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

[RickH]

I'm with Sabre/Scooter Mech, except that I like to call them Big Bad Warbirds !!

[Vulture]

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!

Regardless of when the name "warbirds" was derived, it is a name given to an aircraft that performed serivce in the military, that is now maintained/operated by civilians. Regardless of type of motor or date of manufacture the term warbird is an umbrella term. If you wish to have a prejudice, that it is fine but your prejudice should not diminishes the value or contribution that the "modern"day aircraft has provided and can now be branded a WARBIRD.

BE PROUD TO PRESERVE AVIATION HISTORY REGARDLESS OF TYPE/VINTAGE...


TO ALL THOSE THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO PRESERVATION OF AVIATION HISTORY ..... THANK YOU!




**WIKKIPEDIA

Warbird is a term used to describe vintage military aircraft. Although the term originally implied piston driven aircraft from the World War II era, it is now often extended to include all military aircraft, including jet powered aircraft, that are no longer in military service. Sometimes, the term "Warbird "also applies to newly built replicas of vintage aircraft, such as Allison V-1710 powered Yak-9s from Yakovlev, Me 262s built by the Me 262 Project and FW 190s by Flug Werk.

[tom d. friedman]

even if it served without firing a shot or dropping a bomb in anger....... it's a warbird, military trainers too.

[JDK]

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

If the question is are they historic and worth a place in the 'Warbirds Registry' then yes, and that would be great. Are they warbirds, IMHO, no. They're just as important historic aircraft.

But as Bill Shakespeare said, "What's in a name? High octane by any other name would smell as aromatic." That's what I think he said, anyway.

[Bill Greenwood]

Am I correct that the term warbirds came from the first EAA guys, Walt Olrich sp? was #1. It first meant a WWII combat airplane, later expanded to include trainers, then cargo etc. Now CAF includes about anything. How about a Cessna 172 or a King Air or Lear Jet that is really the same plane as the civilian one except for military paint and radios? An F-14 is a combat plane, but I think most people consider it a military plane, but maybe not termed a warbird since it isn't vintage military, now civilain.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[JDK]

Am I correct that the term warbirds came from the first EAA guys, Walt Olrich sp? was #1.

First use of the term I've come across is the book 'War Birds' Elliott White Springs from 1918, obviously a different meaning.

[n5151ts]

'Jets are warbirds with round engines that run circles around your round engines!"

we have a whole lot more propellers per engine than they do!

[skymstr02]

If it has not flown with some sort of civillian registration, its not a warbird.
If it was retired from the military to a museum, its a relic.
Warbirds are synomomous with some sort of post military aviation activity.

This is applicable to a F-14 or an F4F.

[Shay]

If it has not flown with some sort of civillian registration, its not a warbird.
If it was retired from the military to a museum, its a relic.
Warbirds are synomomous with some sort of post military aviation activity.

This is applicable to a F-14 or an F4F.

Says who?

What great authority deemed this?


Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

[JDK]

If it has not flown with some sort of civillian registration, its not a warbird.
If it was retired from the military to a museum, its a relic.
Warbirds are synomomous with some sort of post military aviation activity.

Tricky, that. PA474 (no civil registration) 'City of Lincoln', The Bomber.



Warbird, I think, and RAF owned and operated.

http://www.bbmf.co.uk/bomber.html

[Shay]

If it has not flown with some sort of civillian registration, its not a warbird.
If it was retired from the military to a museum, its a relic.
Warbirds are synomomous with some sort of post military aviation activity.

Tricky, that. PA474 (no civil registration) 'City of Lincoln', The Bomber.



Warbird, I think, and RAF owned and operated.

http://www.bbmf.co.uk/bomber.html

Nope according to the criteria....that is clearly not a warbird


Shay
____________
Semper Fortis

[davem]

After 30 plus years in the Warbird movement (correction, aviation relic movement), this is the first I have heard of the flying vs. not flying definition.

I have heard the trainers vs. fighters, the jets vs. pistons, WWII vs. post war type discussions - each one having forms of merit. But to now define warbirds to being flying examples only, just seems wrong.

I guess I break the definition down to a warbird being a 'bird of war' - are we no longer going to talk about 'warbrid recoveries'??? If we are going down this trail of thought, I think we should be talking about how many "Warbirds" are "replicas" or "reproductions" - as so many flying examples would be so defined by a purest.

I really think we all need to open our minds a little and embrace these aircraft, their owners and enthusiasts.

Just my thoughts..........

[sdennison]

If it has not flown with some sort of civillian registration, its not a warbird.
If it was retired from the military to a museum, its a relic.
Warbirds are synomomous with some sort of post military aviation activity.

This is applicable to a F-14 or an F4F.

With all due respect...any ex-miltary bird is by definition, a Warbird. The world of aviation has evolved and will continue to evolve. Modern day jet aircraft are and will be warbirds. In generations to come, military aircraft powered by warp drive engines will be warbirds to the generations that come.

[vg-photo]

Regardless of the vintage, military aircraft are warbirds. That is what they were designed for, to be birds of war.

[daveymac82c]

Refering to the definition on dictionary.com here is what they call a warbird:

WARBIRD:

"Warbird is a term used to describe vintage military aircraft. Although the term originally implied piston driven aircraft from the World War II era, it is now often extended to include all military aircraft, including jet powered aircraft, that are no longer in military service. Vintage jet aircraft in flyable condition, however, are much rarer due to technical complexity.

Sometimes, the term "Warbird "also applies to newly built replicas of vintage aircraft, such as Allison V-1710 powered Yak-9s from Yakovlev, Me 262s built by the Me 262 Project and FW 190s by Flug Werk

Restored warbirds are a frequent attraction at airshows. Highly modified as well as "stock" warbirds can also frequently be seen at air races, since late-war fighter planes are among the fastest propeller-driven planes ever built. The most popular warbirds for races seem to be the P-51 Mustang, the Hawker Sea Fury, the F8F Bearcat, the T-6 Texan and the F4U Corsair." (dictionary.com)

It's interesting that they make the differentiation between piston and jet powered.

As for my idea of a warbird. Simply, Warbirds are any aircraft (not just airplane) that served in a military during times of conflict. This includes piston, jet, helicopter, etc. BUT NO hovercrafts!

As for replicas I think they should be deemed "Warbird replicas."

As for jets, I think they should be called "Warbirds" depending how old they are.

Maybe warbirds should be defined as "Any aircraft previously used for military purposes in times of conflict/war that would not be smart to fly combat in against current military opponents."

F-14's and soon the F-117 are still very capable airplanes and would put up a good fight, but things like the CF-100 or a P-40 wouldn't have a chance in todays world unless we live in an Iron Eagles III kind of world... which I don't think we do.

Cheers,

David