This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

"Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:09 am

From another thread:
On a side note, it would be interesting to see what kind of history there is with private individuals and fully-armed and capable aircraft.

Ok, not to stir up a controversy, but I'm going to make an assumption that there ARE "civilian" warbirds out there. The MFI-9B comes to mind as a possible candidate. What aircraft can we come up with that have been operated in military fashion by real non-governmental agencies and do any of them still survive today?

Ryan

Re: "Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:16 am

IIRC, Flying magazine tested one in the 70s...I think it had US registration....it might be still here.

If someone wanted to get real picky, Piper tested an armed Cherokee Six and IIRC, Beech a Bonanza (not a QU-22).
And just about every civilian helicopter has had guns hung on it...Bell 47s, JetRangers, Hughes 500s...

Re: "Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:32 am

Ryan, that's not a warbird definition I've ever seen applied before.

There's no formal agreed definition, but having worked in the field for a number of years (and written for a couple of magazines with the word in the title!) I'd like to think I'd have a grip on what it usually means.

Despite the general prevalence, civil registrations isn't actually a requirement - there are a number of warbirds in current military hands (the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight being one set).

What IMHO is a requirement is that the aircraft are used for demonstration, commemoration, education and recreation, but no longer for a primary warlike or primarily military role.

Warbirds are also usually (though not always) ex-military, but never para-military, which is what you are talking about.

Regards,
Last edited by JDK on Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: "Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:37 am

What I was talking about in the other thread is that I'm not aware of any warbirds (operated for demonstration, commemoration, education and recreation) being fully armed with live weapons. I can see no good reason for that.

The Collings' Bomber camp is an excellent extension of the education and demonstration role in the format it is.

Private individuals operating an armed aircraft belong in Bond movies. That's different again to an organisation with a purpose (usually government- or opposition endorsed) requiring armed aircraft for combat or defence.

Just a few clarifications on my understanding. YMMV.

It's an interesting question, indeed, but they ain't warbirds! :wink:

Regards,

Re: "Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:45 am

James,

The B-17s in "The Memphis Belle" movie were fully armed with real weapons; albeit firing blanks.

I can think of a number of Hueys in Civilian hands that are/were fully armed with real weapons. Demonstrator platforms; proof of concept platforms; private contractor platforms;ect.

Para military? So.....if they were involved in a war...saw combat...but were not carried on the rolls of a recognized military force....then they are not real veteran aircraft...aka warbirds?

Re: "Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:39 am

Isn't there a P-40 flying in New Zealand with six live 0.50s? I recall seeing a video of them firing the guns at an air show.

Are the guns on B-24 Witchcraft operational, or are they gas fired?

Re: "Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:57 am

The NZ P-40 fire/d blanks (and IIRC, was 'choked' to do so) and blank firing was my understanding of the Collings Bomber Camp, for the air-firing portion also. Authoritative comment welcome.

I don't see a problem with blank firing - technically / legislatively it might be a tricky distinction, but blank firing is very different at a demonstration to live; as are the precautions required, ground or air, in film or demonstration. I've attended British Army events where the demonstration included blank firing. The stringency of requirement for live fire equivalent demos is hugely more restricted and less value for media.

Blank firing in film is normal - and even so is (in the UK) carefully managed by organisations like Bapty's. Live firing, not. (It's just not impressive enough for film anyway...)
I can think of a number of Hueys in Civilian hands that are/were fully armed with real weapons. Demonstrator platforms; proof of concept platforms; private contractor platforms;ect.

Para military? So.....if they were involved in a war...saw combat...but were not carried on the rolls of a recognized military force....then they are not real veteran aircraft...aka warbirds?

Sure, afterwards, they're warbirds. At the time they're combat aircraft. It's not hard, surely? :wink:

I don't (warbird magazines) cover current military operations as part of the brief. Post-service? Certainly.

(Also note the critical difference in para-military ops that most (all) are by organisations or businesses, not individuals. There may be exceptions, but to be legal, most have to be corporate - or world-domination megalomaniacs - and in fiction.)

Regards,

Re: "Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:50 am

Block 60 F-16's...registered as E-AB.....full weapons capabilty and demonstrated with them.

When I used to work for an air cargo outfit, the owner bought two Lear 25's or 30's out of South America....s/n's were not on the the TCDS, Lear dissavowed them exisiting. The belly had lots of funny looking portals, slots and chutes, while the wings had several hardpoint locations each.

Re: "Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:57 am

Sorry, I really don't see civil registered or operated military-capable aircraft as either particularly remarkable, or 'warbirds'. We could sit here all day listing group 'a', I remain interested only in group 'w' (the civil Harriers operated by BAe weren't warbirds, and aren't my sphere of interest, while Art Nalls' SHAR is both). But don't mind me. :|

Re: "Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Fri Jul 27, 2012 3:18 pm

I'll just simply say that for some purist a restoration is flawed if the weapons are not installed and/or don't work.

I had read, and would love to be corrected if wrong, that at one time Tallichets B-17 had a working bomb bay and bomb sight.

Re: "Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Fri Jul 27, 2012 5:29 pm

There are some photos of the "armed" NZ P-40 (P-40N ZK-CAG A29-448 'Currawong') firing in the latest batch of Warbirds Over Wanaka photos from Gavin Conroy.

http://rnzaf.proboards.com/index.cgi?ac ... ost=163148

A link to one of the photos in his gallery.
http://capphotography.ifp3.com/#/galler ... 2012/5064/

Firing (with live ammo) 'restricted' weapons in NZ is illegal. I assume the weapons are 'choked', otherwise the conditions on their movement (and I assume ownership) would be very strict, and certainly would not extend to permission to fly them the length of the country (CAG is based at Ardmore, Auckland, and Wanaka is near the southern end).

The only show I'm aware of firing happening at is WOWanaka (I'm open to further enlightenment). It helps that the airfield is known for its rabbit holes! It certainly doesn't fire them at the Warbirds Open Days at Ardmore.

Re: "Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:51 pm

JDK wrote:Warbirds are also usually (though not always) ex-military, but never para-military, which is what you are talking about.


So, Civil Air Patrol planes from WWII. Warbird or no?

Re: "Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:08 pm

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).

And - I'm not talking about people flying stuff for a job which is vintage with guns. The COIN Piper Enforce was (strictly speaking) not a warbird when tendering for the USAF contract; subsequently, if we had one flying in private hands, it would be a warbird - IMHO, of course.

Perhaps part of the problem is that many on WIX use a wider, loser definition of warbird than the one used by those who have some stake in the term. Many here include current military or military aircraft that haven't been active since retirement as warbirds as well. That's fine, if you want, we all find some of those of of some interest here (include me out in the 'Space Shuttle warbird' group - fine to note its military missions, but it's yet to fly for recreation...) but it's not part of the definition of you are working in a warbird restoration shop, or for a warbird magazine, say.
jmkendall wrote:I'll just simply say that for some purist a restoration is flawed if the weapons are not installed and/or don't work.

They can be as 'purist' as they like, but they're probably going to run into the law if they do that and are known to have. Be interested if anyone's flying (or has flown, recently) a warbird with fully-working guns legally.

Think we can leave out Rich's fully firing Mustang-fitted NERF guns...

The 'purest' restorations are in national level collections. I volunteer in one, and the guns and ordinance is static, deactivated, and publicly marked as such, as well as secured. The real purists know when to stop.
I had read, and would love to be corrected if wrong, that at one time Tallichets B-17 had a working bomb bay and bomb sight.

Unless you've your own supply of 500 lb bombs that again is moot.

There are numerous warbirds with working this that or the other, many with working bomb-bay doors, gunsights, tail warning radars etc. Getting working bomb racks set up wouldn't be that hard. (Some, I believe, have them. The Collings B-24 does and B-17 will do.) We can think of bombers dropping melons at airshows, or, again, Collings Bomber Camp with dropping inert bombs on private land, using a working bombsight (and a fully working Taigh...) Dropping live ordinance without prior arrangement and agreement? You're either a member of the black helicopter team, or hoping to meet them...

Just to finish on why it's worth getting the definition right. Many years ago when I was working for Warbirds Worldwide, a female friend who didn't know me very well looked lemon-sucky at me when I'd told here what I did after she had asked. After a while I was able to establish that I wrote about old aircraft that were still flying that used to bomb and shoot people: which was all OK. The problem had been she'd thought it was a magazine for those nice young ladies with the camou bikinis firing machine guns... :lol:

Regards,

Re: "Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:30 pm

How about a civilian owned OH-6A with a M-60 slung at the door way that usually frequents a Machine gun shoot here in the states????

Re: "Capable" / "Civilian" Warbird history

Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:42 am

James,

I consider you a friend, so I mean this nicely, but I think you have totally and completely mis-understood the point of THIS thread. That other thread got me to thinking whether or not any "mercenary" groups flew aircraft that could be legitimately considered "warbirds" after seeing action. The reference to the MFI-9B should have told you that. I don't know if Count Rosen was backed by various other governments, but I would think that any of the aircraft that his little band operated in Biafra could be legitimate "warbirds" even if they were not owned and operated by the Biafran government. I was wondering out loud if there are other examples of such. Not so much whether or not a current aircraft has operating weapons systems.

Ryan
Post a reply