Talk:Lockheed T-33/Archive 1

Merge (2006)

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


 * Support Lockheed T2V is a tiny stub, it was basically the same airplane as the T-33, no need for a separate article. - Emt147 Burninate!  04:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The Lockheed T2V was basically the US Navy's version of the T-33A. It should be merged with the T-33 Shooting Star article.
 * Against They need seperate articles because the techinical information, use, and history is all different. The T-33 was "basically" P-80, yet it has it own article also. The T2V was not simply a redesignation of the AF aircraft as you suggest (ironically the Navy did in fact use T-33 also, but did not redesignate them), but the T2V was different and got so got a new designation. A75 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

'''DO NOT MERGE ! !

THE T - 2V WAS NOT A NAVAL VERSION OF THE T-33. WHILE THE NAVY DID BUY THE T-33 F0R BASIC JET TRAINING, THE T - 2V WAS A SEPERATE AIRCRAFT THAT WAS CAPABLE OF HANDELING THE STRESS OF CARRIER TRAPS AND CAT LAUNCHS. MANY STUDENT NAVAL AVIATORS MADE THEIR "CAR-QUALS" IN THIS FINE A/C.

TRY THAT WITH A T - 33 AND YOU WOULD HAVE A SHREADED AIRCRAFT. THE T-33 GOT NERVOUS FLYING ANY WHERE NEAR OPEN WATER, WHILE THE T -2V WAS AT HOME OVER BLUE WATER.'''BAY 121 20:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing
This proposal has been open for 7 months now, with no consensus to merge (I can add my !vote against merging), so I'm removing the merge tag. Akradecki 21:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I am seriously considering reopening the merge process. The T2V/T-1 bears the same relationship to the T-33 as the T-45 does to the BAE Hawk. As the T-45 is currently on the Hawk page, I really don't see the big deal here. To me, the T2V just does not have enough content (esp pics) to justify a separate article, while at the same time the T-33 content is very minimal. Both pages would benifit from a merge. - BillCJ 19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with BillCJ. Adding slightly more about the T2V under the development section, & a couple of sentences added about it under the operational service section would do nicely.  Also, under the variants section, The RT-33A is described as a "Two-seat reconnaissance version of the AT-33A" The USAF described the type this way in 1962: "The RT-33A is a jet-propelled, single place version of the T-33A aircraft with an enlarged nose section to accommodate photographic equipment.  The aft cockpit area contains an additional bladder-type fuel cell with a usable capacity of 165 gallons."  Radio gear (AN/ARC-27 Transceiver & AN/ARN-6 ADF Receiver) was located atop the fuel cell.  The reference is Flight Manual RT-33A, USAF Series RT-33A Aircraft, T.O. 1T-33(R)A-1, 1 April 1962.192.100.70.210 (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

TO-1
This aircraft was not a variant of the T-33 nor the TO-2/TV-2 and should not be listed as such. If "continuity" is deemed necessary by an editor, then place it in the narrative. The two types have been developed as separate articles, and rightly so, since the T-bird had a long history entirely separate from the F-80. TO-1 and TO-2 have a continuity only in their designations, which is to say, none. One was a fighter that pinch hit as a trainer, the other was a trainer. I really don't care one way or the other, except that a good faith edit app. ruffled feathers uncessarily. Keep it or change it as you see fit, but understand it does not belong under variants of this aircraft. --Buckboard 03:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

List of operators
The list doesnt make sense, theres no numbers and also no mention that whom of these if any actually operates the plane today or when were they retired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.138.236 (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to add the information if you have a reliable source, remember that Wikipedia is always a work in progress. MilborneOne (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Shooting Star? - Not!
I've only just come to this article - what's all this nonsense about T-33 being named Shooting Star? Can't find any clues on this system. All the books I've got refer to only P-80 as Shooting Star, T-33 had no official name, just unofficial 'T-bird'.WIHIH?PeterWD (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Shooting Star" is listed as the popular name for the T-33 in DoD 4120.14-L, May 12, 2004. I have the PDF file, but I don't have a link to it online. That's generally accepted as authoritative in the absense of a better source. - BillCJ (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just looked in JAWA1956. I understand Jane's gets its info from the manufacturers; it is usually reliable.   In the Lockheed section, specifically on p.307, it has an article entitled


 * THE LOCKHEED SHOOTING STAR.


 * U.S. Air Force designations: T-33 and RT-33
 * U.S. Navy designation: TV2-2

TSRL (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have always heard the T-33 referred to both as “Shooting Star” (officially) and “T-Bird” (unofficial nickname), but it might bear further research among early sources. It should be remembered that the T-33 was originally designated TP-80C and then TF-80C, so it would not be unreasonable for the Shooting Star moniker to transfer along with it.  (BTW, it is my experience that the DTIC document is not always trustworthy.)  Askari Mark (Talk) 21:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While that is true, Mark, no reliable, much less authoritative, evidence has been shown the it is wrong in this case. Pete just made a claim that it's wrong, but with no sources provided to prove it. He says he has "books" that don't list it, but I have some that do. Hence my statement that DTIC is "generally accepted as authoritative in the absense of a better source." (emphasis mine of myself!) - BillCJ (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's why I suggested checking earlier sources more contemporary with the early part of its service life. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An observation about Janes AWA - in late 1950s/ early 1960s at least, editor JWR Taylor was in the habit of using stuff from manufacturers' press releases and brochures, then failing to correct the 'provisional' info later. In one case, that led to long-perpetuated myths about the names and details of aircraft of 'minor' 're-manufacturers'.PeterWD (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A note from the Netherlands: We knew the T-33, wich the RNLAF used for a long time, as the T-Bird, but the P-80 or F-80, which we never bought, as the Shooting Star. Still now, when you say: Shooting Star to aviation enthusiast and professionals in the NL, they think: F-80 / P-80 and T-Bird will forever be our famous and trustworthy T-33. I'll check what the Dutch WKP says and if they gave sources. VNCCC (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a reference by a well-versed aviation writer, J. Baugher. He gives Shooting Star as the name for the P/F-80, not the T-33: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80_1.html This is his home page: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/


 * A Flightglobal search of Flight for "T-33 Shooting Star" here with a number of results from 1954 to as late as 2004;  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.147.22 (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

For future reference, a copy of DoD 4120.15-L is available from the Washington Headquarters Services website. –Noha307 (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Historic thread besides carbon thread
It appears yesterday's inaugural flight of the B-787 airliner was shadowed by two T-33s (twin-seater version of the YP-80, which tried to intercept Ar-234 recce planes in vain over northern Italy in spring 1945). Why didn't Boeing use more modern chase planes? 82.131.210.163 (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The is a good shot of one of the T-33s in the fourth pic on this page. As to why, these are Boeing-owned planes, so why buy new planes if the old ones do can still do the job? - BilCat (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Supposedly Boeing also has a T-38, presumably for supersonic chaes flihts. I've found web page from 2001 here about a test flight of cockpit displays on one of Boeing's T-33, It's interesting, but it has no publishing info, so it appears to be a private web site, which is not a WP reliable source. - BilCat (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Huron SD VFW?
There is a plane on display at the Huron South Dakota Veterans of Foreign Wars building. The closest I've been to seeing it is driving by, but it and the T-33 look very similar. Could anyone confirm whether or not the T-33 is what is on display at the VFW, and, if so, add it to the article? 97.114.143.127 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

RTAF Museum, BKK
Has several T-33 and RT-33. I saw them in June 2011. wp --95.188.92.90 (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Waynesboro, GA VFW T-33
Photographs of T-33, displayed as lawn ornament in fron tof Veterans of Foreign Wars / National Guard Armory, Waynesboro, GA, USA, south of downtown Waynesboro on US 25 and Legion Driver. Engine has been removed as well as most other internals.

[] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - [] - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

T33 on a stick at Nanton, Alberta Canada Bomber Command Museum
The Bomber Command Museum in Nanton, Alberta, has a T-33 (Canadair T-33 (Serial #21437)) on display outside their museum. http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/ Is this aircraft and reference suitable to add to "Survivors" BE77 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Lockheed T-33, the only title to which no one was opposed. Since there is no question that this title accurately identifies the article subject, and since redirects are cheap, any other designation can be redirected here. bd2412 T 04:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Lockheed T-33 Shooting Star → Lockheed T-33 T-Bird – As discussed above, "Shooting Star" is questionable if it was ever assigned to the T-33 officially, and, even if it was, it's utterly forgotten - the WP:COMMONNAME is far and away "T-Bird". Just plain Lockheed T-33 might be an acceptable alternative. The Bushranger One ping only 10:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose ish oppose a change to use T-Bird but as it doesnt appear to have an official name support change to Lockheed T-33. MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment if it isn't moved to 'T-Bird' then that should exist as a redirect. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose move to 'Lockheed T-33 T-bird' per my unchanged comments above 4 years ago. Support any move to 'Lockheed T-33'. PeterWD (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment this aircraft census in Flight International calls them "Shooting Star"s. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Every novel I've read that mentions this aircraft calls it the Shooting Star. Lockheed T-33 would be an acceptable alternative, see Category:Lockheed aircraft and Category:United States military trainer aircraft 1940–1949 among many others. Andrewa (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Lockheed T-33. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219034026/http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80.html to http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p80.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/article/72765
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100803055926/http://www.khi.co.jp/aero/history/history_e.html to http://www.khi.co.jp/aero/history/history_e.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100701080656/http://www.vuelolibre.tv/index.php/programas-anteriores/477-vuelo-libre-t33 to http://www.vuelolibre.tv/index.php/programas-anteriores/477-vuelo-libre-t33
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213085614/http://www.aero-web.org/locator/manufact/lockheed/t-33.htm to http://www.aero-web.org/locator/manufact/lockheed/t-33.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Not notable
I went ahead and removed several of the entries from the Incidents section, because they appeared to be nothing but typical T-33 accidents, of which there were no doubt hundreds over the years. Unless the operators were famous for some reason, or it was in national news for some reason, these are merely of local interest, and there seems to be no good reason to include these and not include all of the hundreds of other T-33s that crashed over the years, which would result in a huge list. I left the one about Col. Manch because he was a Doolittle Raider in WW2, which is sort of notable, although the original editor neglected to mention that part. I left the one involved in a midair with a Visount because the accident was notable enough to have an article on it, and i left the one about the defecting pilot because it appears to be notable to the people in that country. I have no doubt there were other notable accidents involving a T-33, but every single crash on some mountainside is not notable.

64.223.107.108 (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ceiling
Performance section: Sorry I don't know how to do this properly but No way does a T33 have a ceiling of 48,000 feet. That's laughable. Please can someone correct that! Paul Murphy paulmurphy42@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.116.79 (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's what the source says, and Francillon is a reliable expert in avaiation, published by a reliable publisher. Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1958–59 (p. 334) gives a ceiling of 47500 ft, which is broadly comparable. What sources do you have that disagree?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)