|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 6, 2019 7:26:33 GMT
As part of the files that we received following the death of Tony Beales, there was a large hand-written production list for the Cessna 150/152 (it also includes some 172s). This covers 418 pages of tightly packed records and these have been scanned by Geoff Negus. As it is hand-written we cannot use OCR for searching, but should still be readable. This scanned file has now been loaded to the Researchers Corner on the web-site air-britain.com/web/researchers-corner/ www.ab-ix.co.uk/pdfs/cessna_150_152.pdffor further perusal by any member that wants access. We have a similar file for Pipers, but before we scan that, it would be interesting to know if these records add anything to what is already in the public domain / aviation databases. If not, then it does not appear to be a good use of our resources (i.e. Geoff!) to scan more pages. If they are useful, then is there a volunteer(s) to gatekeep updates, or to transcribe the records into Excel or Word? Steve Mitchell |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Webber on Sept 6, 2019 7:42:04 GMT
Hard to say if they add anything or not before they are in a format that can be easily used to check against (excel in my mind as it can be sorted in reg or msn order for example).
That aside, I would argue that all and any source material should be archived anyway, a paper trail is just that, it has to include all the data that feeds into the public domain sources you mention, these still contain bad data, without having other data to check against errors persist.
Happy to help if I can.
Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by andym on Sept 6, 2019 16:31:17 GMT
I agree with Pete, there is absolutely no harm in making this sort of material available, as if nothing else it could generate discussion and input from others. Being military-minded I find these sort of lists quite useful, as the odd snippet of info is often to be found.
On the subject, I have a long list of unidentified Cessna 150/152s for which I would welcome ideas (150 unless stated):
Bangladesh (152)
S3-BEH
S3-BFR
S3-BML
S3-BZM
Burkina Faso
XT-MAS (152)
XT-MAT
Colombia (Navy)
410 (152)
Indonesia
L-1501
L-1502
Ivory Coast
TU-VAN (this might be an error)
Liberia
JAW-302 (both 15071965 and 15072526 have been quoted, as reflected in Tony's document)
Mexico (Navy)
150:
ME-002
ME-003
ME-004
152:
ME-020
ME-021
ME-022
ME-023
ME-024
ME-025
ME-026
ME-027
ME-028
Two of these were 15282887 (later became MP-10) and 15285687 (later became MP-11)
Mozambique
FAM-549 (152)
FAM-550 (152)
Panama (152)
AN-010
AN-015 (ex HP1420AS)
Peru (Navy)
AI507
AI508
Philippines (Army)
PA-501
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Webber on Sept 6, 2019 17:56:47 GMT
Hello again
have had a quick random check of a few msn against the Planebase database and do not see anything extra to what is in there. However it is a very small sample.
Looking at the file it looks to have last been updated around 2013-14, do we have any info on when it was last updated? What do we know for the source of the data in the first place, was it compiled 'live' as the aircraft were produced, from contemporary sources at the time, any data from Cessna as source etc?There is much more than a list of msn and reg though, the notes could offer extra info to what is out there already.
What types are included in the Piper file?
Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffnegus on Sept 6, 2019 18:58:12 GMT
Hi Pete
First, to address something you said earlier: the original Cessna paperwork really wasn't worth saving. Tony used very fragile, light paper and some sheets were already torn and disintegrating. When I was asked to scan his stuff, it was so it would be "preserved". I discovered that was meant literally! Each page was scanned individually, on the glass. A sheet feeder would have mangled at least some of the pages.
I have no information about Tony's sources. But having glanced at each page as it was done, I'd say your 2013-14 update estimate is about right.
I haven't looked at the Piper paperwork yet. Each page of that is individually folded, so ascertaining its scope would take time. All I can tell you is that the first sheet deals with the PA-38-112. Again, the writing is minute. (It made me wonder if Tony was a jeweller, or engraver, or surgeon!) The text often goes right to the very edge of the paper - another reason for not using a sheet feeder.
Nobody is claiming that Tony's work contains lots of original info. Perhaps he's looking down now, trying to tell us that! But even though Cessna and Piper aircraft are of absolutely no interest to me, I think it would be a shame not to ensure that it's made easily available to researchers, wherever they are, for as long as possible.
Best regards
Geoffrey Negus
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Webber on Sept 6, 2019 19:58:33 GMT
Thanks Geoff, the care you took with the scan is obvious in the results, I am guessing it was done as a number of parts and then joined to make the one final scan, rather than as one very long single job!
I would be interested in hearing about what settings you used for it, colour, greyscale etc? DPi?
My main interest is post war, light civil aircraft worldwide. Stupid really as it is a huge subject just for the PA28 and C172's but hey, some idiot has to.
As we have found, keeping a track of aircraft in active production today (the P2006 in this case) can be hard enough, it is all supposed to be easy today with everything on the internet, but that example alone shows it can still be a hard job.
I would be happy to take a look at the Piper stuff if you are, you can get my contact details through Howard if needed.
Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffnegus on Sept 6, 2019 20:29:28 GMT
Yes, it was done in instalments! (I'm an iMac user and used the bundled Preview app to join them up.)
The settings were 16-bit Greyscale, original Target Size, 400dpi.
Descreening switched OFF, as there were no photographs and on my scanner the sweeps are then much quicker.
There are a few pages where there are only a few aircraft notes. These are where Tony had run out of space and needed to use the reverse of the paper. In these cases I inserted black card behind the page to minimise print "bleaching" through from the other side.
Yes, you have chosen a huge interest area. Close collaboration between researchers who all have very high standards would seem to be essential in that field if real progress is to be achieved.
Your interest in Piper is noted - I can access your email address, as I'm an ABIX moderator.
Geoff
|
|
|
|
Post by andym on Sept 6, 2019 20:55:39 GMT
have had a quick random check of a few msn against the Planebase database and do not see anything extra to what is in there. However it is a very small sample. Pete, To be honest, I would not expect there to be much difference between this list and Planebase. They are both likely to have been compiled in the same way, ie from someone going through issues of ABN etc hoovering up information, rather than doing much original research. This is not a slur on either Tony (who of course had his own special interests for which I am very grateful) or Planebase, but simply reflects that there are relatively few people/databases doing pro-active research (rather than just copying info from any source they can get hold of, which accounts for why there are so many errors that get repeated again, and again, and again). Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Webber on Sept 7, 2019 8:33:20 GMT
Hi
yes Geoff, it is a huge pile of data, but all I can do is try to add my bit to that. My research is around the current types in terms of collecting live data, the P2006 work for example. Others did this work on older types when they were new at the time, much as I hope to do now. Older types all I can do is challenge the standing accepted view of things rather than start all over again.
The recent release by the DGAC of the F- data brought up questions about 3 aircraft that had long been accepted as correct (has anyone managed to download a changed file since the first I wonder?).
Andy, I agree there is little chance of finding much different between this file and that in the various database, but there is plenty to correct and add to out there. Working through some Baron data of late I have found quite a number of entries in Aerodata as 'fate unknown' when a quick search on the NTSB database makes the fate very clear. I suspect the value in these and other files will be the additional notes, dates, entries where Tony has put a ? himself and so on.
Most of the work in the various databases is done by a very small band of volunteers (sounds familiar!), so most energy will be taken up with just keeping up with current changes and new aircraft, certain areas will always get more attention than others depending on the audience for the data, so any help we can offer by finding these little extras can only improve knowledge in the round. As with the P2006 file, I am happy for my work to be 'free to air' such that we all get a better picture.
Pete
|
|
