warbirds

[Capt. Manuvar]

when does an aircraft qualify to become a warbird? Does the fact that an aircraft was used in military service automatically make it a 'warbird'? if that's the case then boeing 707/727/737/747/757, embrear RJ, Kingairs, and even cessna 172 (USAF T-41) qualify as warbirds.
capt. M

[S-Works]

Even the C152 has seen military service!

[Jinkster]

C-152 is (or was) the lead fleet of what was Saddams Airforce!!!! :ooh:

"Just a Joke"

Jinkster

[Genghis the Engineer]

Normally that type and variant was originally ONLY used in military service.

So an L4 is arguably a warbird, but a J-3 isn't. Similarly a C-47 arguably is, but a DC-3 is not.

Much easier when dealing with Spitfires and Hunters !

G

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I don't think merely being a military type is enough to qualify the aeroplane as a 'warbird'. I don't think of our Chipmunk as such.

To qualify as a warbird, I'd have thought that the type must have seen war service. An L4 Cub qualifies because it was a WW2 spotter and utility aircraft (and it's rumoured one once knocked out a tank using bazookas - but that's the iceing on the cake ;~).

SSD

[FNG]

Didn't an L-4 also claim an air to air victory over a Storch (something about the observer banging away with his 9mm pistol), and didn't some bloke in a Lysander shoot something down once?

[Kingy]

An L4 once claimed a victory over a BF 109, apparently the L4 pilot with the 109 on his tail turned ever tighter whilst diving down towards tree top height. The 109 pilot with the puny Piper just out of his sights chased him down only to stall and spin in from a couple of hundred feet.

I have seen a picture of the L4 in question with a 109 'kill' silhouette stenciled on the side!

My L4 really is genuine a warbird. It has 2years documented front line service between 1943-45. In fact, the vast majority of the J3-L4 series Cubs in the UK are genuine warbirds too. A sobering thought when you see one at a Sunday afternoon fly-in...

Kingy

[MLS-12D]

There is no legal definition, so certainly this is a question on which reasonable minds can differ. ;)

There is an argument (http://www.shortstop.com.au/what_is_a_warbird.htm) that any aircraft type that has seen military service is a 'warbird', whether or not such service was 'active' or not. Thus, Tiger Moths, Chippies, Harvards, Stearmans, etc. are all 'warbirds'.

Is there any real harm to being as inclusive as possible? I can't think of any. Martin Caidin discussed the 'warbird' definition issue at some length in his book Ragwings and Heavy Iron: the Agony and the Ecstasy of Flying History's Greatest Warbirds, and (as I recall) he argued that a narrow definition would (i) promote undesirable snobbery and (ii) exclude many people who might otherwise start off with relatively cheap L4 type airplanes and eventually 'graduate' to bigger, faster, sexier (and far more expensive) 'warbirds'.

P.S. Some people even claim that the Ercoupe is a 'warbird' (!!!); see here (http://www.hevanet.com/pwood/iswarbrd.htm)

[Wide-Body]

Hi SSD

I "believe" that the Army did use a Chipmunk as a spotter aircraft in Malaya or Borneo. No doubt some historian will confirm or deny this. I have certainly see a picture or two of Camouflage Chippies.

All the best

Wide

[foxmoth]

I reckon most people when they think of a Warbird have in mind an aircraft that was designed to be armed , thus excluding many of those mentioned - include them if you want to,as said, there is no official definition. I am just pointing out what IMHO people usually have in mind.:hmm:

[Flying Lawyer]

There’s a danger of confusing military aircraft and the term ‘warbird’.
I think, to be a warbird, an aircraft must have (a) been built exclusively for the military (not just a military version/variant) and (b) either have been designed as a fighter or bomber or, at the very least, have been used in action in some role.

The Boeing / Stearman PT-17 was designed as a military trainer (basic) and was certainly successful in that role but, as far as I know, never saw action in any capacity. It’s a lovely aircraft to fly, and has many qualities (eg relatively forgiving, beautiful) and I'd love to think of it as a warbird but, can a trainer really be described as a warbird if it wasn’t in action in any role?

The T-6 (Harvard/Texan/SNJ), ‘the pilot maker’ was designed as a low cost advanced trainer with all the characteristics of a high-speed fighter, and is most famous for that role, but it also won honours in World War II. Then, in the Korean War, it was used extensively for forward airborne control, initially near the front lines and later further into enemy territory. A much stronger claim and, as far as I was concerned, my Harvard was unarguably a warbird. Well, perhaps not unarguably – some of the guys who flew the fighters occasionally smiled tolerantly at the idea of an aircraft which didn’t fight or drop bombs being a ‘warbird’.

Chipmunk a warbird? A superb trainer, but I’d be hard pushed to say I did my basic training in a warbird - even though it was an RAF Chipmunk. Still, if Chipmunks did see action in Malaya or Borneo, perhaps I need to revise my my view. ;)

MLS-12D asks if there’s any harm in being as inclusive as possible. No harm – it doesn’t really matter - but it does make the term fairly meaningless if it’s too inclusive.
Where do you stop? Any aircraft used by the military? A military variant of an aircraft also manufactured for civil use?

[Boing_737]

I seem to recall from the dim and distant past that RAFG used chippies to fly along the West/East German border to see what they could see. I can definately remember seeing a picture of one somewhere.

Also, I believe the venerable Bulldog was armed by the Swedish airforce? Also, the Bulldog was built specifically for the military trainer market!!

However, I do laugh when people advertise them as "This genuine warbird....." - they're what alcoholic UAS students used to fly :}

Is someone angling for a excuse to wear a bonedome whilst flying?:8

:} :ouch:

[MLS-12D]

No harm – it doesn’t really matter - but it does make the term fairly meaningless if it’s too inclusive.Agreed; but like so many terms in aviation, it's a subjective term that can be employed as broadly or narrowly as one wishes. It's rather like the term "Captain" ... whilst most of us would never style ourselves as such, British Airways et al. don't have an exclusive right to award that status to their employees.

Excuse me now, while I go polish my four gold rings so that I will look extra smart when I next go to rent a "T41 'Mescalero'" warbird. :p

P.S. What kind of a silly name is 'Mescalero', anyway? Did they really think that anyone would ever call it that? Yes, I know that Piper has the Apache, Commanche, Aztec, etc.; but Mescalero??? :rolleyes:

[greeners]

As has been noted already, six of the total of 58 Swedish Bulldogs could carry the RB 53 wire-controlled Bantam missile. The missile casing was fitted at the starboard wing tip and the missile was controlled from the starboard seat. The installation of the RB 53 on some of the Bulldogs was sometimes utilised to train AJ 37 Viggen pilots before using the advanced (and much more expensive) RB 05 attack missile.

But its still not a 'warbird'!

[Say again s l o w l y]

I hate the phrase 'warbird', but I seem to remember that there is a definition of the phrase. Something along the lines of "aircraft that have seen active service or had a significant contribution to the armed forces"

So any machine that has been used to train military pilots could technically be termed a warbird. I think...... I just can't remember where I saw it.

[Flyin'Dutch']

This adjective seems to be seldom utilised when referring to those machines that we all immediately recognise to be 'Warbirds'

FD

[FJJP]

I, too, seem to remember that there were a couple of Chipmunks based in Berlin during the Cold War. However, I think they were there to symbolise the Allied air presence rather than spying...

[Sassenach]

The ex Scottish Aviation Bulldog 124 demonstrator based at Prestwick Flying Club used to be fitted with guns and rockets. It has hardpoints on the wings, and still retains its weapons panel and stick-mounted trigger. I wouldn't call it a warbird, though.

Have any of you seen the film footage of the rocket-armed MFI 9Bs flown during the Biafran crisis? Any of you who have flown its derivative, the Bolkow Junior (see February's Pilot Magazine), will agree with me that it definitely isn't a warbird!

http://www.brushfirewars.org/aircraft/mfi_9b_biafran/mfi_9b_biafran_1.htm

[FNG]

I have flown a Bulldog which, in a previous life, occasionally chased smugglers and illegal immigrants around Hong Kong harbour. Perhaps this makes it a Fuzzbird, Copkite, or Plodplane.

[ozplane]

Note for the Flying Lawyer. The Harvard was used by the RAF in the war against the Mau Mau in Kenya in the 50s. They were armed with rockets and machine-guns...definitely offensive, at least to the Kikuyu!

[Capt. Manuvar]

Sassenach,
The MFI-9/bolkow junior was one of the a/c that got me interested in this subject. I too agree that it doesn't really fit into the warbird category but I think that it at least deserves some credit for few kills, some Nigerian Airforce Il-28s, DC3/4/6, D0-27s and MiG-17s. Even though i think this is more to do with the skill of the pilots (Swedes and locals) than the aircraft itself.
The T-6 harvard also saw some action in the conflict.
Capt. M

[Kingy]

Why does an aircraft need an aggressive capacity to be classed as a warbird?

Take the L series aircraft for example. Some 1500 aircraft were lost and 100's aircrew were killed in Europe between D-day and the end of the war. The aircraft, unarmed, were operated in all weather conditions over the front line and were routinely shot at by everything from hand guns to heavy shells, not the mention the luftwaffe. The War must have seemed very real to the army airmen at the time and their aircraft must surely be regarded as warbirds now just as the Willys Jeep and GMC 6X4 should be next to the Sherman Tank.

Kingy

[yakker]

So is a Yak-52 a warbird?

In USSR the aircraft were used within the airclubs of DOSAAF paramilitary sport flying organization and was used as basic trainer for students.
In the '80s the only customer for Yak-52, except USSR, was the Romanian Air Force. Although it was for more than 15 years in production, in the '90s the Yak-52 was selected by air forces as basic trainer. As mentioned above, Romania was the first country to use the Yak-52 as true basic military trainer. Following the selection of Yak-52 by the economical office of the Hungarian army to equip the Szolnok Repülotiszti Foiskola (Szolnok Military Flying School), belonging to the Magyar Honvédség Repülo Csapatai (Hungarian Air Force), during the first quarter of 1994, 12 aircraft were delivered and started the training flights
In 1997, 12 aircraft were delivered to Vietnam. They are assigned to the Trung Doan (Regiment) 910 based at Nha Trang - the unit used for primary training within the Vietnamese People's Air Force.
The aircraft was modified as an anti-partizan assault aircraft. Two UB-32 rocket launchers.(Yak-52B).

[Say again s l o w l y]

Yes the Yak-52 can be counted as a 'warbird' since it was designed initially as a military trainer. This is why there has been very little problem flying them in the U.K compared to the Yak-18. Since that isn't an ex-mil a/c then the CAA won't allow them on a U.K reg.

[formationfoto]

An interesting question and thread and a question for which I believe there is no precise formal answer simply a range of views based on personal opinion and common usage. I haven't reviewed the main dictionaries but I suspect they will all have slightly different definitions and these will also change with time.

I suppose an definitive answer has to contain some form of qualifier to allow the definition to vary as accepted use will depend on context. To the owner of a Spitfire the definition might well (although not exclusively) be relatively narrow. To the owner of an L4 the definition might be broader.

My personal definition is anything which was designed with the military in mind and I can afford!. Currently therefore I include the Chipmunk as this had a military purpose (albeit training). In the future if I am able to progress to sexier machines I might recalibrate my decision to exclude training aircraft and only include those with a front line role.

So for now I am with the EAA who allow Chipmunks to use the warbird arrivals procedure at Sun'n'Fun.