Definition of a warbird?

Is that a Taxonomic Twitch or a Freudian Slip?

The magazines I wrote for were never on the top shelf or in plain wrappers because they were about machines that had been used for killing people with, rather than the normal human interest in sex.

Make of that what you will. :confused:

wrote for Warbirds Worldwide asked if I worked for a magazine that had pictures of women with guns and a little uniform. I said no

Is that a Taxonomic Twitch or a Freudian Slip?

😀

Having a proprietorial interest in the term in my past, I have done a bit of work on the word.

The first recorded use of it (that I’ve tracked down) is the title of a semi-fictional book on US aviators in the Great War and their training in the UK. No correlation to the modern use and understanding of the term, itself not unusual with words that move on in meaning more than people like to admit – even in this case. Any other examples of the use pre-W.W.II would be of interest, by the way.

There is no official definition (such as there is in, say, antiques or the vintage car market) so anyone telling you it’s one thing or another is either peddling a personal preference (as seem here) or a group or organisation’s preference – as seen here.

I would suggest, personal preferences aside, that the 1960s term relating to, say, the Confederate Air Forces has changed to a more sober use of the term today.

Most people regard the core meaning to include W.W.II era frontline combat aircraft in active civil or commemorative use today. Ragged edges and personal preferences come in to play with areas like ‘warbugs’, earlier and later combat types, trainers, flying replicas and paint-a-likes as have been enumerated here. Personally I don’t see much point in playing exclusion games, stuff moves up and down in status depending who wants to play. Whatever you include as warbirds is only part of the vintage aviation world that I’m interested in, and subsets are taxonomic twitch rather than meaningful – for me. I draw the line at calling current combat types warbirds and proposals to include the Space Shuttle (discussions on WIX) because it was used for some military flights shows another expanded edge for some users.

Some organisations set definitions for particular things, and use the term – doesn’t make them arbiters. The TFC Flying Legends definition is for itself, I don’t see excluding a Spitfire with a D-Day combat kill because it has two seats makes much sense, but it’s their definition and train-set, for their show.

The now-defunct Warbirds Worldwide magazine called itself ‘The Journal of the Warbird Industry’, and we’d like to think that we made some difference to recognising a drive toward history and commemoration from boys’ toys and also from tinkering with knackered machines to an industry restoring and demonstrating historic aircraft. That torch has passed to Warbird Digest, filling a similar niche. Those titles were chosen for very critical reasons and not lightly.

As ever there’s discomfort from some with terms and a need for euphemism to disguise aspects of the meaning. But at the end of the day I’m still waiting to hear a better term that’s going to stick. As usual, the word does the job to tell people about something quickly and effectively.

Regards,

(PS: Most odd reaction I received was a non aviation person who, when told I wrote for Warbirds Worldwide asked if I worked for a magazine that had pictures of women with guns and a little uniform. I said no, and moved rapidly on.)

an aircraft that once went to war!

Sounds pretty good to me.

an aircraft that once went to war!

Also some call trainers (T6,Harvard etc) ‘warbirds’ but they are not really such??

curlyboy

The T-6/Harvard served with the RAF in Kenya against the Mau-Mau, The USAF in Korea, with the French in Algeria and the Portuguese in Mozambique and Angola to name a few of its many operations. What with its use in Southern America and Africa in combat, it must rank as a a true ‘warbird’.

Martin

As to the Tora Tora aircraft such aircraft represent a Warbird type as does any replica so in terms I see no issue with the name being tagged to them too.

Must disagree – they only cheapen the brand name. In any case they aren’t even decent replicas.

See it is very confusing as how is a SU-27 trainer/fighter a ‘warbird’ when some dont class the vulcan as such even though it saw combat (sort of).

Also some call trainers (T6,Harvard etc) ‘warbirds’ but they are not really such??

curlyboy

Is not the term “Warbird” a very artificial term ?

Yes.

Should it be retained or made redundant?

Get rid of it. I associate it with fanboys and wannabes.
I doubt if the aircraft owners use the term much. But having said that, the EAA has a “Warbirds” division and magazine…so some do use it.

Warbird ! http://www.prideaircraft.com/flanker.htm Checkout the Vid’s

I am entrusted with an ex-mission aeroplane which flew out from Madang as the Japanesse were attacking. This Klemm l25 had bullet holes in the tail so would that be classed as a “warbird” compared to other aeroplanes which did not see action?. Is not the term “Warbird” a very artificial term ?

Should it be retained or made redundant?

And what about civilian light aircraft that served during wartime with machine guns attached or makeshift grenade tubes sticking out of the lower fuselage? I know of one aircraft owner who made up a machine gun mount to fire through the removed door of a Reims Rocket during the Rhodesian conflict.

OK, OK, I know 😮

As to the Tora Tora aircraft such aircraft represent a Warbird type as does any replica so in terms I see no issue with the name being tagged to them too.

Not to mention the fact that they’re converted from Vultee BT-13s and T-6/SNJ/Harvards.
Genetically, they’re warbirds even if they look like another warbird.

And the term is even used for “off the shelf” civil types used by miltary forces, as an example there are some Cessna 310s/U-3s in USAF paint…
some may be ex-USAF aircraft, others may not be.

What’s NOT a warbird, IMHO are the civilian Cessna Skymasters
painted in military markings that are not real surplus O-2s…yes, there are differences. Plus, there are many Beech 18s, Navions, and Bell 47s that pretend to be C-45s, L-17s and H-13/Sioux, respectively.
In other words, just because the military operated some of those types, doesn’t make all of them warbirds.

This per chance! http://www.warbirdalley.com/warbird.htm 🙂

I have to agree with Flankermans description of a “Warbird”.
I have always seen a “Warbird” to be an retired military Aircraft that was designed to serve in frontline service for any airforce.

It does not have to have been used in anger but by design it was intended to have been so.
For example I would call a Strikemaster a “warbird”, But a Jet provost a vintage Jet, Also within types there maybe variants that were built as trainers the Hunter comes to mind, In such cases I would term all Hunters as Warbirds as the original design was as a fighter. The strikemaster is less a variant of a Jet provost and more a new type.

The term “Warbird” sticks mostly to WWII aircraft probably due to such types being the first to make it on to the airshow circuit in the 70s and 80s.
As to the Tora Tora aircraft such aircraft represent a Warbird type as does any replica so in terms I see no issue with the name being tagged to them too.

Definitions seem fine – but a personal nit pick, could the definition exclude all those fake Japanese aircraft converted from T6s etc. for Tora Tora Tora. Love the movie but those conversion aren’t really warbirds are they.

I’ll have a go at a defintion…….

“Any miltary aircraft that is no longer in (widespread/frontline?) service that has been restored to flying condition and makes public appearances to commemorate its military service.”

That should catch everything – including those that didn’t actually ‘go to war’ (EE Lightning) plus those that are still in service (C-47 etc).

Feel free to pick holes or add to the definition.

Ken

In think this is good and “catches-all” – I like the Geordie one as well.:D

And I suppose you could argue that the “warbirds” of the 60’s and 70’s went to war in that they were “fighting” the Cold War for 3 decades, quite apart from other localised conflicts in which they were keeping the peace.

Or – we could have a variation of the old Geordie Indian Scout joke……

Said in a Geordie accent……

“Are they warbirds??”

“Wye Noah – they’re theirs”…..

Sorry – I’ll get my coat.:cool:

Ken

I’ll have a go at a defintion…….

“Any miltary aircraft that is no longer in (widespread/frontline?) service that has been restored to flying condition and makes public appearances to commemorate its military service.”

That should catch everything – including those that didn’t actually ‘go to war’ (EE Lightning) plus those that are still in service (C-47 etc).

Feel free to pick holes or add to the definition.

Ken