Jump to content

Talk:Grumman/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.


Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation → Grumman

  • Grumman currently redirects to Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation. The later name of the company was "Grumman Aerospace Corporation". Nearly 150 articles link to Grumman, and just over 100 link to GAEC. The current title is also a bit long, so simplifying it to just Grumman would be good. There is no disambiguation page here at the moment, though the only other articles with "Grumman" in the name are mentioned in the text. - BillCJ 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

Survey - Oppose votes

Discussion


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

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)

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)


Grumman's Plant in Bethpage was a HUGE Facility with 2 active runways, multiple hangars some of which are still standing today, and YES they were all on one site. Bethpage was actually the headquarters for Grumman's.

The Calverton Site was acquired for one reason, location location location. Grumman's and the US navy felt that Bethpage was way too populated to conduct test flights for the F-14 and could not guarantee safety to the bordering communities and good thing because the very first test flight of the F-14A ended in a nose dive crash just yards before the runway ending in a fireball. Imagine if that was in Bethpage or neighboring Hicksville? Disastrous to say the least. The Bethpage site saw it's real airfield glory during WW2 when Grumman's built the Hellcat Tigetcat and Bearcat fighter planes. It saw great use in the 50's as well with test planes flying overhead on a regular basis.

The Airfield at Bethpage was regularly used by the Navy in the 80's to launch it's Tactical Airborne Early Warning (AEW) E-2C Hawkeye Radar Planes. I remember them flying overhead fondly!

When the Pentagon pulled the plug on the F-14 project Grumman's was forced to lay off over 80 thousand employees, constantly downsizing until merging with Northrop was the only viable way to stay alive.

The Airfield officially closed in 1992. It laid dormant for a few years as the land was sold or redeveloped. I do not think any remnants of the 5400 foot runway are present any longer. In Dec 2008 the remaining 96 acres of land still owned by Grumman's and the Navy were sold to Nassau County and development firm names Steel Equities I think. I follow the Hicksville civic associations meetings concerning the old Plant and it's remaining buildings to see what is going to come of this historic site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.4.16.81 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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)


Yes I can. I live about 3 blocks from the Bethpage Plant and vivdly remember the site in the 1980's in Grumman's hay day of the F-14. Over 80 thousand people lost their jobs when Grumman's closed the majority of it's doors. Many of those people lived right here, just blocks from the Plant.

The Pentagon, more importantly Dick Cheney canceled the F-14 project. The reason to them was very simple... cost and demand. The demand wasn't there on paper once the Cold War ended and the plane was very costly to keep running. For every 1 flight it took 4 times the man hours to repair and keep running. Other Fighters like the FA-18 Hornet were cheaper to maintain and by Military pencil pusher standards and were just as versatile in combat and mission adaptability ( VERY QUESTIONABLE ). Ask anyone that served on a Super Carrier that housed both the F-14 and the F-18 and they'll tell you the FA-18 Hornet didn't come close to the F-14 Tomcat across the board. That is solely opinion of the men who served with both jets, but in the F-14's defense, who would know better then the men that flew and serviced those machines?

The f-14 program consisted of the majority of Grumman's Financial profit. I forget the exact number but it was upwards of 80% of their business. Grumman's survived on the back of 1 fighter jet which is what killed them. Yes Grumman's produced many other planes for the armed forces but in smaller numbers and with shorter or cheaper contracts. Grumman's focused on ONE jet. it was a double edged sword, it proved to be the flagship fighter for America and pulled that off wonderfully with ease BUT left it's creator holding the bag when the program died.

Remember at the time, up until close to 2006 the F-14 was the premiere fighter jet in the Navy and Air Force's Arsenal. The only other plane in the world that posed as an annoyance to our air superiority was actually the F-14's bought by Iran in the 80's, of which quickly became an after thought because Iran could not properly maintain these Fighters. There are today a few still in operation in Iran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.4.16.81 (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

I removed it just for now, pending this discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Wikimapia_and_copyright.3F

We can't link to copyright violations and there are questions over the copyright status of Wikimapia. I'll (or anyone can, really) readd it later. rootology (T) 06:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed for making canoes???

WTF??? who the hell *hasn't* been in a grumman canoe at summer camp? They made aluminum canoes for like 40 years for godsakes. That's like saying a citation is needed for the the fact that Ford makes cars!! okay okay if you truly must be anal then here: http://www.marathonboat.com/about.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagingmrherman (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As bizarre as this whole exchange was including User:Montana's Defender unexplained deletion of the comment, it did result in something cool - Grumman's canoe history is worthy of a separate article and for added bonus the Grumman logo and name still lives!!! I didn't put 2 and 2 together on this cool bit of history until this exchange highlighted it.Americasroof (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nickname

Grumman is nicknamed: "The Iron Works" in reference of its reputation for making the world's most indestructable aircraft.--LandonJaeger (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to Grumman sport boat article

The Grumman sport boat article does not in fact discuss Grumman canoes, so it is inappropriate to have the words "Grumman canoes" link to it. There probably should be a Grumman canoes article though. 71.216.250.182 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

This is it?

One of the most important and iconic of American aviation companies of the 20th century, and this is all Wikipedia can come up with to say about them? The 1930s, they "invented a floatplane with retractable landing gear, their first plane was the FF-1, and they developed some other fighters too. In WW2 they built some famous planes like the F4F, F6F, TBF, F7F and F8F, and after the war the F9F and F11F. The end." That is entirely too brief for such an important and large company. What about the F2F and F3F, and how they got the company into the Navy business? The JF2 Duck? Where is the Grumman Goose and the Albatross? What was the first plane with float and retractable gear? People can and have written entire books about Grumman and their aircraft, hundreds of pages long, so surely there is much more relevant information than has been included here.

64.222.109.185 (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

So fix it. BilCat (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

"The Grumman Follies" during WWII

Any history? 2603:6081:274F:CABF:551:894B:6940:B021 (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grumman/Archive_1&oldid=1220914471"