|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2024 7:54:57 GMT 12
I thought we had a thread on this a while back when it was spotted on the road going from North Shore to Ardmore, but the ex-RAAF Pilatus A23-019 resident in NZ is now ZK-PCG as per a recent post on NZ Civil Aircraft. Would this be New Zealand's first turboprop warbird? Didn't we have an ex-Australian Army (RAAF?) Porter or two fly here? |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 12, 2024 9:10:01 GMT 12
So the CAA (and RAAF) is ok with it having RAAF roundels then?
|
|
|
|
Post by l29 on Feb 12, 2024 9:58:59 GMT 12
If it meets the requirements then why not.
|
|
|
|
Post by delticman on Feb 12, 2024 11:43:58 GMT 12
So the CAA (and RAAF) is ok with it having RAAF roundels then? It may not have the registration applied in the future. It will be identified by the paint scheme and registered as that. |
|
|
|
Post by FlyingKiwi on Feb 12, 2024 20:09:32 GMT 12
I thought we had a thread on this a while back when it was spotted on the road going from North Shore to Ardmore, but the ex-RAAF Pilatus A23-019 resident in NZ is now ZK-PCG as per a recent post on NZ Civil Aircraft. Would this be New Zealand's first turboprop warbird? Didn't we have an ex-Australian Army (RAAF?) Porter or two fly here? The skydiving Porter that was based at Mercer around 10 years ago was ex Australian military and was mostly still in its original military colours. |
|
|
|
Post by mit on Feb 13, 2024 14:46:48 GMT 12
I thought we had a thread on this a while back when it was spotted on the road going from North Shore to Ardmore, but the ex-RAAF Pilatus A23-019 resident in NZ is now ZK-PCG as per a recent post on NZ Civil Aircraft. Would this be New Zealand's first turboprop warbird? Didn't we have an ex-Australian Army (RAAF?) Porter or two fly here? The skydiving Porter that was based at Mercer around 10 years ago was ex Australian military and was mostly still in its original military colours. Now ZK-XIT www.pc-6.com/history/653.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio on Feb 13, 2024 20:59:32 GMT 12
Now ZK-XIT
Clever
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwi172 on Feb 14, 2024 9:42:27 GMT 12
Porter A14-653 came to NZ as ZK-JML/2 and then as ZK-XIT and still active.
Porter A14-693 came to NZ as ZK-JMP/3 until sold late 2011 to become F-GTDZ.
|
|
|
|
Post by l29 on Feb 14, 2024 13:00:11 GMT 12
Yeah this threads for the PC-9. Not a porter. It would be nice to learn more about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebrads on Feb 14, 2024 17:06:05 GMT 12
About 1995 or thereabouts, i spent a day at Thames airfield getting covered in paint stripper dealing to a wing along with the rest of my ATC Squadron. I was told it was a Porter. I don't know if any other part of the aircraft was onsite. I also have no recollection of any top coats of paint that we were removing, I'm pretty sure we were just removing a green primer back to bare metal. If this was the case, which aircraft would that have likely been?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Feb 14, 2024 20:49:32 GMT 12
PC-9 makes a cool addition to the warbird fleet
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2024 7:54:54 GMT 12
Yeah this threads for the PC-9. Not a porter. To be fair I did bring it up in my original post when I asked if the PC-9 is NZ's first turboprop warbird. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 20, 2024 21:45:38 GMT 12
I am not sure of a PC-9 is really a warbird?
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyingKiwi on Feb 21, 2024 18:11:28 GMT 12
I guess it depends on if you define a warbird as needing to be vintage, or just any ex-military aircraft in civilian ownership.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 21, 2024 19:14:08 GMT 12
I define it as an aircraft that has served in a war.
I guess the various assorted Middle East conflicts the RAAF has been in qualifies them. It just seems off to think of a modern trainer as a warbird, to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Feb 21, 2024 20:01:56 GMT 12
I define it as an aircraft that has served in a war. So, none of the following RNZAF aircraft would qualify? Avro 504, Bristol F2B, DH-4, DH-9, Gloster Grebe, Auster J-5, DH-100, DH-104, DH-112, DH-115, DHC-2, EE Canberra, A-4s, BAC-167, Bell UH-1H, MB-339, T-6 Airtourer, CT-4B/E None of which "served in a war". Some airframe owners might heartily disagree with you, Dave. I do. To me, a warbird is any airframe that has worn uniform in military service. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 21, 2024 20:10:45 GMT 12
I define it as an aircraft that has served in a war. So, none of the following RNZAF aircraft would qualify? Avro 504, Bristol F2B, DH-4, DH-9, Gloster Grebe, Auster J-5, DH-100, DH-104, DH-112, DH-115, DHC-2, EE Canberra, A-4s, BAC-167, Bell UH-1H, MB-339, T-6 Airtourer, CT-4B/E None of which "served in a war". Some airframe owners might heartily disagree with you, Dave. I do. To me, a warbird is any airframe that has worn uniform in military service. Just my opinion. Erm, the DH112 Venom, DH115 two seat Vampire and the Canberra have all served operationally at war in RNZAF hands. The RNZAF has also operated Austers and Iroquois in war zones, though not our ones, but our ones were actively preparing our aircrew for those operations. And the NZPAF's Avro 504, BristolF2B, DH-4 and DH-9's all served in WWI. Most of those post-WWII types served in the Cold War, which we were a part of. Really only the CT/4E is a post-Cold War machine. I take your point, though it was not well made. |
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Feb 21, 2024 20:11:32 GMT 12
PC-9 has been used in action by 3rd world operators like Myanmar and Iraq so it is a warbird by your definition
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 21, 2024 20:25:58 GMT 12
PC-9 has been used in action by 3rd world operators like Myanmar and Iraq so it is a warbird by your definition Thank you. I was not aware of that. But now I do, and that is why I questioned it. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnyfalcon on Feb 21, 2024 20:30:40 GMT 12
So, none of the following RNZAF aircraft would qualify? Avro 504, Bristol F2B, DH-4, DH-9, Gloster Grebe, Auster J-5, DH-100, DH-104, DH-112, DH-115, DHC-2, EE Canberra, A-4s, BAC-167, Bell UH-1H, MB-339, T-6 Airtourer, CT-4B/E None of which "served in a war". Some airframe owners might heartily disagree with you, Dave. I do. To me, a warbird is any airframe that has worn uniform in military service. Just my opinion. Erm, the DH112 Venom, DH115 two seat Vampire and the Canberra have all served operationally at war in RNZAF hands. The RNZAF has also operated Austers and Iroquois in war zones, though not our ones, but our ones were actively preparing our aircrew for those operations. And the NZPAF's Avro 504, BristolF2B, DH-4 and DH-9's all served in WWI. Most of those post-WWII types served in the Cold War, which we were a part of. Really only the CT/4E is a post-Cold War machine. I take your point, though it was not well made. Yeah, my brain fart... So, only 3 types of those examples I used actually served in RNZAF hands "at war", and only some of those airframes did. I was referring to specific airframe identities as examples of warbirds that did not qualify as "warbirds" according to your parameters. For example, Brett Emeny's Vampire would be excluded... |
|
