"Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

JDK · **Posted:** Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:32 am

RyanShort1 wrote:

... got me to thinking whether or not any "mercenary" groups flew aircraft that could be legitimately considered "warbirds" after seeing action.

Sure, I can't see why not.

As to the misunderstanding/s, we're all responsible (here) for not perhaps being clear enough over the terms we are using or meaning at times, and as said, some have wider definitions than others.

As ever, though, it's raised some interesting points of discussion!

Regards,

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Sat Jul 28, 2012 8:46 am

Thanks James.

And now, to "quote" myself from the first post of this thread...

Quote:

What aircraft can we come up with that have been operated in military fashion [edit: ie. combat, or military operations that might classify the aircraft as a "warbird"] by real non-governmental agencies [edit: or individuals] and do any of them still survive today?

Ryan

kscessnadriver · **Joined:** Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:34 pm **Posts:** 20

JDK wrote:

I really don't get what's hard about it. :shock:

You certainly could campaign your CAP aircraft as a warbird - probably smarter as a 'warbug', definitely as a vintage aircraft, and a neat thing to see.

However if you've got an aircraft currently being used to patrol the US borders, it ain't a warbird (yet).

No doubt on the current planes being used to patrol borders not being a warbird. As for WWII CAP planes, I don't see how they aren't a warbird or warbug (I like the sound of that), considering how many of them were used in armed coastal submarine patrol.

Warbird Information Exchange

"Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Who is online