1945

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've just always seen the description 'Warbird' as that of an a/c which saw combat during WW2, whilst the others were just WW2 aircraft, designs or prototypes. But I see the logic in your way of thinking as-well, with any military bird being a warbird, makes sense. Just goes to prove that every man has a different way of looking at things at times

Warbird to me, is an aircraft that took part in the conflict. An WWII era machine is for me, any civilian machine....





Now I'm confused!

Soren said:

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.

Click to expand...

Your original statement was a bit misleading as the Go 229 was tested in a war zone, but I would not consider it a war bird. However your statement above is a reasonable position.

I would use the word 'warbird' to describe a vintage plane no longer in active military service. This would also incliude replicas.

As no one has got a Horten or a He280 flying they can't be called WWII warbirds.

I would side with DerAdlerIstGelandet definition if the question was define what constitutes a WWII military aircraft? Just to throw one in the mix would you consider a neutral countries own design in the same era as a WWII military aircraft even if that country was say South American. The Swiss F+W C-36 would have intercepted Luftwaffe aircraft trespassing in Swiss airspace.