Warbird Information Exchange

I can see the casual observer not feeling that they are a legitimate warbird, but that just means they need to be educated about the finer points of WWII. Was the war won in Mustangs and B-17s alone? Of course not... Don't let it get you down. Think of it as a challenge to educate. Plus yours likely saw time in the combat zone. How many "real" warbirds can say that?

_________________
.
.
Sure, Charles Lindbergh flew the plane... but Tom Rutledge built the engine!

Visit Django Studios online or Facebook!

Thats like asking if a C-47 or C-46 are warbirds. If it or its type flew in theater it's a legitimate warbird. I'll go with Jerry as say I'd love an L2 to take to shows and fly.

_________________
Andrew King
Air Museum Director with no Museum to Direct
Open to Suggestions

I agree that an L-Bird is a warbird. Personally, I don't think that the "type has been in combat" standard is broad enough. For one thing, it doesn't cover combat types (fighters, bombers) that never saw combat, either due to their effectiveness (eg Buccaneer/Bermuda v the Helldiver) or by virtue of their era and/or place in history (eg. an early 30s fighter that never saw combat, or a short-lived late 50s strategic bomber).

Non-combat models like liaison types and trainers that never saw combat are a little farther from the core, but I think they still deserve to be called warbirds. Young people flew and died in them serving their countries.

I don't think I'd call military painted civil types that are equivalent to military variants (such as the J-3 or Cessna 377) "real" warbirds, and the same for various accurate replica/reporduction/new production types, but as discussed in other threads some of the lines get really fuzzy (like the P-51 serial number that gets jacked up and has an all new airplane built under it). Regardless of whether or not one might consider some or all of these "real warbirds", I certainly think they should be welcomed as part of the warbird movement.

Here's one that to me is really close to the line - An actual civilian airplane that flew in service to the country as part of the civilian pilot traning program... Hmmm... I might not call it a warbird, but I'd certainly welcome it.

So what's not a warbird? Maybe something like a Fly Baby in military markings.

i'll stir up a beehive without getting off topic...... WW 2 ERA CIVIL AIR PATROL planes should be considered warbirds too, although i don't think i would deem today's current cap aircraft with the same designation as the scenario has changed 180 degrees.

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

would the various civilian craft (cabin Waco's, Stinsons...) that were impressed by the Army for various uses but not combat nor shipped to any combat theater be considered warbirds?

guess i thought any aircraft that had survived military service, not necessarily combat, was considered a warbird

Bruce - I would also regard impressed civilian aircraft as warbirds. So you might have one cabin Waco parked next to another that is virtually identical, one which could be considered a warbird and the other one not.

Tom - Great point about the CAP. Maybe we should call CAP and CPT airframes Para-Warbirds!

Ryan: ........Just paint invasion stripes and sharks teeth on it and then everybody will know it's a warbird. (And don't forget the tramp stamps)

Invasion stripes aren't good enough... the other plane in the picture did have some.

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

If this ain't a Warbird, then I don't know what is!

_________________
45-47=-2

I consider my L 4 a warbird. I know most of its history and during wartime it made it only as far as crashing in a field in West Virginia on its ferry flight so I cant say it was in combat or ever overseas but it seemed to have some adventures. It even saw duty with TAC and the 1st Fighter Wing at March Field in the late 40's. And now it is based only a few miles from Langley where they are based now. Would love to get a pic of the L 4 with the F 22.

Flying a 65 hp "Cub" at 70 mph is not as glamorous as the guys flying the Spits and Mustangs but that's ok. Each had a pilot flying them during the war and each did his duty. And today it is fun to hear the old pilots tell their stories about them. My dad flew C 46's in China and even he had some interesting L 5 stories when he was still with us.

_________________
Flying Piper L4-J 45-55209

Excellent pic Mike!

I too consider the L birds every bit as much a warbird as any of the fighters, bombers, cargo haulers, etc.

Basically for me, if it was assigned a military serial number, whether it went right from the factory to the front line, or from the factory to the WAA for disposal, it is a warbird. It is (or was) a military aircraft, and I guess I try not to complicate it any more than that.

But everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

Bill Larkins and I were talking about this the other day, what really is a "warbird"

I think people have it stuck in their head that warbirds are aircraft from the WWII era and even thought some have never seen combat, because they are associated with aircraft that actually seen combat, they automatically think that the aircraft has seen actual combat.

It could be argued for years and years what the definition is, because you have trainers, recon and other logistics aircraft that supported and flew in combat zones, but never fired a shot or was fired at. Is that a Warbird?

I just love the fact that people have their own opinion on what is what. Do we include WWI, Vietnam, Korea?, Desert Storm, or even smaller conflicts such as the Falkllin Islands, Operation Just Cause in Panama, or Grenada, Beirut, Korea, etc. etc.

I think most people see Fighters, and Bombers from WWII as Warbirds, like the P-51, Corsair, B-25 and B-17 and of course the Tora birds.

So, who really defines what is a warbird? Should a someone finally define what constitutes a warbird, I don't think so, because to me, the subject stirs up great conversations and debates about aircraft and to me, that is great in itself.

if it served the u.s. in auspices of the military / in military markings it's a warbird..... cut & dry!!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

So my Yale isn't a warbird since it didn't fly with the US? Jeez, I guess the French Aéronavale and the RCAF don't count then.

I'm just kidding Tom!

I'm all for the definition that if an aircraft was assigned a military serial number (no matter what nation), then it's a warbird. Period.

_________________

well put......... in the markings of any nation!! i stand corrected!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!