Talk:Lockheed T-33

Merge

• 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

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)