You're not logged in.

User Name  Remember me?
Password 
  Register   Lost your password? 
 
> 1 <

Author Message

mark_munzel


Photographers
See my 823 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 50
Location: Vancouver
Occupation: Dad (plus some engineering to pay the bills)
Age: 47

#1988 2008-02-07 16:28 GMT-5 hours    
The Submitting Photos FAQ states “Photos of once military aircraft now wearing civilian markings will not be accepted to the database. Even though they may have started life as a military aircraft.”. But there are photos in the database of just such aircraft. See here and here, for example.

Personally, I’d welcome the inclusion of at least some ex-military, non-warbird aircraft, especially fire bombers like the Mars or Neptune or test and research aircraft like A-3s and F-100s. And while Beech 18s, DC-3s, and Bell 205s that used to be C-45s, C-47s, and UH-1s don’t interest me, they might someone else here. So if there was an open vote, I’d support changing the rules.

But what’s the official position? Any hope of a change of heart, Ray?

-M.M.

Author Message

ikaris


Members


 Online status  

 
Posts: 5
Location:
Occupation:
Age:

#1993 2008-02-08 07:13 GMT-5 hours    
What do you think about looking at a shining, fast Sabre, or Fresco blazing over the crowd in an airshow? I've always missed them in Italy. And how we have to consider the many Albatrosses around the world, or Fishbeds, or Kfirs still gracing the sky? What about the USAF's heritage flights? What you will do if you see a Tomcat still flying? We all look at the sky, we dream to fly, we have open mind...

Author Message

Ghostbase


Photographers
See my 1,574 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 89
Location: Guildford
Occupation: Railway Guard / Conductor
Age:

#1995 2008-02-08 09:56 GMT-5 hours    
This is a rule which I would like to see relaxed or changed. As Mark points out there are already inconsistencies in the database. For example the Hawker Hunter: do a search for G-VETA and G-PSST and you will find several photos of both aircraft in the database which are clearly wearing civilian markings which bear absolutely no resemblance to their former military markings. Also Sea Vixen G-CVIX. Ikaris makes a good point too, operating former military aircraft is becoming ever more expensive and some owners now rely on corporate sponsorship (G-CVIX is a good example with her 'Red Bull' markings) and this is likely to become more common in the future in display aircraft.

However I can see an issue here. Many older types of aircraft still flying such as Stearmans, Beech 18's and DC-3's were almost all originally produced for military use during WW2. Do we want multiple photos of the Red Barons, Utterly Butterlys or the Guinot Skincare teams on Stearmans? Also, I could upload multiple photos of DC-3's in civilian markings and rightly claim that they are ex military and expect them to be accepted if this rule was relaxed.

Perhaps Airfighters could adopt a 1946 division? Any aircraft which entered military service before 1946 will only be accepted if wearing some form of military markings whereas former military aircraft originally in service after that date will be accepted. However that still eliminates the Mars which is a type I would like to see here.

It is a difficult one, that is for certain, but it would be a shame to lose out on some of the more interesting former military aircraft.

Michael

"Rolling..." B-36H serial 51-5734 Film 'Strategic Air Command' 1955 - Six Turning and Four Burning!

Author Message

admin


Administrators
See my 57 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 2124
Location: S.F. Bay Area, CA
Occupation: Webmaster
Age:

#1997 2008-02-08 10:08 GMT-5 hours    
These are all good valid points and we definitely need to discuss it further. Yes, there are some that have made it through and I am aware of the inconsistencies. My policy has been to go with the markings at time of photo, but if we went by that strictly then a lot of great aircraft would be excluded which are in the database already. If we go with the history then we will end up with American Airlines DC-3s, etc. in the database. A difficult one indeed.

Right now, I'm pretty busy moving the site to the new servers, once up and running fully again, I will chime in. In the mean time, please feel free to voice your opinions.

-Ray

This is the oldest I've ever been.

Author Message

mark_munzel


Photographers
See my 823 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 50
Location: Vancouver
Occupation: Dad (plus some engineering to pay the bills)
Age: 47

#5480 2011-07-15 12:20 GMT-5 hours    
Time to bump this thread back to the top. Lately there have been several US fire bombers uploaded (like these). With reference to my post at top, does this means ex-mil aircraft contracted to US Government agencies are officially allowed on AF.com? (I hope so -- i love 'em and would happly post a few of my own.)

If they are allowed, some database editing might be in order, as all the photos in my link above list the wrong operators. There is no "US Department of Forestry." The OV-10s and S-2s are owned and operated by the California Department of Forestry, while the others are owned by private conmpanies and chartered by the US Forest Service.

Sorry if I've added "revise the FAQ" to your to-do list, Ray. ;)

-M.M.

Author Message

Andreas


Platinum Members
See my 3,808 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 78
Location: Southern Bavaria
Occupation:
Age:

#5481 2011-07-16 04:35 GMT-5 hours    
First of all: I am completely in favour of the Firebombers as I see them as 'governmental' aircraft, and if not owned by it they are at least used by the Gvt. So they should have their place in the database.

Relating to this discusssion are also the 'wannabe' warbirds such as Yak-52 or Piper Cubs in their 'military' markings. Hard to decide there if the markings that have been applied do have a real antetype or are just a fancy idea of their owners.
That leaces room for many option: real 'Warbird' a/c in civil markings, real Warbrid a/c in fake or real military markings, newly built a/c in fake military markings, newly build a/c in 'real' military markings and so on.
Hard decisions that I see coming up there...

Andreas
Author Message

admin


Administrators
See my 57 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 2124
Location: S.F. Bay Area, CA
Occupation: Webmaster
Age:

#5484 2011-07-16 13:18 GMT-5 hours    
Hi Guys,
We've always allowed ex-military aircraft, whether they are in private hands now, belong to another organization, or have been contracted by a government. We even allow certain government contractors, government police forces, FAA aircraft, customs, etc. They are in a gray area, I know, but it's very hard to have a firm cut-off as to what is and isn't allowed. Generally, if the aircraft has been with the military or does some kind of government work, we will allow it.

We know there isn't a "US Department of Forestry", it's basically a compromise to eventually not end up with 50 entries under "USA" for each state, if that shall ever happen. Can we live with that?

-Ray

This is the oldest I've ever been.

Author Message

mark_munzel


Photographers
See my 823 Photos

 Online status  

 
Posts: 50
Location: Vancouver
Occupation: Dad (plus some engineering to pay the bills)
Age: 47

#5495 2011-07-18 16:08 GMT-5 hours    
Thanks for the clarification, Ray.

Regarding your concern about having too many US forestry agencies to choose from, there should only be a handful: USFS, CDF, and the few other states that have their own aviation departments. And until someone submits a photo of a fire bomber contracted to, say, SC or MN, those first two are probably all you need.

My $0.02, but your website.

Cheers,

-M.M.

> 1 <