warbirds
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
From: DNMM/UK
warbirds
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
capt. M
Moderator
Joined: Feb 2000
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 14,480
Likes: 178
From: UK
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
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
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
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
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
Not so N, but still FG
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
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?
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
From: Bristol and Forest of Dean
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
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
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
From: Canada
There is no legal definition, so certainly this is a question on which reasonable minds can differ. 
There is an argument 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
There is an argument 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
Last edited by MLS-12D; 9th March 2004 at 01:07.
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
From: South East
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
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
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 1
From: Oop North, UK
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.
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,913
Likes: 0
From: London
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?
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?
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 9th March 2004 at 04:01.
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Reading
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?
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?
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,085
Likes: 0
From: Canada
No harm – it doesn’t really matter - but it does make the term fairly meaningless if it’s too inclusive.
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.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???
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 188
Likes: 1
From: Goodwood
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'!
But its still not a 'warbird'!
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 17
From: U.K.
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.
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.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
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/aircraf..._biafran_1.htm
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/aircraf..._biafran_1.htm
Not so N, but still FG
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
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.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
From: Ashwell, U.K.
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!