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.

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

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.

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?