Talk:Grumman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article has been marked as needing immediate attention! Aircraft WikiProject

Contents 1 Ag craft 2 Other facility 3 Requested move 3.1 Survey 3.1.1 Survey - Support votes 3.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 3.2 Discussion 4 Bethpage airport 5 Cancellation of F-14 Program 6 Lead graf should say this about the Grumman Corporation

[edit] Ag craft

No mention is made of Grumman's production of an agricultural crop duster. As I recall, it was a pretty good aircraft.Mybuny 17:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other facility

Grumman also had a facility in Calverton, New York, I believe in conjunction with the US Navy. The structures still exist; there is an airfield, which at this point I believe is solely operated by the Navy, if at all, and there are other buildings which are part of a town industry revitalisation process and for sale. The main hangar is where pieces of the ill fated TWA Flight 800 were sorted through. Another section of the land was used for a town or county fair one year, and still another section was bought by SUNY Stony Brook. My knowledge is limited on Grumman's use of the land, though, or when the land was acquired and developed. Hope someone else can fill in the gaps! -- Kevin F. Story (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I worked for Grumman in the 1980s. Though based out of the Bethpage location, I visited the Calverton facility a number of times. It was my understanding that the facility was used for final assembly of the F-14 fighter and for test flights of the F-14 as well as other aircraft. I witnessed two F-14 flight tests while I was visiting the facility in the mid 1980s. If memory serves, I think the tests involved a retrofit of the engines for the F-14D variant then in development. I will see what more information I can find for the article. Buster 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I started an article on the Calverton plant at Calverton Executive Airpark.Americasroof 03:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

This article has been renamed from Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation to Grumman as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 11:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bethpage airport

The Bethpage airport sentence below seems out of place.

As the company grew, it moved to Valley Stream, New York, then Farmingdale, New York, finally ending up at Bethpage, New York, all located on Long Island as well. The airport in Bethpage has closed and was converted to residential areas. For much of the Cold War period..

Seems like that belong later in the article based in the timeframe. Also was Grumman's plant by the airport? Thanks. -Fnlayson 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cancellation of F-14 Program

Can anyone provide some information (supportable facts, of course) on the cancellation of the F-14 program, which ultimately forced the company to merge with Northrop (as I understand it). Specifically, the Defense Department and/or Secretary of Defenses's political motivations, if any, to cancel or support the program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ButtonwoodTree (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead graf should say this about the Grumman Corporation

This article really should be about the Grumman Corporation. Aerospace was just a subdivision. Another subdivision was building buses. The only chunk of any value at the end (and the only chunk left on Long Island) is the data services. Americasroof (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• • My view, although not a particularly strong one, is that articles about corporations should reference the full legal name of the corporation. To the extent that entity has changed, merged or dissolved over the years, then the article should explain this and give its last official name as its Wiki name. I realize this may seem somewhat persnickety, however, as a technical matter, this is the name of the corporation, and using the last name for Wiki is then far less subjective then picking a name to use and provides the basis for explaining the company's evolution. In the alternate, companies with complicated corporate backgrounds would be subject to much debate over what name should be used. ButtonwoodTree (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that Grumman has operated under several names, it seems best to have it where it is. As far as Aerospace being only one division, it was the only division for several decades. When Grumman started diversifying in the 1960s, it expanded to building vans/buses and in other areas. THat should be covered here. I have a book from the 1980s on Grumman, and it does cover the diversification. I'll try to add something on that in the next few weeks. - BillCJ (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, following you're advise is that I've uploaded a Grumman firetruck photo. It's quite a relic. Hope you like it. Cheers. Tu160 (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)