|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 19, 2020 15:17:06 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by agalbraith on Feb 19, 2020 21:17:53 GMT 12
Wonderful!!
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Feb 19, 2020 21:29:17 GMT 12
Wow what a great resource. I've already learnt/confirmed several things from viewing the photos.
|
|
|
|
Post by oj on Feb 19, 2020 22:09:43 GMT 12
Great stuff but I find that if you open a photo then close it, the back arrow causes the previous page to reload all icons from the top again. You can't just get back to where you were looking on the list. This makes it very slow to trawl.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 19, 2020 22:15:34 GMT 12
From the menu of photo thumbnails, right click the photo you want and open in a new window. You get the photo on one window which you can close at will, and the menu of thumbnails stays open too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 19, 2020 22:20:58 GMT 12
My understanding is this is just the beginning too, and loads more photos will continually be added as time goes on.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Feb 20, 2020 6:54:42 GMT 12
What a wonderful resource (already!). I can't wait for the rest to be loaded.
|
|
|
|
Post by fwx on Feb 20, 2020 7:39:14 GMT 12
Fantastic resource, I likewise learned a lot just from my first browse.
My main interest was 75(NZ) Sqdn and there are photos I've never seen before, from collections that I didn't know existed.
Well done Matthew and the team.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbf25o4 on Feb 20, 2020 8:26:05 GMT 12
Well done to Matthew and the team at the museum. The online research capability of these images will certainly assist all those seeking information on the RNZAF from near and far
|
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Feb 21, 2020 21:14:52 GMT 12
Just for clarification can we post photos from this collection on this group to start discussion of specific photos or should we just add a link to the photo (assume we can do this, I haven't tried)?
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 21, 2020 21:35:23 GMT 12
Rights (per the Rights tab of each photo) are Creative Commons Non Commercial Attribution, so you can post it here so long as you say it is their's (most easily done by linking to their photo page).
|
|
|
|
Post by komata on Feb 22, 2020 18:53:19 GMT 12
A very interesting archive; thanks for bringing it to our attention.
FWIW, Several things noticed after a quick 'tour' and given that it's 'early days' for the collection, intended to help...
There seems to be no awareness of the possibility that an aircraft-type can have two designations (it's 'Military' one and it's 'Common-name' one), that it is possible to have several variations on the manufacturers name, and that (as shown with the 'Corsair') where there are two manufacturers names (ie 'Chance Vought') these are both valid search titles and should be treated as such (ie, a search for 'Chance' or 'Vought' should take the enquirer to the archive)
To use two of the archive's aircraft types examples as illustrations of this:
P-40 / 'Kittyhawk'
Searching under 'P40' returned 1 image (with a 'Corsair' in the background BTW), with neither of the 'productive' sites (or that for 'F4U-1D / Corsair') carrying that particular image themselves.
Searching under 'P-40' returned 18 images (aka'hits').
Searching under 'Kittyhawk' returned 72 'hits'.
Searching under 'Variants' (ie P-40 E, P-40K, P-40N): No hits.
Curiously, searching under 'Curtis' produced one image, although not of a P-40.
Searching under 'Curtiss' produced 9 images.
Surprisingly (and as I expected that both 'searches' would lead to the same group of images), there was no 'universal commonality'of images on both the 'productive' sites' each containing ones unique to themselves.
F4U-1D / 'Corsair'
Searching under 'F4U-1D' returned no 'hits'
Searching under 'Corsair' produced 31 images.
Searching under: 'Vought':8 images
Searching under: 'Chance-Vought': No images
Searching under: 'Chance Vought': 8 images
Searching under: 'Chance Vought Corsair': 4 images
While theoretically, all of the above search-enquiries should have lead to the one, central, photographic archive, and as with the 'P-40 Kittyhawk' series, there seemed to be no 'universal commonality' of images.
It should be noted BTW, that I did not do a 'subject search' based on a specific aircraft's serial number.
While appreciating the effort that has so-far been put into the site, perhaps the 'cross referencing' of 'common' images and use of an 'All roads [Enquiries] lead to Rome [The central photographic archive for the particular subject aircraft]' approach is something that should be given consideration,. as it would be a shame to miss out on an archive / resource due to a misplaced enquiry-entry.
Submitted for what it may be worth; As I have no knowledge of who might be who at the RNZAF Museum, perhaps someone within the membership can pass this on to the appropriate authorities.
Thank you.
(BTW: If anyone is needs to know under what 'authority' I make these observations, I am a (now retired) qualified Librarian and Historian and have undertaken Photographic-Archive work for various national and local libraries, a university, museums and various special-interest groups. As a result I retain a certain 'professional interest' in such matters...).
|
|
|
|
Post by rone on Feb 26, 2020 17:17:44 GMT 12
It appears that CMT records do not figure in the archives. At least mot so far. Some of the photos of the vehicles of the Recovery Squadron are a bit suspect. I have a couple of LAA photos that are almost identical to those shown. Both LAA and Recovery Squadron were part of (if my memory is still functioning) a group known as Task Force. David D can probably correct this if I am wrong. Would like to see what record there is though.
|
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Feb 27, 2020 17:19:00 GMT 12
Having looked at the archive and noted some obvious (to me) errors, I pointed these out to the "Keeper of the Photographs", and his comment was that in many cases the captions are those provided in the albums or records accompanying the photos when they were passed on to the museum,
Obviously, if we want the archive to be accurate, then advise the museum of any corrections you may have - they are not precious regarding the captions and are keen to see them accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 29, 2020 10:49:11 GMT 12
Some coverage
|
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Feb 29, 2020 11:42:39 GMT 12
The "Task Force Ancillary units" as alluded to above, were as follows. Note that originally all these units (with exception of the two LAA Squadrons) were un-numbered, but later it was decided that they required unit numbers, so the block 51 to 58 was allocated per ADO A16/1954 dated 26/2/54, as explained below. Note that the thinking behind the formation of these ancillary units was that they were "intended to provide support in time of war for mobile (British) Commonwealth (air) squadrons". (From initial statements made at time of announcement of their formation in January 1952). These units were to be "Composed of Non-Regular personnel, and intended for overseas service in times of National Emergency".
Two Light Anti-Aircraft Squadrons (No. 1, 2 LAA Squadrons), later renumbered as 51, 52.
Air Stores Park (ASP), later numbered 53 in addition to existing title.
Aviation Fuel & Ammunition Park (AF&AP), later numbered 54, as above.
Motor Transport Light Repair Unit (MTLRU, also known as Mechanical Transport LRU, using the traditional military nomenclature), later numbered 55, as above.
Repair & Salvage Unit (R&SU), later numbered 56, as above.
Mobile Field Hospital (MFH), later numbered 57, as above.
Casualty Air Evacuation Unit (CAEU), later numbered 58, as above.
All these ancillary units were to be disbanded w.e.f. 1/10/57 due to a major change in Commonwealth military strategy, which sought to increase the punch of the standing (permanent) forces and consequently do away with non-regular units completely. (Per Admin Instruction No. 47/1957).
David D
|
|
