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:
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:
This article claims that the above was a factor in the retirement of this aircraft. Really? Stress corrosion is usually associated with operation in a corrosive environment, like in a chemical plant. It's hard to believe that the C-133 operated in a particularly corrosive environment - probably just good ol' fashioned metal fatigue accelerated by vibration. Jmdeur (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we include the Short Belfast here, it has a link in the opposite direction? I would do it myself but don't know how to.Kitbag (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the aircraft listed are "not" comparable to the C-133, except they fly and can carry cargo. But no harm in letting them be. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article mentions several craft being lost "possibly due to the unusual stall characteristics" of the aircraft. What was unusual about them? -- 145.228.61.5 (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
