Warbird T-6 Red Ale

Formerly brewed at Warbird Brewing Company
Style: Amber Ale
Fort Wayne, Indiana USA

Serve in English pint, Shaker

Bottle. Pours a clear amber red with a lasting medium tan head. Aroma is weak with a caramel and bread malt notes. Flavor is similar and quite underwhelming with a consistent note of bread with an undertone of caramel.

A- Body is a translucent amber with some faint ruby red hues coming through. Pours with a 1-2 finger white creamy head that quickly subsides to an eggshell and retains well from there. No lacing left behind in the glass. Has a uniform faint cloudiness to the body. S- Nose is very faint but definitely indicative of a Red Ale. Some faint citrus and earthy hop presence can be picked up along with a nice malt backbone. T- Taste is similar to the nose. The highlight of the flavor is very mild-citrus hops and a touch of grassy hops that have a mild pale malt backbone to balance it out. A hint of citus rind bitterness adds to the finish with what was already going on. What lingers is a faint hint of grapefruit and orange. P- Medium to high carbonation and a light to medium weight body. The carbonation is not particularly assertive but is probably the most noticeable feature of the beer-giving this ale a sessionable lager-like consistency. O- This is a very mild, but pleasant red ale. There is a nice highlight of mild citrus that you don’t find in most reds. Not the best of the style-but its definitely drinkable, enjoyable and a good example. Wouldn’t hesitate to have this again. Serving type: bottle Reviewed on: 01-31-2009 03:03:56

Sampled February 2010
This beer is pretty well carbonated as a solid pour into my 25cl tulip glass produces a voluminous, pale amber tinged, light tan colored head. The beer is a reddish amber color that shows a lightly hazed, amber-copper color when held up to the light. The aroma smells most notably of toasted, slightly caramelized crystal malt. There is perhaps a hint of diacetyl that adds some roundness to the nose rather than being distracting / detracting. A peppery whole grain note can be noticed at times, but for the most part the aroma seems pretty bland and devoid of hop influences.

Softly sweet as it first hits my tongue, the beer finishes with a sweet-tea like crystal malt flavor that seems to be the most dominant flavor. Biscuit like malt character, a touch of hop bitterness and a toasted grain note linger on in the finish after each sip. Perhaps a hint of diacetyl again adds some roundness to the flavor and there is perhaps a herbal kiss of hops as the beer warms up. Light bodied and quaffable, with just enough malt to provide a touch of heft.

Not a bad Red Ale, in fact it is likely a decent gateway beer. I must admit this is exceedingly boring to me though. There are hints of flaws to this beer, but nothing that anyone would really notice.

Sample at the Texas Beer & Brats tasting 10/11/2009. The beer is a lightly hazed dark orange-amber color with a thin and fizzy beige head that dissipates quickly. Spotty lacing on the glass. Notes of malt and fruit in the nose. Light body with flavors of roasted malt, fruit and a touch of metal. The finish is short and mildly malty. Below average overall.

12 oz bottle. Pours a slightly cloudy dark copper body with a small fizzy beige head. The nose is all sweet caramel malt with minimal to no hops. The flavor is much the same, slightly grainy, toasty, and caramel malts through and through. A bit of a hop bitterness on the finish but not much. Light to medium bodied with a short forgettable finish. Below average, even for an Amber Ale.

Initial bitterness of hops, which subsides to a slightly sweet caramel flavor. Not bad.

Amber with a small off-white head. Sweet and fruity aroma with hops and caramel. Sweet caramel flavour with American hops

Bottle. Poured with a nice towering head the way I like it. Big malty aroma, hinting at a chewy brew. Dang -- the first impression at the sip doesn’t fulfill the promise. Light in body, with a musty, mashy character, and a soapy bit doesn’t help. Drinkable enough, but could be better. (#3608, 14 July 2009)