Jump to content

Question about the rules for this forum - Warbirds


MikeC
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't have a burning issue about warbirds to discuss, but one day I might.  So for my benefit and hopefully others, I'd like to clarify the rules about what's in scope for this forum.

 

"Warbirds" are, of course, aircraft on the civilian register, but flying in military markings, a prime example being the Shuttleworth Collection's Spitfire Vc.  This flies as AR501 in RAF (Czech unit) colours, but is legally a civilian aircraft on the register as G-AWII.  There are, of course, many others, several even co-located at Old Warden.

 

So could a mod please clarify whether any discussion on such aircraft should go in this forum, an appropriate military-focussed one, or even somewhere else entirely?  Thanks.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a mod, but I'd suggest the example you give would be most appropriate in Military Aircraft WWII, most posts tend to be focused in the section for the type's primary design use and era. 

Your example is also finished in a military WWII era scheme so would fit in there better than this forum even though it's actually on the civil register and has been virtually completely rebuilt post 1969.

Spencer Flack's G-FIRE would be more difficult to classify, being a totally civil scheme and displaying it's civil registration quite prominently, so could conceivably fit in either section.

Highly modified Mustangs, Sea Furies etc as Reno raceplanes would to me be more appropriate here.

Then you've got civil airliners on contract to the military.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave Swindell said:

Not a mod, but I'd suggest the example you give would be most appropriate in Military Aircraft WWII, most posts tend to be focused in the section for the type's primary design use and era. 

Your example is also finished in a military WWII era scheme so would fit in there better than this forum even though it's actually on the civil register and has been virtually completely rebuilt post 1969.

Spencer Flack's G-FIRE would be more difficult to classify, being a totally civil scheme and displaying it's civil registration quite prominently, so could conceivably fit in either section.

Highly modified Mustangs, Sea Furies etc as Reno raceplanes would to me be more appropriate here.

Then you've got civil airliners on contract to the military.....

 

Exactly: nothing's cut and dried, hence the question.   Spencer Flack's G-FIRE was once a military aircraft, but as you say there's no mistaking it for military now.

 

As in life, things can't always be forced into neat pigeon-holes, hence the need for a clarification.

 

Just another thought: these aircraft often have non-military mods, such as a more modern seat harness, various radios etc, and other things perhaps necessary to comply with modern legislation, so they're certainly not pure military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MikeC said:

Clearly not originally, but it is now, hence the question.

 

I think Greg's response may have been rhetorical.  The majority of currently airworthy ex-military aircraft will be on the civilian register - I'm sure there will be exceptions (the BBMF fleet being one such) - but it makes more sense to look to their original purpose and design, as opposed to whatever administrative necessities are required to enable them to fly today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Werdna said:

 

I think Greg's response may have been rhetorical.  The majority of currently airworthy ex-military aircraft will be on the civilian register - I'm sure there will be exceptions (the BBMF fleet being one such) - but it makes more sense to look to their original purpose and design, as opposed to whatever administrative necessities are required to enable them to fly today.  

Yes, but it's not just "administrative necessities", it's actual mods to the aircraft, like what's there instead of guns, or where does a GPS nav device (if it has one) fit?

 

As to original design use, I can see the logic, but would that mean we discuss RAF Domine nav trainers here, on the basis that the HS125 was first and foremost a civil design?  I expect it looks as though I'm being difficult, but that's not the intention.  Perhaps I'd better withdraw the question, then if in the future I post something in the wrong forum I'll just have to take the rap. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MikeC said:

Yes, but it's not just "administrative necessities", it's actual mods to the aircraft, like what's there instead of guns, or where does a GPS nav device (if it has one) fit?

 

As to original design use, I can see the logic, but would that mean we discuss RAF Domine nav trainers here, on the basis that the HS125 was first and foremost a civil design?  I expect it looks as though I'm being difficult, but that's not the intention.  Perhaps I'd better withdraw the question, then if in the future I post something in the wrong forum I'll just have to take the rap. :)

 

'Original purpose' trumps 'modifications' in my view.  I suspect the majority of warbirds still flying will have GPS or other radio/comms mods in order to comply with current civilian flying regs.  I doubt if many would still be flying on their original instruments.  But none of that would negate their original purpose as military aircraft.  In that sense, I would argue they are defined by their shape, purpose and markings - not by what kit they now contain.

 

There's a long list of military/civil combinations - like the Dominie, or the DC-3/C-47, or B707/KC135/E-3.  If I was modelling a DC-3, then it's a civil question.  If I was modelling a C-47, then it's military.  I suspect there will always be cross-overs, but I would still revert to whatever the original purpose was... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MikeC said:

Yes, but it's not just "administrative necessities", it's actual mods to the aircraft, like what's there instead of guns, or where does a GPS nav device (if it has one) fit?

 

As to original design use, I can see the logic, but would that mean we discuss RAF Domine nav trainers here, on the basis that the HS125 was first and foremost a civil design?  I expect it looks as though I'm being difficult, but that's not the intention.  Perhaps I'd better withdraw the question, then if in the future I post something in the wrong forum I'll just have to take the rap. :)

RAF Dominie - Military, HS125 - Civil. The Dominie might have been based on the civil HS125 design, but it was developed and produced as a military trainer.

Mods to a spitfire to meet civil registration and modern requirements may apply to several aircraft currently in use, but they were never part of the design and production process of the spitfire.

I wouldn't say you're being difficult, or that the question warrants retraction as no doubt others now or in the future might be pondering the same dilemma. 

As to having to take the rap if posted in the wrong forum, I think the mods would recognise there is a certain amount of crossover in this area and would firstly move an obviously wrong subject to the correct area with an explanation/suggestion to the poster and only resort to rapping knuckles if their "suggestions" were blatantly/repeatedly ignored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Black Knight said:

imo, It can be a hard call and I don't think anyone will really complain if the model looks like it should be placed in that RFI or discussion, or there is a discussion about a real one

Two examples;

1. Tiger Moth. It was developed as a trainer for the RAF. Its a military aeroplane. But a civilian registered one fits in better with civilian aeroplanes than it does with the military.

2. Spitfire G-FIRE, I'd put into civilian as that is what is/was. It lost its military-ness

'Warbirds' I'd put with military aircraft as they have kept a certain amount of their military-ness, irregardless that they have no guns, modern radios et cetera

Instrument additions, modern seat belts etc do not enter the equation, imo. They are just necessary for modern flight safety. Even most Western Powers modern military aircraft carry civilian transponders so they can be 'seen' by ATC when the need arises.  Does this make them civilian aircraft?

 

Ok, first RFI is not in question as both civilian and military go in there.

 

Tiger Moth agreed.

 

I don't agree that what a warbird has is irrelevant - that's the whole point, ie "How does this warbird which I want to model differ from the military version?"

 

Again  instrument differences are included in what I just said - "how does it differ?"

 

Finally, I agree that many modern military aircraft carry transponders which have civilian modes and that does not make them a civilian aircraft, but I'm talking here about how some aircraft differ from the standard military version(s).

 

 

Edited by MikeC
Typos!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a good question. Perhaps being a little over-thought here with references to GPS etc. I doubt the moderators would have any issue with putting it where it looks right. Taking Spitfires as an example - G-FIRE here, camouflaged warbirds in WW2 section. Taking the DC-4 as an example - DC-4s mostly in pre-1969 area, later fire bombers here, C-54s in WW2.

It's a good question but I think you will find there are quite a few answers, most of which are correct and the consquences of being wrong are nothing much!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks folks.  Quite a lot of input, for which thank you, but a definitive answer from a moderator so that any future post I may make won't infringe the rules would be appreciated, thanks.

Edited by MikeC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You had it, if it was originally a civil aircraft in its role, and marked in civilian markings, airlines etc. Then questions should be in here. Because this is where the experts in regards to civil aircraft reside. You are more likely to get an answer in here for that reason alone.

 

Warbirds were originally military aircraft, therefore the military section is extant, again because those who know, tend to hang out there.
 

Either way it’s pretty moot as the WIP and RFI are combined for all aircraft.
 

If anyone wants to model a Spitfire and go into the details of representing replica guns instead of real weapons and update instrument panels to show modern dials, displays and switches, fill your boots. The warbird rebuilds I have crawled around were visually indistinguishable in shape and form apart from the use of more modern materials. God knows how anyone could represent that in 32 scale, never mind 72 when we can’t even discuss paint shade accuracy without duelling handbags at 10 paces here on a good day! ;)

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Greg B said:

If anyone wants to model a Spitfire and go into the details of representing replica guns instead of real weapons and update instrument panels to show modern dials, displays and switches, fill your boots. The warbird rebuilds I have crawled around were visually indistinguishable in shape and form apart from the use of more modern materials. God knows how anyone could represent that in 32 scale,

Funnily enough, I'm doing the Shuttleworth Spitfire in 1/32 at the moment.  I don't really need to ask any questions on here in this case, given that I'm fortunate enough to live 20 minutes from the real thing and I can - and have had - a good look at the real thing several times.  Some fairly obvious differences in 1/32 are a more modern harness, rather than the Sutton of the original, no seat armour, the cartridge ejector ports plated over, and plain disc wheel covers.  The I/P appears pretty standard Spitfire, but I've not got close enough to inspect that in detail.  And then there's the question of doing it in the latest config with standard wingtips, or the one it had before its latest overhaul with clipped wings (which I'm doing).

 

But thanks for the response and clarification Greg, appreciate it.  I'll know next time.  :) 👍

 

PS: If by "You had it, if it was ..." you mean that your previous post was your answer, my apologies, I didn't realise.  Again not being difficult, but I tend to need some things spelling out.

Edited by MikeC
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MikeC said:

Funnily enough, I'm doing the Shuttleworth Spitfire in 1/32 at the moment.  I don't really need to ask any questions on here in this case, given that I'm fortunate enough to live 20 minutes from the real thing and I can - and have had - a good look at the real thing several times.  Some fairly obvious differences in 1/32 are a more modern harness, rather than the Sutton of the original, no seat armour, the cartridge ejector ports plated over, and plain disc wheel covers.  The I/P appears pretty standard Spitfire, but I've not got close enough to inspect that in detail.  And then there's the question of doing it in the latest config with standard wingtips, or the one it had before its latest overhaul with clipped wings (which I'm doing).

 

But thanks for the response and clarification Greg, appreciate it.  I'll know next time.  :) 👍

 

PS: If by "You had it, if it was ..." you mean that your previous post was your answer, my apologies, I didn't realise.  Again not being difficult, but I tend to need some things spelling out.

Will look forward to seeing that on here then ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greg B said:

Will look forward to seeing that on here then ;)

When it gets finished, it's one of those "stop-go" models that gets worked on in the margins of other stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...