At the airshow

On May 29, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 29 May 2016 17:04:02 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2016-05-29 16:52, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-05-29 20:37:21 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2016-05-29 16:17, PeterN wrote:
I could not identify some of these planes



https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20show_3014.jp
g
C-47 (DC-3) in the middle).

Yup!

Texans (AT-6) to the sides, (I think).

...and yup!

B17

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20show_2987.jp
g



this has been done millions of times, but it's the first time for me.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3342.jpg

What is this plane?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3323.jpg
F-105 (Thunderchief, "Thud")

Once again, you are correct sir!

And The Duck should know this one.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3337.jpg

No idea - not enough detail.

I suspect that it is an F-86 'Sabre'.
The chewed up panel doesn't help with the ID, but the stick is all F-86,
and the ejector seat headrest cushion is very much an F-86A type.

Panel is wrong.

After a cursory Google search, I have to say I agree with you.

Did you find any two F-86 panels that were identical?

For that shot, with that totally messed up panel there is no way you could
use the panel to make an ID. However the stick and the ejector seat headrest
cushion are typical of an F-86, or similar late 1940s-early 1950’s era.

A distinct possibility is a P-80/F-80 which had a similar stick and ejector
seat.

I doubt that it is the F-86 derivative the FJ-2/4.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On May 29, 2016, Alan Browne wrote
(in ):

On 2016-05-29 17:19, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2016, Alan Browne wrote

Panel is wrong.

The panel is a mess, and there was little consistency among F-86 panels,
from the North American originals to all the variants through to F-86F, add
in
the Canadair variant (Mk 1-Mk 6) panels, and the custom panels for the
Australian (CA-27), South African, Japanese, and other Airforces. Then
there are the
modernized panels found in airworthy ‘Sabres’.

Granted - but it still doesn't look right. From the rail endings, to
the height of the panel, esp. the top of the windshield post that does
not taper forward on -86's as in the photo here.

See: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ml0o6y3w1akg8db/PN1.jpg
where the front top of the windshield mount is rounded going forward, v.

It is an awkward shot, and that panel is ruined, not a great diagnostic
feature.

all photos of the -86 where that part forms a sharp angle:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x050jqd1kq28z8m/F-86.jpg

Also, if that is the wing outside the cockpit, then it is definitely not
an F-86 (or F-80 AFAICT).

Take a closer look, that wing is not attached. I believe that is an isolated
cockpit display with access stairs and a viewing platform/catwalk. The
P-80/F-80 did not have the swept wings of the F-86. However, this might be a
P-80/F-80 cockpit.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 5/29/2016 5:52 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2016-05-29 17:19, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2016, Alan Browne wrote

Panel is wrong.

The panel is a mess, and there was little consistency among F-86
panels, from
the North American originals to all the variants through to F-86F, add
in the
Canadair variant (Mk 1-Mk 6) panels, and the custom panels for the
Australian
(CA-27), South African, Japanese, and other Airforces. Then there are the
modernized panel found in airworthy ‘Sabres’.

Granted - but it still doesn't look right. From the rail endings, to
the height of the panel, esp. the top of the windshield post that does
not taper forward on -86's as in the photo here.

The image was shot with a semi fisheye lens. Nikon 10.5 DX. Could the
built in lens distortion have created the issue. I ran it through the
auto image correction in ACR.



See: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ml0o6y3w1akg8db/PN1.jpg
where the front top of the windshield mount is rounded going forward, v.
all photos of the -86 where that part forms a sharp angle:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x050jqd1kq28z8m/F-86.jpg

Also, if that is the wing outside the cockpit, then it is definitely not
an F-86 (or F-80 AFAICT).




--
PeterN

On 5/29/2016 5:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 29 May 2016 17:04:02 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2016-05-29 16:52, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-05-29 20:37:21 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2016-05-29 16:17, PeterN wrote:
I could not identify some of these planes



https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20show_3014.jp
g
C-47 (DC-3) in the middle).

Yup!

Texans (AT-6) to the sides, (I think).

...and yup!

B17

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20show_2987.jp
g



this has been done millions of times, but it's the first time for me.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3342.jpg

What is this plane?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3323.jpg
F-105 (Thunderchief, "Thud")

Once again, you are correct sir!

And The Duck should know this one.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3337.jpg

No idea - not enough detail.

I suspect that it is an F-86 'Sabre'.
The chewed up panel doesn't help with the ID, but the stick is all F-86,
and the ejector seat headrest cushion is very much an F-86A type.

Panel is wrong.

After a cursory Google search, I have to say I agree with you.

Did you find any two F-86 panels that were identical?

For that shot, with that totally messed up panel there is no way you could
use the panel to make an ID. However the stick and the ejector seat headrest
cushion are typical of an F-86, or similar late 1940s-early 1950’s era.

At least you're not claiming i messed it up because I used a TC. ;-)




A distinct possibility is a P-80/F-80 which had a similar stick and ejector
seat.

I doubt that it is the F-86 derivative the FJ-2/4.



--
PeterN

On 5/29/2016 6:04 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2016, Alan Browne wrote
(in ):

On 2016-05-29 17:19, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2016, Alan Browne wrote

Panel is wrong.

The panel is a mess, and there was little consistency among F-86 panels,
from the North American originals to all the variants through to F-86F, add
in
the Canadair variant (Mk 1-Mk 6) panels, and the custom panels for the
Australian (CA-27), South African, Japanese, and other Airforces. Then
there are the
modernized panels found in airworthy ‘Sabres’.

Granted - but it still doesn't look right. From the rail endings, to
the height of the panel, esp. the top of the windshield post that does
not taper forward on -86's as in the photo here.

See: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ml0o6y3w1akg8db/PN1.jpg
where the front top of the windshield mount is rounded going forward, v.

It is an awkward shot, and that panel is ruined, not a great diagnostic
feature.

all photos of the -86 where that part forms a sharp angle:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x050jqd1kq28z8m/F-86.jpg

Also, if that is the wing outside the cockpit, then it is definitely not
an F-86 (or F-80 AFAICT).

Take a closer look, that wing is not attached. I believe that is an isolated
cockpit display with access stairs and a viewing platform/catwalk. The
P-80/F-80 did not have the swept wings of the F-86. However, this might be a
P-80/F-80 cockpit.


I probably should have shot the sign stating what the plane was.

The other on had no sign, but I just liked the way the plane juxtaposed
with the sun, using that lens. I took my D800 out of over two years of
semi retirement for this show.


--
PeterN

On May 29, 2016, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 5/29/2016 5:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 29 May 2016 17:04:02 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2016-05-29 16:52, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-05-29 20:37:21 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2016-05-29 16:17, PeterN wrote:
I could not identify some of these planes
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20160529_Air%20show_3014.jpg
C-47 (DC-3) in the middle).

Yup!

Texans (AT-6) to the sides, (I think).

...and yup!

B17
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20show_2987.jp
g

this has been done millions of times, but it's the first time for
me.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3342.jpg

What is this plane?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3323.jpg
F-105 (Thunderchief, "Thud")

Once again, you are correct sir!

And The Duck should know this one.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3337.jpg

No idea - not enough detail.

I suspect that it is an F-86 'Sabre'.
The chewed up panel doesn't help with the ID, but the stick is all
F-86,
and the ejector seat headrest cushion is very much an F-86A type.

Panel is wrong.

After a cursory Google search, I have to say I agree with you.

Did you find any two F-86 panels that were identical?

For that shot, with that totally messed up panel there is no way you could
use the panel to make an ID. However the stick and the ejector seat
headrest
cushion are typical of an F-86, or similar late 1940s-early 1950’s era.

At least you're not claiming i messed it up because I used a TC. ;-)

Not with that lens. I noticed that you broke out the old D300.

I know that airshows are not your usual hunting grounds, and aircraft are not
your usual subject. So the only shot where I would have questioned some of
your exposure setting choices, was the first one with the C-47 and AT-6’s.
f/18 was stopped too much and the loss of detail in the aircraft is the
result. You might have done better at f/6.3-f/8.0 @ ISO 400.

A distinct possibility is a P-80/F-80 which had a similar stick and ejector
seat.

I doubt that it is the F-86 derivative the FJ-2/4.



--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 5/29/2016 6:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2016, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 5/29/2016 5:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 29 May 2016 17:04:02 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2016-05-29 16:52, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-05-29 20:37:21 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2016-05-29 16:17, PeterN wrote:
I could not identify some of these planes
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20160529_Air%20show_3014.jpg
C-47 (DC-3) in the middle).

Yup!

Texans (AT-6) to the sides, (I think).

...and yup!

B17
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20show_2987.jp
g

this has been done millions of times, but it's the first time for
me.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3342.jpg

What is this plane?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3323.jpg
F-105 (Thunderchief, "Thud")

Once again, you are correct sir!

And The Duck should know this one.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3337.jpg

No idea - not enough detail.

I suspect that it is an F-86 'Sabre'.
The chewed up panel doesn't help with the ID, but the stick is all
F-86,
and the ejector seat headrest cushion is very much an F-86A type.

Panel is wrong.

After a cursory Google search, I have to say I agree with you.

Did you find any two F-86 panels that were identical?

For that shot, with that totally messed up panel there is no way you could
use the panel to make an ID. However the stick and the ejector seat
headrest
cushion are typical of an F-86, or similar late 1940s-early 1950’s era.

At least you're not claiming i messed it up because I used a TC. ;-)

Not with that lens. I noticed that you broke out the old D300.

I know that airshows are not your usual hunting grounds, and aircraft are not
your usual subject. So the only shot where I would have questioned some of
your exposure setting choices, was the first one with the C-47 and AT-6’s.
f/18 was stopped too much and the loss of detail in the aircraft is the
result. You might have done better at f/6.3-f/8.0 @ ISO 400.


That lens is optimal at f16.
As for air show shooting, It is in my nature to explore new areas,
within limits. (My wife objected to me taking a workshop in
photographing nudes in Ireland. She has the same objection no matter
where the workshop was given.) Besides I have little interest in
portrait photography.





--
PeterN

On 05/29/2016 07:16 PM, PeterN wrote:

That lens is optimal at f16.
As for air show shooting, It is in my nature to explore new areas,
within limits. (My wife objected to me taking a workshop in
photographing nudes in Ireland. She has the same objection no matter
where the workshop was given.) Besides I have little interest in
portrait photography.



You really don't need an interest in portrait photography to photograph
nudes. Trust me on this...



--
Ken Hart

On Sun, 29 May 2016 14:53:35 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On May 29, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 29 May 2016 17:04:02 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2016-05-29 16:52, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-05-29 20:37:21 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2016-05-29 16:17, PeterN wrote:
I could not identify some of these planes



https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20show_3014.jp
g
C-47 (DC-3) in the middle).

Yup!

Texans (AT-6) to the sides, (I think).

...and yup!

B17

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20show_2987.jp
g



this has been done millions of times, but it's the first time for me.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3342.jpg

What is this plane?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3323.jpg
F-105 (Thunderchief, "Thud")

Once again, you are correct sir!

And The Duck should know this one.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3337.jpg

No idea - not enough detail.

I suspect that it is an F-86 'Sabre'.
The chewed up panel doesn't help with the ID, but the stick is all F-86,
and the ejector seat headrest cushion is very much an F-86A type.

Panel is wrong.

After a cursory Google search, I have to say I agree with you.

Did you find any two F-86 panels that were identical?

I expected variants but I had hoped to find another the same. No luck
though.

For that shot, with that totally messed up panel there is no way you could
use the panel to make an ID. However the stick and the ejector seat headrest
cushion are typical of an F-86, or similar late 1940s-early 1950’s era.

A distinct possibility is a P-80/F-80 which had a similar stick and ejector
seat.

I doubt that it is the F-86 derivative the FJ-2/4.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On May 29, 2016, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 5/29/2016 6:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2016, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 5/29/2016 5:53 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On May 29, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Sun, 29 May 2016 17:04:02 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2016-05-29 16:52, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-05-29 20:37:21 +0000, Alan Browne
said:

On 2016-05-29 16:17, PeterN wrote:
I could not identify some of these planes

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0show_3014.jpg

C-47 (DC-3) in the middle).

Yup!

Texans (AT-6) to the sides, (I think).

...and yup!

B17

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20show_2987.jp
g

this has been done millions of times, but it's the first time
for
me.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3342.jpg

What is this plane?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3323.jpg
F-105 (Thunderchief, "Thud")

Once again, you are correct sir!

And The Duck should know this one.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_DSC3337.jpg

No idea - not enough detail.

I suspect that it is an F-86 'Sabre'.
The chewed up panel doesn't help with the ID, but the stick is
all
F-86,
and the ejector seat headrest cushion is very much an F-86A type.

Panel is wrong.

After a cursory Google search, I have to say I agree with you.

Did you find any two F-86 panels that were identical?

For that shot, with that totally messed up panel there is no way you
could
use the panel to make an ID. However the stick and the ejector seat
headrest
cushion are typical of an F-86, or similar late 1940s-early 1950’s
era.

At least you're not claiming i messed it up because I used a TC. ;-)

Not with that lens. I noticed that you broke out the old D300.

I know that airshows are not your usual hunting grounds, and aircraft are
not
your usual subject. So the only shot where I would have questioned some of
your exposure setting choices, was the first one with the C-47 and
AT-6’s.
f/18 was stopped too much and the loss of detail in the aircraft is the
result. You might have done better at f/6.3-f/8.0 @ ISO 400.

That lens is optimal at f16.

If we are talking about the Nikkor 28-300mm you have diffraction limiting
coming into play at f/16 which reduces the central sharpness. Also you shot
at f/18 which is worse. So it is not optimal at f/16, where did you read
that?

All the reports I have read for that Nikkor indicate that at the long end
(200-300mm) best results are at f/8.0 and that stopping down any further does
not produce sharper results. Fully stopped down at 300mm the results are
decidedly blurry. It seems that it would be optimal at f/4-f/5.6 @ 28mm and
f/8.0 for 300mm.

As for air show shooting, It is in my nature to explore new areas,
within limits. (My wife objected to me taking a workshop in
photographing nudes in Ireland. She has the same objection no matter
where the workshop was given.) Besides I have little interest in
portrait photography.

Well it was something different for you. I hope you enjoyed yourself.



--

Regards,
Savageduck