|
|
Post by planecrazy on Feb 15, 2019 9:43:47 GMT 12
Having a conversation over on a modelling forum I frequent and thought I'd see what may
pop up here? Starting to think that the term warbird is a matter of personal opinion, if you
want call anything between a Tiger Moth to a Skyhawk a warbird you go for it!
What about the new built Yak 3s from a while back and the reasonably recent new built
Flug Werk 190s also the new built Texas Airplane Factory 262 jets, we couldn't leave these
off the warbird list could we, even though they a replicas are they still warbirds?
Would imagine this conversation has been hashed over somewhere here already so sorry
if it's a re-post?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 15, 2019 12:32:14 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by joey05 on Feb 15, 2019 12:43:20 GMT 12
My take is that it is the name, warbird. Any bird that has been used or intended to be used for war (even if not actually fighting as such) and yes replicas (to me) are included as they replicate a bird of war! Generally I would say they would of a retired type and either served or represent an aircraft that served for an armed force.
Since the can is opened what would you class as a classic aircraft..................
|
|
|
|
Post by planecrazy on Feb 15, 2019 15:24:32 GMT 12
Yeah Dave knew there is a can of worms in there! Classic aeroplane, I guess you could call a 747 a classic in one sense but in another sense not a classic when compared to say a Beach Staggerwing? How about this, classics and warbirds are only aeroplanes that have featured in Classic Wings magazine, that by which all others are judged!!!!  ? |
|
|
|
Post by FlyingKiwi on Feb 15, 2019 19:09:17 GMT 12
To me it's just an ex-military aircraft which is now in civilian ownership. Not necessarily one that has seen actual combat, nor one which has been maintained in military guise. However where things get complicated of course is when considering replicas and more specifically reproductions. I would be quite happy to call TVAL aircraft warbirds but not a Titan Mustang for example. As for the Flugwerk 190 or the new build Yaks I really don't know but I suppose they're warbirds in spirit! Actually the aircraft in my display picture is a case in point, the Slingsby T.67 is a genuine military aircraft which was used by the USAF, but only in its more advanced M variant, the B model as seen in the picture is a pure civilian aircraft aimed at aero clubs and private owners. So I wouldn't call it a warbird but maybe some people would. I know the EAA have criteria for these at Oshkosh separating aircraft as warbirds, classic, antique etc. but obviously that's still just their own interpretation of it. I doubt there is an agreed 'true' definition of the term.
|
|
|
|
Post by vultee43 on Feb 15, 2019 23:30:25 GMT 12
What about Vintage? Possibly civil aircraft pre 1939 design? Classic post WW2 Civil and anything built for military service or was impressed for service could be a Warbird. Replicas should be warbirds imho if they are built are an accurate depiction of the model ie Flugworks Fw190 or Yak 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 15, 2019 23:41:33 GMT 12
Flug Werke 190's are most definitely not an accurate depiction, I have heard several engineers refer to the design and build being more akin to a homebuild than a warbird. Pieces of shit is another common phrase used. Hence why most of them do not fly.
|
|
?
