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/servl...80124.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