A serious question

[RyanShort1]

So I posted a bit on another aviation website about our event this weekend down at Cannon Field and the formation flying practice we've been doing. I got this response...

Not warbirds in the conventional sense, but COOOOOOOLLLLL!!

So the question is: Am I just being delusional to think that the L-birds are legitimate warbirds, or is there a broader sense out there they really don't count? I guess most of the answers will be just opinions, but I'd like to know what the historical consideration has been outside of the little San Antonio cocoon. We've considered them real warbirds since at least the '80s here with the late Hardy Cannon and Bill Stratton's work, but maybe elsewhere they aren't thought of the same.

Ryan

[Mudge]

My simple answer would be: "Were they used in combat situations?" Not to say that a particular a/c was used in combat, but was the "type" used in combat situations. If the answer is "yes", what's the problem?

Mudge the opinionated

[RyanShort1]

That's my thinking. I've got plenty of pictures proving combat usage, but I think a lot of them are rather obscure. For sure the aircraft didn't make headlines like other warbirds did.

Ryan

[EDowning]

L-Birds are, of course, warbirds, if they are actually L-Birds (not a champ or cub, in war paint). It's foolish for someone to think they have some position or authority that gives them the right to make determinations of which airplanes are warbirds and which are not. I have had fools try to tell me my Skyraider is "ex-military" but not a warbird because it has no combat history. Most of those people only come out of mom's basement long enough to make those kind of assine remarks.

[RyanShort1]

Someday maybe the story behind our L-5 will surface. We know it made it to the Pacific before the end of the war. We just don't know if it went to the Philippines and perhaps saw action and then went on to Guam, or if it went directly to Guam... likely as a squadron hack. We know all of it's immediate sisters went to the Philippines.

Ryan

[bdk]

They are what YOU think they are. Some people even consider replicas to be warbirds. They tell a story whether full scale or not. Do you derive enjoyment from the hobby/profession? Who cares what anyone else thinks. Even Walter Mitty relished his delusions of grandeur.

So if a reenactor wears a reproduction uniform, is he/she not really a reenactor?

Some people get too wrapped up in the details I think. Just go out there and have fun with the knowledge that the commentator has probably never even flown in a L-bird or any other military aircraft for that matter.

[Jerry O'Neill]

L-Birds are warbirds.
I'm very jealous of you Ryan since I'd kill to own a warbi--- ah, L-Bird!
Jerry

[RyanShort1]

L-Birds are warbirds.
I'm very jealous of you Ryan since I'd kill to own a warbi--- ah, L-Bird!
Jerry

I don't own one... And I'd really like to own one. That said, it's nice to just be a caretaker, and get to fly it on occasion.

Ryan

[kalamazookid]

An L-5 is no less of a warbird than a Spitfire. They both saw combat, and both had brave men sacrifice for the greater good in them. To me, a warbird is a type that saw combat or was directly used to train those that went into combat. L-Birds fit my definition of a warbird.

Just because they aren't the "sexiest" combat type out there doesn't make their story any less significant. Just ask the people who participated in the missions.

[shrike]

I've got a TG-4A (project at the moment)
It was built to an army contract.
It was used to train pilots who also had to be proficient in rifle marksmanship and bazooka usage.
Did it see combat? No.
Is it a Warbird? I like to think so, and the State of Arizona agrees with me.
Tell the 90% of soldiers that served to support the few on the front line that they aren't really veterans

[Dan K]

So I posted a bit on another aviation website about our event this weekend down at Cannon Field and the formation flying practice we've been doing. I got this response...

Not warbirds in the conventional sense, but COOOOOOOLLLLL!!

So the question is: Am I just being delusional to think that the L-birds are legitimate warbirds, or is there a broader sense out there they really don't count?

Ryan

Ryan, I do believe it's time to mount the bazookas.


http://lh6.ggpht.com/doolittleraiders/R ... keteer.jpg

[tom d. friedman]

just because they don't have sexy lines, alot of fire power & speed does not exclude them as true warbirds.

[LadyO2Pilot]

Ryan.......I got the same comments when I flew L-Birds years ago. I would like those people to tell my Father that....he who flew L-Birds in combat in Europe and North Africa during WWII and in the Korean Conflict. All this combat with outmanuvering skills and only side arms. There was an article about 15 years ago in a "warbird" magazine ago about L-Birds which quoted former enemies. I have CRS so I can't remember the magazine or the actual quote but it went something like this. Those enemy troops on the ground were more afraid of the L-Birds than the mighty fighters and bombers because they knew if they saw an L-Bird, the L-Bird saw them and they were soon to be bombed and possibly destroyed.

[Ken]

To me, warbirds are any former military airplane. Can't think of any combat stories involving the T-37B or the B-36 off hand. Don't sweat the small stuff unless, of course, you're counting rivets on that warbird.

[mustangdriver]

L-Birds are, of course, warbirds, if they are actually L-Birds (not a champ or cub, in war paint). It's foolish for someone to think they have some position or authority that gives them the right to make determinations of which airplanes are warbirds and which are not. I have had fools try to tell me my Skyraider is "ex-military" but not a warbird because it has no combat history. Most of those people only come out of mom's basement long enough to make those kind of assine remarks.

Agree 100% The actual L-birds are warbirds.