F-14 Tomcat... is it now a warbird?

[Scott Rose]

Since the F-14s retirement, could those survivors that continue to exist in museums be considered warbirds along with the other types?

[Django]

I would say yes.

[JDK]

I would say no. IMHO, Warbirds are primarily ex-military types that fly for entertainment or demonstration or commemoration. While there's a lot of fuzzy edges for most people's definition of a warbird, that seems to be the core idea. Yes, there are exceptions, however types that are all grounded are historic preserved aircraft, but not warbirds.

Of course there's no official or even agreed definition, so you can choose!

[Chuck Gardner]

No, jets are not warbirds. The name warbirds was directed towards WW2 planes from the 60s up until now. I spent the last 40 years of my life calling WW2 planes warbirds and am not open minded enough to allow toy airplanes into that defined group. WW2 planes were called warbirds before the jet age became available to the general public to play with. Helicopters are not warbirds either and just seem to exist to make irritating noise to bother people. Come up with a new name to call jets and leave the real warbirds alone.
So there!

[n5151ts]

No, jets are not warbirds....tell that to the Iraqis......or the..well you get the idea

[Sabremech]

Sorry Chuck,
Jets are warbirds with round engines that run circles around your round engines! And for a new name for the jets " really cool WARBIRDS".
David

[warbirdguy]

Yes, because any aircraft with a military history no longer serving is a warbird in my opinion.

[Tulio]

Since the F-14s retirement, could those survivors that continue to exist in museums be considered warbirds along with the other types?

Why do you have to ask?

According to your own definition in the past, "a warbird is any aircraft that has survived military service."

No other requisites are given, and following on that definition, IMHO, the F-14 is a warbird, having survived military service. : )


Saludos,


Tulio

[Broken-Wrench]

With out a doubt yes

[Shay]

YES!!!

I think any aircraft that is a part of Military history is a WAR-bird. Currently serving, retired to a museum or flying the airshow circut.

This point of view that the term Warbird only applies to piston driven WW2 aircraft is a very narrow mind mentality.

To me an active-duty F-16 or F/A-18 (or whatever is currently serving) is the exact embodiment of the words WAR and BIRD. They are at the point in history the tip of the spear and are forging their legacy that WIXers and student of military history 50 years from now will be talking about.

All these military types were Warbirds the day they rolled off the assembly line, point blank.


Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

[davem]

I'm with warbirdguy...

If the type saw active military service (preferably combat service), it is a warbird in my mind. It makes sense to add something in the order that the aircraft should be 25 years or older to fall within the category.

To further narrow the definition to only flying aircraft seems kinda silly. To limit it to piston engine aircraft also seems pretty far fetched (So you are saying a F-86 isn't a warbird but a T-28 is?).

How much further do we define Warbirds? Is a 3350 powered Sea Fury not a warbird? How about those aircraft that literally are built around a data plate?

I would suggest a preserved WWII aircraft in a hangar is just as deserving of the title 'warbird' as anything flying. To say an aircraft obtains a new status once the wheels are off the ground simply means that all those warbird directories out there just got quite a bit thinner.

Seeing as this is the "Warbirds Resource Group", perhaps it's high time we all sat down and defined what a warbird is.

[Shay]

If the type saw active military service (preferably combat service), it is a warbird in my mind.

Are you restricting the term to only those aircraft that fire bullets or drop bombs?

You can't win a war without Logistic support. Cargo aircraft, Recon and Utility are just as important peices of the machine as the ones that are "cool". In most cases they're more important.


Shay
_____________
Semper Fortis

Last edited by Shay on Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[davem]

I don't go with the bombs and guns theory, the type having seen duty in a theatre of war works for me.

Personally a Chipmunk doesn't do much for me when someone calls them a warbird - but that is more just me. I would rather include types then exclude them.

[Glen]

Well...............they did go to WAR (and kick some A--! ) I vote Yes

[dors]

Yes, because any aircraft with a military history no longer serving is a warbird in my opinion.

I'm with warbirdguy