Talk:Cessna T-37 Tweet

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force North American military history task force United States military history task force Aviation: Aircraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project.

• According to Wiki naming policy, this article should be under the title "T-37 Tweety Bird". If no one objects, I will move it. Maury 15:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  There are so many nicknames for this plane, choosing one would be rather arbitrary. So yes, I object.

• Stick to this make of plane's official name and don't make this article's title look silly. Anthony Appleyard 05:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. And since, according to this PDF, the T-37's official nme is "Tweet", then that is what should be used. - BillCJ 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was recently added by an anon:
:The A-36B was also exported to Cambodia and Thailand in the 1970s.
It needs a reference, and I'm pretty sure the "36" is a typo.--chris.lawson 05:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC) It was called Tweety Bird in 1961 at Vance AFB.Exbird71 (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The T-37 and A-37 are, in many ways, different aircraft. I am planning on splitting off the A-37 to A-37 Dragonfly in the next few days, unless strong objections are raised. Also, as above, I will be looking into moving this article to T-37 Tweet, the plane's official USAF name. - BillCJ 18:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...is not Columbus AFB, it's Sheppard. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the picture better before; cropping it (Oct 15) did not improve the depiction of the aircraft and removed some rich context (at least for those who spent a lot of time in the Tweet over Texas.) Is there some rule or principle involved, to show just the aircraft? Other pics on the page show interesting backgrounds. If it's valid or necessary to take out the background, then maybe the caption's newsy reference to the Lake should be dropped as well. brucemcdon – 19:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the previous picture too, but I think the caption is apropos. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is one at the base main gate and there is also one in town (Columbus, MS) at the intersection of highways 82 and 45.

I don't think this picture is from the 1950s. The Air Force didn't begin painting the Tweet white until the 1970s. I went through UPT in 1976, and many T-37s were still bare metal. The helmets the pilots are wearing are much too recent a design as well.

Ralph X. Williams III (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original image http://www.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=57&page=2 has not got a date but the caption just says that the type joined the USAF in 1955 "T-37 Tweet, Air Force inventory in 1955" and it has been assumed as the date of the photograph. The aircraft has a 1961 Fiscal serial so was probably not even built in the 1950s. A Google search finds "A student and instructor at the Air Training Command undergraduate navigator school climb into the cockpit of a T-37 training aircraft prior to making a flight. Location: MATHER AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA (CA) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA) Camera Operator: WALT WEIBLE Date Shot: 1 Jun 1983. (Department of Defense Photo)." MilborneOne (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The overall layout of the T37 bears a very strong resemblance to that of the F89. Everything from the placement of the jet engine intakes to the shape of the tailplane and cruciform tail make the T37 resemble an F89 that shrank in the wash, so to speak.

I know that the aircraft were developed by different companies. The F89 was a Northrop design, the T37 was from Cessna. Nonetheless, I have to ask--did any of the engineers who created the Scorpion go on to work for Cessna just a few years later? It can't be coincidental. The aircraft look far too much alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:400:8001:BA60:2DB6:16A6:1576:107D (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cessna T-37 Tweet. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123161483
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130508225810/http://www.cessna.com/why-cessna/our-history to http://www.cessna.com/why-cessna/our-history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cessna T-37 Tweet. 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/20150905085214/http://www.marchfield.org/aircraft-exhibits/aircraft/t-37b-tweety-bird/ to http://www.marchfield.org/aircraft-exhibits/aircraft/t-37b-tweety-bird/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://test.scripts.psu.edu/users/d/o/dob104/aviation/us/trainer.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BilCat,

In response to your so helpfully pointing out that the material was indeed covered in the main text, I retained that material in the next edit, while trying to improve the flow and characterization. I have two issues with the original wording:
1) Saying that it's an "attack aircraft". The main text refers (without references) to one later model having some "light attack" capabilities "if required". That's a far cry from calling all T-37 models an "attack aircraft". Lede is supposed to summarize main points, not re-characterize them.
2) Cramming too much into one sentence. Trying to "get it all out in one go" often suggests lack of confidence that the writer has the reader's attention. In egregious examples, it actually induces loss of attention. Gravitas and readability are improved with shorter sentences and that don't try to "do it all", even if the total number of characters is increased somewhat. It's more encyclopedic. Although, I will give you that this example is only slight, i.e. not very egregious.

98.216.251.242 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I've reverted myself, as it's not a major issue, nor is it worth spending this much of my time arguing about it. Btw, null edits need to used sparingly. They are really meant for clarifying previous edits that were not summarized adequately or at all. The software will notify me of any comments you leave on this page or my talk page, so you don't need to leave any further messages that way in null edits. - BilCat (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list of aircraft flown by the 21st Tactical Air Support Squadron when it was activated in 1973 at MacDill AFB says it flew the "OT-37". This is earlier than the time A-37s used in the attack role were designated as OA-37s. There is also a reference to the birds being returned to Air Training Command when the 21st moved to Shaw and equipped with OV-10s. Was there an unarmed observation modification of the T-37 that is not mentioned in the article? --Lineagegeek (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The description is absolutely correct in regards to the amount of noise and the ridiculous pitch that it violates you with, but it's so hard to truly comprehend just how horrific it is to be ground crew when a group of these things would come in lol. Is there any reason why we couldn't have an audio file included with this? Ramahamalincoln (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]