

AC343129 is AB-212 5D-HB

AC343131 is Typhoon S 7L-WF

Ken, can these be linked with these profiles and thus remove them from the Unknown category?

Peter

GlennE.Chatfield

I also found several easily identifiable planes this morning, including some on the USS Intrepid Museum. I just emailed the photographers and I hope they will change them (one already e-mailed me with thanks!)

Helicopterfriend

Glenn E. Chatfield: "I also found several easily identifiable planes this morning, including some on the USS Intrepid Museum. I just emailed the photographers and I hope they will change them (one already e-mailed me with thanks!)"

It was so easy to find after you gave me directions, Thanks Glenn

MalcolmClarke

I’m pleased that Zane has raised this subject as these images are in some ways lost in the database. I’m uncertain whether my ‘unknown’ entries have gone down the correct path. Almost always one can identify the manufacturer and basic type, which I have done, only entering ‘unknown’ against the reg and cn. The entry then has its own place in the database rather than being lost among the ‘unknown/unknown’. One benefit of this is that there may be a greater likelihood of someone adding to the identity at a later date.

I wonder whether others agree that this is the right course to take.

However I have only had limited success in that four entries are disassociated form the respective images, i.e. the images are definitely in the database but don’t appear with the database entry. Four examples are the Stratojet, Ferranti Phoenix, Pou de Ciel and the Goblin engine. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how this may be rectified?

Rather than raise a further forum thread, may I ask for some clarification of ways to request database corrections.

On a number of occasions I have used the Submit data or post comment of this aircraft for such, but this seems only to result in a record of the comments in the database entry rather than effecting the suggested changes. A case in point is tail code 51 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21Bis C/N 75081637 where I pointed out that 11 of the 12 images are incorrectly located.

How should I have addressed this? Should I have emailed all those involved – could be quite a task at times, sent a request to Ken or …..?

Malcolm.

GlennE.Chatfield

I've also submitted data that just becomes a comment on the bottom rather than the corrective action, which is why I switched to the forum.

Can you link me to your Stratojet photo? Maybe I can ID it - where was it photographed?

MalcolmClarke

Glenn.

can you try pasting this into your browser

http://newimages.fotopic.net/?iid=1f5zqf&noresize=1&nostamp=1&quality=70

otherwise it is in

http://malcolmclarkesaircraftgallery.fotopic.net

under 'Aviation photos from my collection.'

Thanks,

Malcolm.

ChrisHall

a few more IDed

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/341651.html

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/341649.html

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/340125.html

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/340123.html

are all G-CDXR 2006 Day Jg REPLICA FOKKER DR1, C/N: PFA 238-14043

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/043460.html

is D-EDLT, Piper PA-28R-201, C/N: 28R7837093

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/158468.html

is N648AA, 1991 Boeing 757-223, C/N: 24606

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/528682.html

is OH-AFJ, 1994 Boeing 757-28A, C/N: 26269

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/333670.html

is 574/18 (German AF) 1918 A.E.G. G.IV, C/N unknown

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/333277.html

is KB336 (RAF) 1944 de Havilland D.H.98 Mosquito B XX, C/N unknown

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/333273.html

is N5492 (RNAS) 1966 Sopwith Triplane Replica C/N unknown

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/333274.html

is C-FDTX 1961 Lockheed L-1329 JetStar 6 C/N 5018

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/333270.html

is 9892 (RCAF) Bristol Bolingbroke IVT C/N unknown

GlennE.Chatfield

Hi Malcolm,

WOW. Better- sharper resolution would be helpful. That tail number is difficult, but it starts with a 2 and ends with an 8 or 9, 8 being my best eye-balling. in between it looks to be ones. So my guess, looking at all the available serials in the 1952 FY, would be 52-118, then the tail number would be 2118. What do you think?

Glenn

MalcolmClarke

Hello Glenn.

Thanks for your kind interest. I’ve examined the original once more and am happy to accept your identification and will update accordingly.

Yes it is a rather poor image but I have mixed feelings about the improvement of such old film photos.

This, for example, I spent some time over but to have pushed it any further would likely to have resulted in a rather artificial appearance.

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/396552.html

The Stratojet is much less likely to reach such a level as it lacks detail, has an unfortunate pale band and is a little out of focus. But I will have another look at it.

It can be a labour of love though.

This one, which came from my old Canon EOS600 film camera, is the result of an hour of ‘Photoshopping’ and it isn’t far off DLSR quality but I wouldn’t normally devote such time to a single image.

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/434878.html

It’s heartwarming to see the interest in clearing up the ‘unknown, unknowns’ although it may mean some work for Ken. The database generally has many more errors and it is to be hoped that as many members as possible will endeavour to request corrections at every opportunity – oh, and perhaps work a bit harder on pre upload identification, me too of course!

GlennE.Chatfield

Malcolm, I liked the shot of the B-47 as it was, just the tail needed sharpening for a definitive ID. But I think I got it right anyway.

Last night I skimmed through the "unknowns" and found almost a dozen I could ID and email the appropriate photographers. I think if those of us who are able to ID planes were to take some occasional time to skim through and ID what we can, we will substantially lower the number of Unknowns. Large formation shots are troublesome - maybe the suggestion of listing them at the airport might be of value for them - or maybe there could be a "formation" section!

Another thing I see are the many, many long-distance shots that I question as to their value. I wonder why some photographers post these shots.

MalcolmClarke

Another thing I see are the many, many long-distance shots that I question as to their value. I wonder why some photographers post these shots.

I too have asked myself the same question many times but and can only guess at the answer. Pocket digital cameras and mobile phones, together with access to the internet are no doubt the culprits and I fail to understand why anyone would believe that such images have any value.

Is there any possibility of introducing additional uploading criteria?

Is this worth a general discussion? Anyone wish to comment?

Malcolm.

ChrisHall

We know that Ken provides this site as a hobby. We also know he is busy with his day job, so cannot monitor the site fulltime.

So as a suggestion, how about having a small team of photograph screener's (like many other photo sites) but without some of the strict screening conditions. Just to check that the basic details and ID's are correct.

Ztex

Malcolm,

Those are great shots! Love the Shack photo! and the Tornado pic is indeed a nice shot!

I enjoy prowling around your collection of photos.

The European stuff is always interestingly different than what we in the US see.

Thanks!

MalcolmClarke

So my guess, looking at all the available serials in the 1952 FY, would be 52-118, then the tail number would be 2118. What do you think?

Glenn.

I'm having second thoughts after checking out this reg with Scramble. many of the registrations in this series are F-86H's.

Co-incidentally an image has been recently uploaded to Airliners.net

http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA---Air/Boeing-B-47E-Stratojet/1614900/M/

which is of a B-47 of similar vintage operating in the UK at around the same time.

I doubt that it is the same airframe as tail decor is different but it would seem more likely that my image was from the same series allocation.

Any further thoughts?

Malcolm.