1945

[drgondog]

Theres a vast difference between having something on the drawing board and actually having the same in the air as a protoype.

Although they are not "true" WW2 aircraft as per the wording, they are still WW2 era aircraft having been in the air at, or shortly after hostilities ended.

Thats why I consider the F7F, F8F, Skyraider and P80 as being WW2 aircraft.

The Skyraider was already 4 months into testing and evaluation when the war ended.
The Bearcat was already in production and already had a squadron enroute to Japan when the war ended.
The Tigercat was already flying in 1943, so it too is a true WW2 warbird, even though fate would have it not have a role in the war.
The P80 was in production when the war ended and squadrons and groups being formed.

Agree your points, would add that the P-80 was not only in production but had a pair deployed to MTO for evaluation several months before VE Day and several squadrons formed before VJ day.

F8 deployed to Guam (?) in July 45 for USMC night fighter role but fired no shots.

P-51H like the P-80 but first squadrons not fully equipped until July 1945. All stateside.

I suppose one could state that an a/c that did not fire a shot is not a 'warbird' but that is stretching the definition of time it entered service with intent to go to war.

I do note that the He 280 was one of the types claimed by 355th FG in July 1944 at Lechfeld.

 

[Soren]

Anything that saw service or was tested in a warzone during the period January 1939 to September 1945 is a WW2 warbird in my opinion. Designs from the period I would list as WW2 warbird designs.

 

[davparlr]

Anything that saw service or was tested in a warzone during the period January 1939 to September 1945 is a WW2 warbird in my opinion. Designs from the period I would list as WW2 warbird designs.

So, let me understand. All the German and Japanese experimental and prototype aircraft tested are included as WW2 warbirds because they were all tested in a war zone, whereas American experimental and prototype are not war birds because they were tested in a non-war zone? Seems a bit bias.

In my opinion, if the first preproduction or production aircraft was delivered to the service before the end of the war, May 8, 1945, in Europe (for ETO) and Aug 15, 1945, for PTO, they are WW2 war birds.

 

[Soren]

So, let me understand. All the German and Japanese experimental and prototype aircraft tested are included as WW2 warbirds because they were all tested in a war zone, whereas American experimental and prototype are not war birds because they were tested in a non-war zone? Seems a bit bias.

No davparlr, it hasn't got anything to do with bias, its about wether an aircraft was ever used or tested against its foes or not. There are several German birds which don't make list because of this as-well, and the He-280 is one of them, its a WW2 fighter design/prototype which was successfully developed and tested and performed well showing some good promise, but it never entered service or saw any combat thus it is not a warbird.

 

[seangday]

As drgondog says anything that was designed :with intent to go to war: pretty much covers what I think would be classed as a warbird. Never mind some planes not having fired a shot or even taken part in combat, they had been designed for combat in Europe and the Pacific. Surely this allow them to classed as warbirds?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

That is wrong in my opinion.

A WW2 aircraft should be defined as:

Any aircraft that was built and flown between before Sept. 1945. Whether it was flown in a combat area has nothing to do with it. Just because an aircraft was flown in the United States does not make it a "Non WW2 aircraft".

 

[Vincenzo]

That is wrong in my opinion.

A WW2 aircraft should be defined as:

Any aircraft that was built and flown between before Sept. 1945. Whether it was flown in a combat area has nothing to do with it. Just because an aircraft was flown in the United States does not make it a "Non WW2 aircraft".

imho your definition it's for a plane that flown before sept. 45 not for a actual WWII plane. a plane of WWII it's a plane used in WWII so a combat plane need combat in WWII, a training plane need flying training mission in WWII, a trasport plane need flying trasport mission in WWII etc...

 

[drgondog]

That is wrong in my opinion.

A WW2 aircraft should be defined as:

Any aircraft that was built and flown between before Sept. 1945. Whether it was flown in a combat area has nothing to do with it. Just because an aircraft was flown in the United States does not make it a "Non WW2 aircraft".

I totally agree. At least here in the states nobody is going to quibble over the definition of F8F or P-51H or even He 280 as a 'warbird'.

The P-80 and P-51H could easily have been deployed as interceptors to Guam, Iwo Jima and Okinawa before the war ended but USAAF made decision to preserve them for Post WWII knowing the budgets were going to be slashed.

 

[Soren]

IMO there's a difference between a WW2 aircraft and a WW2 warbird. A warbird must have seen action somehow IMO, but that's just me, I guess some of you others don't agree with that.

 

[Amsel]

The Bearcat is a warbird to me. When I think of warbirds I think of all the aircraft used for war purposes from 1936 until the Korean War except for the Korean era jet fighters like the Migs and the Sabres.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

imho your definition it's for a plane that flown before sept. 45 not for a actual WWII plane. a plane of WWII it's a plane used in WWII so a combat plane need combat in WWII, a training plane need flying training mission in WWII, a trasport plane need flying trasport mission in WWII etc...

Negative, if it was flown during WW2 it is a WW2 era aircraft.

Based off of that logic the F8F Bearcat is not a WW2 aircraft. It was first flown in 1944, but it saw no combat. Guess what it is still a WW2 era fighter.

Same goes for the Horton Ho 229 was first flown in 1944 as well. It did not see any combat? Does that mean it is not a WW2 aircraft? Of course it was, and not because it was flown in a combat environment.

An aircraft does not have to have flown any mission for it to have been designed and flown during WW2.

IMO there's a difference between a WW2 aircraft and a WW2 warbird. A warbird must have seen action somehow IMO, but that's just me, I guess some of you others don't agree with that.

You are correct, I do not agree. A warbird is a machine made for war. It does not mean that it had to fire weapons. I guess we should throw out the majority of German aircraft then, because they never saw any combat...

 

[Vincenzo]

WWII it's not same of WWII era

 

[GrauGeist]

WWII it's not same of WWII era

That's kind of confusing...

So how can WWII not be the same as WWII era?

WWII in it's entirety ran from 1939 to 1945.

So if a warplane was built during that time period, it falls into the WWII era, regardless of wether or not it saw action.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

WWII it's not same of WWII era

How is it different? A cat is a cat is a cat is a cat.

If the aircraft was flown in WW2, it is a WW2 aircraft.

So if a warplane was built during that time period, it falls into the WWII era, regardless of wether or not it saw action.

Ditto!

I don't understand what is so confusing about this.

 

[Colin1]

WWII it's not the same as WWII era

OK
so with respect to one term vs the other, can you explain what:-

- WWII
- WWII era

means?

 

[Vincenzo]

WWII era plane in use from start of war at end of war this is not imply use in combat or generally use in war country
WW II plane a plane used in that war

but all this is over after i read warbird article on wikipedia i'm not interessed a vintage discussion so yall can put all yall want in warbird category

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

WWII era plane in use from start of war at end of war this is not imply use in combat or generally use in war country
WW II plane a plane used in that war

Either way it is a World War 2 aircraft. It does not matter if it was flown in combat or not.

 

[Colin1]

WWII era plane in use from start of war at end of war this is not imply use in combat or generally use in war country

Given the generally global nature of 'world' war, that must be quite a small category

 

[Soren]

You are correct, I do not agree. A warbird is a machine made for war. It does not mean that it had to fire weapons. I guess we should throw out the majority of German aircraft then, because they never saw any combat...

The majority of German aircraft didn't see combat? I think you'll find it was quite the opposite.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The majority of German aircraft didn't see combat? I think you'll find it was quite the opposite.

You know what I mean smart ass!

Now having said that, we can forget about all the "drawing board" just a dream aircraft. They did not see combat? What is good for aircraft that were flown back in the US or Canada or any other country is good for all aircraft.

Point being, if it was built during WW2, it is a WW2 aircraft and if it is a military aircraft it can be classified as a war bird.