What constitues a warbird?

[kscessnadriver]

I've got a somewhat basic question, that I thought the warbird folks might be able to help with. Say a foreign military operated a specific model of aircraft and here in the States they were a civilian aircraft. If one would go back and apply the exactly paint scheme and design to the aircraft, how would the warbird community view it? Warbird replica or what?

Thanks.

[FlyingRon]

Depends which warbird community you ask. Some will consider a plane a warbird only if it that particular airframe was owned by the military at some point.
Some will consider it a warbird if the design has been used by the military even if the particular airframe has not. For instance, many of the L-17's you see at Airventure do not fit the first definition. The only way you can tell if they are "real" L-17's is to look up the serial number records. They are indistinguishable otherwise from a civilian Navion that has been painted up to match.

The Airventure judging criteria is as follows:

Warbird Aircraft:
All ex-military aircraft. This specifically means an aircraft that was operated by
the military of any country. This excludes civilian equivalents of military aircraft,
or developmental aircraft that have never been operated in a military capacity.

[Tom Downey]

What about the civil aircraft that were donated to the war service and used here as costal patrol ? My 24 was in this category 1941-1946.

[kscessnadriver]

Good to hear something. I'd really like to own a Stinson 108 at some point and have more than once entertained the thought of painting it up to the Spanish Air Force paint scheme they used in the late 1940's.

[steveinindy]

The only thing I know that gets more grief (or at least points and snickers) from the warbird owners I've dealt with are the RVs and the like painted with "military" liveries.

[kscessnadriver]

The only thing I know that gets more grief (or at least points and snickers) from the warbird owners I've dealt with are the RVs and the like painted with "military" liveries.

But if it is an actual model of aircraft that did serve with a military and is painted to reflect that, its not as looked down upon?

[steveinindy]

Not so far as I have heard. I mean, there are a lot of the "L-birds" that are painted up that were nowhere near the combat zone and so long as the person with it isn't trying to paint it as having been, then there doesn't seem to be too much of a problem. But then again, I don't know for certain.

[WWhunter]

If you want to paint your plane to look like a warbird, by all means do it! Don't worry about what others think, its your plane and to heck with the one's that THINK they are better just because they can own a warbird. Not can afford or will get the oppertunity to own a true warbird. As posted already, as long as you are not trying to impress it on others that it is a warbird, no harm done. Not much bothers me more than some ignorant 'well off' person trying to flaunt their fortunes in life.
If it makes you happy to own 'your own little warbird' then do it.

Some of those Rv's etc. that are painted like warbirds are owned and flown by ex-military pilots wanting to remember their past lives and are a tribute.

[martymayes]

If you want to paint your plane to look like a warbird, by all means do it! Don't worry about what others think, its your plane and to heck with the one's that THINK they are better just because they can own a warbird. Not can afford or will get the oppertunity to own a true warbird. As posted already, as long as you are not trying to impress it on others that it is a warbird, no harm done. Not much bothers me more than some ignorant 'well off' person trying to flaunt their fortunes in life.
If it makes you happy to own 'your own little warbird' then do it.

+1. And if you want to wear a flight suit and helmet or leather jacket, patches, scarf and goggles, go for it. Why do we worry what others might think?

[Bob Dingley]

Just about everything gets to be a "warbird" sooner or later. There was a Vietnamese flight school next door to my unit on Nha Trang AFB. They were equipped with USAF U-17s. They were pretty much stock Cessna 185s with VNAF markings on a USAF paint job. And they were flown hard every day in a combat zone.

Bob

[kscessnadriver]

+1. And if you want to wear a flight suit and helmet or leather jacket, patches, scarf and goggles, go for it. Why do we worry what others might think?

That's not my logic behind it at all. I've seen some of the "discussions" that occur on various forums after the RV types paint them up in combat paint. I figured that I'd just see what the consensus was to taking a model of airplane that was used by a military and making it appear to be one of those.

[Bill Greenwood]

I am not sure if the warbird division of EAA was the one to popularize the term. But when EAA with Walt Olrich,maybe Paul P., started warbirds it was first limited to combat model planes. The actual plane did not have to fly in combat, but the model did.
Then the definition was expanded to include other military planes, like trainers like T-6s, that the military used for anything.
So a Cessna 172, not matter what the paint job is NOT a warbird, but almost the same plane, a T-41 military trainer is.

The CAF started out with warbirds from WWII. As the members got older there was a demand for later model stuff so now it is almost anything goes, they consider T-28s, jets, and post WW II also.

I don't see anything wrong with painting an RV-8 like a P-51 or P-40 or Hurricane. The paint doesn't make it a warbird.

[FlyingRon]

I think the thing is further muddied by the difference between "eligible to win a warbird award" at Oshkosh (which I posted earlier) and what they will let park in the Warbird area. There clearly are a lot of Navions that park up there that are NOT L-17's (though it is near impossible to tell without chasing the serial number to see if it was sold to the military or a civilian customer).

[hydroguy2]

so would this F-86 Sabre count as a Warbird? It was freshly restored and on display at the Montana Aviation Conference this weekend. I think the colors are the South Dakota National Guard unit.

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l40/Hydroguy2/IMG_20120302_182713.jpg

[Bill Greenwood]

Of course an F-86 is a warbird, and folks like Steve Hinton and Bob Hoover say how well it flies. If it only didn't smell like a diesel garbage truck and sound like a bearing running out of oil.
And it is near the last of the era when combat planes were also beautiful.

[hydroguy2]

I knew it qualified as a "real" warbird. I just needed a reason to post a picture. Can't wait to see it outside, should be fabulous in the sunshine.

[Rick Rademacher]

At every flyin with the Piet, I would be placed in the WWI section or next to the WWII aircraft. I wouldn't say anything as I liked the good parking spot. Now that I fly a J-3 Cub, I am still placed in the same spot, next to the warbirds. I am a happy camper!


1681

[JangoFett724]

What's a warbird?

[billla]

This is a question that I'm in the middle of in my local squadron and elsewhere. To me the answer seems very simple: A warbird is a specific aircraft, not a type, that served with the military of any country.

As a genuine L-17 owner (Ryan L-17B 48-1007) and curator of WWW.L-17.ORG (http://www.l-17.org/) I have to admit to some frustration with this question specifically around L-17s. The list of L-17s is well-known and published, and I get about 5 queries/month about particular aircraft. I will apologize in advance for the toes I step on, but Navions don't belong on the warbird ramp if they're not L-17s, and shouldn't be represented as L-17s. The right answer for Navions on display is "This is a Navion in the colors and markings of an L-17 in service with the xxxxxxxx circa 19nn." A civilian Navion isn't an L-17 or a warbird any more than someone in WW II uniform at an event is really a WW II bomber pilot - or a veteran.

Painting an aircraft in military colors and markings honors those that served, and any opportunity to honor veterans is a privilege. I am completely supportive of military colors and markings on any aircraft - I publish the L-17 Military Paint and Marking Guide (http://www.l-17.org/Downloads/L-17%20Military%20Paint%20and%20Markings%20Guide%20V 1.0.pdf) that helps Navion owners get accurate military colors and markings on their aircraft if they so choose. But let's represent our aircraft as they are, not as we wished they were.

I wish EAA Warbirds would clarify their stance - it appears from discussions that any bird in military paint and markings is welcome on the Warbird ramp.

http://www.l-17.org/images/Misc/L-17B Data Plate.jpg

[Tom Downey]

This was used in the war effort, is it a war bird?

1842

[billla]

This was used in the war effort, is it a war bird?


Apply the criteria - that specific aircraft, or that type of aircraft?

Interested - how did it serve?

[Mayhemxpc]

The Airventure judging definition is honest, but that doesn't mean that it is dishonest to paint a plane in military colors. I own an O-2A and I try my best to keep it looking like it should have looked in service. On the other hand, if I owned a regular civilian Skymaster, I would want to paint it up in warbird colors, maybe with a little imagination (like a current USAF paint-scheme.) I think it would be fun and of no harm to anyone. I just wouldn't try to tell people that it is an O-2B. I have seen that.

[snj5]

Just to add another facet, What about replicas? There is everything from the Tora Tora Tora replicas using parts from T6s and BT-13s grafted together to the magnificent ME-262 scratchbuilt replicas. Another example would be the recreated Potez 63-11 in Texas. The B-29 Fifi is not technically flying with engines that are original to B-29s, so I guess engine change is ok... I think when these good folks taxi up at OSH they will be herded to the warbird section without second thought. And there are some pretty darn good WW1 replicas out there, some built mostly as original. Where do they go? There was an SE5a at OSH recently that was as much a warbird as the ME-262s. For me the line can be very clear, or it gets very fuzzy when the first 'exception' is made; and oddly enough, I am ok with exceptions as long as certain basic intent is met to accurately represent a military aircraft, but as M. said above, not try to represent it as something it is not..
I laugh and think back to a certain Supreme Court Justice's definition of pornography: "I'll know it when I see it".
Fun discussion.

[Mayhemxpc]

For replicas, there is the replica fighter association, which has its own parking area at AirVenture. There are some real interesting airplanes there, to include scaled versions of WW2 aircraft and some very well done WW1 airplanes. I think that the "new" FW 190's are awesome. In some ways better than the original run. But they are not the original run. When does replacing parts on a warbird make it no longer "ex-military" (the term Warbirds Association uses)? I don't know. Is the USS Constitution the real USS Constitution? Over the course of its history, I believe that EVERYTHING has been changed...each and every piece of wood and brass fitting (the bell might be original.) I don't think anyone doubts that it is still the original "Old Ironsides." That is probably also true for some of the older serving USAF aircraft. I read some time ago that the FAA will allow an aircraft as a being the original plane (eligible for rebuild or "major airframe repair") as long as the original data plate is there.

For everything else, paint your airplane however you please. Have fun. That is what flying is all about. Be happy that we live in a country where we can fly and we can dress up our planes as we like. Please, however, do not try to tell people that your painted up Sia Marchetti is a warbird -- unless that particular plane is, in fact, a veteran (retired military service.)

[snj5]

For replicas, there is the replica fighter association, which has its own parking area at AirVenture. There are some real interesting airplanes there, to include scaled versions of WW2 aircraft and some very well done WW1 airplanes.

Yes, but I don't think the new replica FW190s, Me262s, Tora birds or the like will be there at RFA....although technically that is where they belong. Obviously, the 600 pound gorilla in the room is money, BIG money. But that's OK. My replica Sopwith Camel has an original data plate and original parts and is as much original Camel as Glacier Girl is an original P-38. But, I don't think I'll be escorted to Warbird show center. :)

[Bill Greenwood]

It is not a matter of if any and how much of the parts have been replaced. It is a question of the origin of the plane.
Glacier Girl is a P-38, it was built by the factory during the war and used by the military. Of course when it was restored many parts were renewed or replaced, but it was a genuine P-38.

If your Sopwith Camel was built as such by the factory , then it is genuine. But if instead it was built in someone's modern shop , it is a replica, no matter how closely it looks like the real thing.
Many replicas are very cool, and great to have at shows and flying.

No one is likely to fly an original Me 262 or a FW190 like the one from Arizona, etc.
The replica may be better than the original, like the much better engines on the new 262s, but they are not the real thing.
And why worry so much about if it is genuine. That only matters so much if you are trying to sell it , like some fine copies of works of art are attempted to be passed off as genuine.

[Tom Downey]

Apply the criteria - that specific aircraft, or that type of aircraft?

Interested - how did it serve?

It was donated to the War effort in 42, and operated as coastal patrol until end of war and then given back to the DuPonts in 46.

[snj5]

Great discussion. We see this same argument a lot with vintage Ferraris, another high dollar historical toy. Just how much of the original item is left? There are more 250 GTOs, etc, than ever left the factory, many claiming to be made from enough original parts to be a "Ferrari". Provenence is a sticky issue and affects value which affects lots of money. For example, Glacier Girl is really more of a re-creation using many original parts from mostly one original plane, which is cool. It is not the plane that rolled out the factory door during the war. I know someone that rebuilt a very famous Ferrari racing car from a few components after the car crashed and burned during a race. Ferrari, SpA, say the car was destroyed. But this car does have components marked with the factory serials. Is it that car just repaired? It's arguable. Glacier Girl is much the same - she was totally crushed and destroyed under ice for decades, and now it has been painstakingly recreated using as many salvagable parts as possible. Very wonderful, but it's not the original plane.
The supposed Spitfires in a box in Burma - that's original. :)

We all basically agree, here, it is just how much is left. Well, the CAA/FAA is clear enough - in the USA after 1926 it's the data plate. That's all it needs from the original factory to be certified, even if precious little else originally came with that data plate through the factory door. A lot of P-51s have had un-original back seats put in, engine mods, etc., and they are still P-51s. There are many warbirds cobbled together from many separate planes. Entire F3Fs have been built around not much more than a data plate, and are legally F3Fs is what I read. It is a spectrum. My point is that we can't be too exact about the whole issue, because every argument breaks down. As long as each is clear about what it exactly is, people can say what they want. Originals, replicas, recreations or whatever are all wonderful testaments to history and the men that flew them, and can all be enjoyed, admired and appreciated for what they are. Best to all.

[Mayhemxpc]

snj,

Personally, I think that your Camel should have been right there in Fightertown! Maybe next year? And in the airshow, too?

Where was it?

I was told that of all the Navions parked in the L-Bird area, only one was a real L-17. On Thursday, a C-337C, painted up similar to an O-2B was parked out there as well. In that case, the operator was trying to sell his deceased father's plane and thought it might generate more interest in Warbirds than in Vintage. Good logic and hard to be anything but supportive for that.

[snj5]

snj,

Personally, I think that your Camel should have been right there in Fightertown! .

You are very kind. I am planning on 2014, the 100th anniverary of the Great War. Although overshadowed by WW2 types, the full size WW1 replica aircraft have a lot to offer. Fun and challenging to fly, they really give an insight and appreciation into the first men to go into war in the air. They cost about as much as a nice car to build or buy, and are quite inexpensive to run and maintain. All the while replicating the feel and characteristics of WW1 flying, which is much more pure and edgy than later planes. After you land, you really feel like you've done something amazing and been to a very special place, that nowadays few people really know. I loved my SNJ and T-28, but the Sopwith is sheer magic. At 8 gallons an hour. :)

Well, off to do battle with the wily Hun over Ypres....

[Mayhemxpc]

Not to drag this too far afield, but a friend of mine set up a small organization to encourage the building and flying of WW1 replicas: www.greatwaraerodrome.com

He just finished (and has flown) a replica Sopwith Tabloid. The advantage of the tabloid is that it is a side by side aircraft, which he intends to use for orientation and training -- hopefully encouraging people to build and then preparing them to fly their own airplanes. Looking at the aerodrome forum I see that snj5 has already seen pictures.

It is a replica, rather than a reproduction, using steel tubing (and very strong) and a Cub airfoil (very safe)

He wanted to bring it to OSH this year (and park at RFA) but he had to start Army War College that week. Hopefully next year.

[billla]

It is not a matter of if any and how much of the parts have been replaced. It is a question of the origin of the plane.
And why worry so much about if it is genuine. That only matters so much if you are trying to sell it , like some fine copies of works of art are attempted to be passed off as genuine. I agree completely with both of these statements. There's nothing at all wrong with flying anything in national markings - but don't say it's something it's not.

[cluttonfred]

This was used in the war effort, is it a war bird?

Tom, if you can document that your specific plane was used in WWII CAP patrols, and you wanted to return it CAP markings, then absolute it is a warbird and should be displayed as such. A larger plane like that might have even carried a depth charge or two, so if you could find drawings of the original mount to fabricate and add dummy depth charges, that would be great.

[EMBLEMHUNTER]

If it was a C.A.P. bird, I woud say so as they were a branch off the military machine .................................................. ..

[EMBLEMHUNTER]

One of the bad things about the Tora replicas back in the day they first were done, some of the airshows were kind of "misleading" and calling them Val's etc and really not mentioning they were replicas, later thy did , but that is one thing that should be emphasized when flying them at shows that they are "replicas" only and not the real deal..........