You are at netAirspace : Forum : NOTAMs - Site Related Forums : About netAirspace

Back Log Or Is There A Search Issue?

The place for site-related announcements and member feedback.
 

Florida Metal 08 Aug 21, 03:11Post
I was posting some pictures of some aircraft that I had uploaded profiles for and posted pictures up last month. However when I search for the tail number so I don't post the exact picture twice I can't find any of the pictures that I posted back in July. This seems to only be an issue with the "off airport" ones like the ones I took at Ft. Rucker Army Aviation Museum and a gate guards so far. For example I uploaded a few pictures of CH-47 Chinook tail# 60-3451 back in Mid July when I went to post another tonight I couldn't find the previous pictures I had posted when I did a search.

So I was wondering if there is a backlog uploading the profiles in? Because I have had to reenter profiles that I know I have entered before too. Or is there some sort of glitch happening? Again so far this seems to only occur on pictures without an airport code - that were entered as "off airport"
D-OTTI 08 Aug 21, 08:44Post
Your photos are in the database. But some of your uploaded photos are not right named. Some of your army aircrafts/helicopters had a "0" missing. Like your e.g. 60-3451 the correct tail# is 60-03451. Please try your missing ones with a addiotional "0".
Florida Metal 08 Aug 21, 10:16Post
ok thanks. I was assuming I had those correct. I was pulling the info from another site where I have them posted, but when I put them on there, I got the info from this site...

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_serials/1960.html

Where did you find the info that there was supposed to be a "0" before the 3451?

from the site -

60-3448/3452 Boeing/Vertol HC-1B Chinook

3451 (B-10) Accepted by the US Army Dec 8, 1962. Designated JCH-47A. Redesignated CH-47A. 12/8/62: TOS USA as JCH-47A ("J" stood for “Joint" as a result of the Air Force and Army cooperation in developing the aircraft.) Ca.1963: Redesignated CH-47A following completion of Phase F testing. Unknown date: 49th Aviation Company ARNG (Delta Schooners), Stockton, CA 4/11/75: SOC. Ferried from Stockton to United States Army Aviation Museum, Ft. Rucker, ALSOC Apr 11, 1975. Put on display in 1978 at US Army Aviation Museum, Ft. Rucker, AL
D-OTTI 08 Aug 21, 10:46Post
I find many registration at scramble.nl. But at first I try out in the search section if we had this registration with a additional "0" and there were some from the past, so I added this one. Interestingly the US Army use a 5 number registration after the fisical year, but shown it mostly without this "0".
Florida Metal 08 Aug 21, 18:20Post
You are right that a lot of Army choppers having a 5 digit number after the year. That was often the case with Huey Cobras and these days the UH-60s that have numbers like 92-26323. I have seen a few with the "0" before the 4 digit number.

Although at least for American military spotters, the JoeBaugher site is kind of our bible for getting regs.

I also used Aerial Visuals as a source for museum and gate guards, which doesn't use the "0" prefix.

https://www.aerialvisuals.ca/AirframeDo ... erial=7641
Florida Metal 09 Aug 21, 15:44Post
D-OTTI wrote:Your photos are in the database. But some of your uploaded photos are not right named. Some of your army aircrafts/helicopters had a "0" missing. Like your e.g. 60-3451 the correct tail# is 60-03451. Please try your missing ones with a addiotional "0".



What about 0976 for the Grumman F3F-2?

I notice an issue whenever I enter a "0" in front of a number like the F3F-2 if I put more than one pic in it doesn't save the info for the next post. Is this a glitch? if I had just entered it as a 976 it would have saved it for the second pic I posted.

Still not showing in the database though. Or is there an error there?
ShanwickOceanic (netAirspace FAA) 10 Aug 21, 20:40Post
Florida Metal wrote:I notice an issue whenever I enter a "0" in front of a number like the F3F-2 if I put more than one pic in it doesn't save the info for the next post. Is this a glitch? if I had just entered it as a 976 it would have saved it for the second pic I posted.

Interesting. That shouldn't make a difference.

Does it forget everything, or just the serial?

I wonder whether that 0976 is getting turned into an integer somewhere, then failing to match 976 to 0976. Shouldn't be, but it's been several years since I looked at that code...
My friend and I applied for airline jobs in Australia, but they didn't Qantas.
 

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests

LEFT

RIGHT
CONTENT