Gimli Glider 'retiring' [Archive]

View Full Version : Gimli Glider 'retiring'

Frank Whiteley

January 24th 08, 04:51 PM

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080124.GIMLI24/TPStory/National

Uniform Zulu

January 24th 08, 07:18 PM

At 16:54 24 January 2008, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080124.GIMLI24/
>>TPStory/National
>
Here is the full story for anyone interested:
http://www.teamdan.com/archive/gimli.html

Maybe we should park the 767 at Harris Hill to promote
the sport
'World's largest glider'

Uniform Zulu

January 24th 08, 07:18 PM

Kloudy via AviationKB.com

January 24th 08, 07:25 PM

Uniform Zulu wrote:
>>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080124.GIMLI24/
>>>TPStory/National
>
>Here is the full story for anyone interested:
>http://www.teamdan.com/archive/gimli.html
>
>Maybe we should park the 767 at Harris Hill to promote
>the sport
>'World's largest glider'

whats worth saying is worth saying again

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Ralph Jones[_2_]

January 24th 08, 09:00 PM

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:25:30 GMT, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com"
<u33403@uwe> wrote:

>Uniform Zulu wrote:
>>>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080124.GIMLI24/
>>>>TPStory/National
>>
>>Here is the full story for anyone interested:
>>http://www.teamdan.com/archive/gimli.html
>>
>>Maybe we should park the 767 at Harris Hill to promote
>>the sport
>>'World's largest glider'
>
Nope...that would be the Me321, 180 ft wingspan.

rj

nimbusgb

January 24th 08, 10:26 PM

On 24 Jan, 21:00, Ralph Jones > wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:25:30 GMT, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com"
>
> <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> >Uniform Zulu wrote:
> >>>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080124.GIMLI24/
> >>>>TPStory/National
>
> >>Here is the full story for anyone interested:
> >>http://www.teamdan.com/archive/gimli.html
>
> >>Maybe we should park the 767 at Harris Hill to promote
> >>the sport
> >>'World's largest glider'
>
> Nope...that would be the Me321, 180 ft wingspan.
>
> rj

Wrong again. The Boeing 777 that went into Heathrow with non
responsive engines last week has a wingspan of 199 ft but flight 009
the 747-236b that lost all four engines on 24 June 1982 after flying
into a cloud of volcanic ash spent 15 minutes without power. That
ships wingspan is 195 ft and it outweights the Me by a factor of about
10 I think :)

Tootell, Betty (1985). All Four Engines Have Failed. Andre Deutsch.
ISBN 0-330-29492-X.

Ian

Ralph Jones[_2_]

January 24th 08, 11:53 PM

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:26:42 -0800 (PST), nimbusgb
> wrote:

>On 24 Jan, 21:00, Ralph Jones > wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:25:30 GMT, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com"
>>
>> <u33403@uwe> wrote:
>> >Uniform Zulu wrote:
>> >>>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080124.GIMLI24/
>> >>>>TPStory/National
>>
>> >>Here is the full story for anyone interested:
>> >>http://www.teamdan.com/archive/gimli.html
>>
>> >>Maybe we should park the 767 at Harris Hill to promote
>> >>the sport
>> >>'World's largest glider'
>>
>> Nope...that would be the Me321, 180 ft wingspan.
>>
>> rj
>
>
>
>Wrong again. The Boeing 777 that went into Heathrow with non
>responsive engines last week has a wingspan of 199 ft but flight 009
>the 747-236b that lost all four engines on 24 June 1982 after flying
>into a cloud of volcanic ash spent 15 minutes without power. That
>ships wingspan is 195 ft and it outweights the Me by a factor of about
>10 I think :)
>
I wouldn't accept the 747 because it didn't land deadstick, and as for
the 777, "nonresponsive" is not "non-functioning". Even at flight
idle, the thrust of a jet engine is substantial.

rj

nimbusgb

January 25th 08, 04:53 AM

On 24 Jan, 23:53, Ralph Jones > wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:26:42 -0800 (PST), nimbusgb
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On 24 Jan, 21:00, Ralph Jones > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:25:30 GMT, "Kloudy via AviationKB.com"
>
> >> <u33403@uwe> wrote:
> >> >Uniform Zulu wrote:
> >> >>>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080124.GIMLI24/
> >> >>>>TPStory/National
>
> >> >>Here is the full story for anyone interested:
> >> >>http://www.teamdan.com/archive/gimli.html
>
> >> >>Maybe we should park the 767 at Harris Hill to promote
> >> >>the sport
> >> >>'World's largest glider'
>
> >> Nope...that would be the Me321, 180 ft wingspan.
>
> >> rj
>
> >Wrong again. The Boeing 777 that went into Heathrow with non
> >responsive engines last week has a wingspan of 199 ft but flight 009
> >the 747-236b that lost all four engines on 24 June 1982 after flying
> >into a cloud of volcanic ash spent 15 minutes without power. That
> >ships wingspan is 195 ft and it outweights the Me by a factor of about
> >10 I think :)
>
> I wouldn't accept the 747 because it didn't land deadstick, and as for
> the 777, "nonresponsive" is not "non-functioning". Even at flight
> idle, the thrust of a jet engine is substantial.
>
> rj

Picky, picky, picky! Just because 009 couldn't thermal away and had to
fire up the turbos even though he had a volcano kicking off a core.

:) :) :)