767-200 C-GAUN (Gimli Glider) For Sale

rikkus67 · Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:06 pm

This is one important aircraft that needs to be preserved. Air Canada's C-GAUN 767-200, more famously know as the "Gimli Glider" is being auctioned off soon. The feat the pilots pulled off to get this fuel-starved aircraft safely back on the ground, with no injuries or loss of life is truly amazing, and needs to be celebrated no less than US Airways "Hudson" A320.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/bre...llion-192442941.html?device=mobile

This is one aircraft that does NOT deserve the pop can treatment!

skysurfer · Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:27 pm

Amazing that the pilots got it down safely and that it was able to fly again for many years. I will bid $1 so my soon to be newborn can enjoy it along with myself!
All jokes aside, i hope it is preserved as it's quite a piece of aviation history.

Cheers

MCOflyer · Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:32 pm

I hope whoever buys it presevers it and does not scrap it. Anyone know how many cycles and hours she currently has??

KH

United_fan · Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:32 pm

Hard to believe the incident happened almost 30 years ago. That is one old 767.

sk736 · Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:36 pm

I see absolutely no reason why the airframe should be preserved. It's just one of many aircraft that, over the years, have been involved in serious incidents.

BlueShamu330s · Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:37 pm

Just why should it be preserved?

It's a run of the mill B762 which happened to survive a forced landing which was caused by human error.

There is nothing "special" in the sense of it being ground breaking, technologically pioneering or symbolic of a new era in air travel, so I question how the expense of preserving it can be justified.

Rgds

MCOflyer · Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:42 pm

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 5):
Just why should it be preserved?

She should be preserved because she is famous and made history. It is not too often you can own a piece of history. Just my .02.

KH

rampbro · Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:43 pm

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 5):
Just why should it be preserved?

Lol, nothing to see here, just a 767 that made a crazy dead-stick landing on an converted military airport that the co-pilot remembered from his Air Force days and they were lucky enough be in range of. Never mind that the nosewheel collapsed and the aircraft skidded to a stop atop a stanchion running down the middle of the piste. Or the most innocuous detail, that the Gimli Glider actually flew away from that field (after repairs).

Nope nothing special about this one.

c172akula · Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:47 pm

The remarks from the executive director of the Western Canada Aviation Museum are completely idiotic:

"It's too much on what people fly today," Render said.

"Our focus is on the old planes which people don't know too much about... it would be lovely but it wouldn't be on our dream list."

Your aviation museum wouldn't want a incredibly cool piece of Canadian aviation history? Just do us all a favour and quit your job now...

[Edited 2013-02-22 10:49:19]

SpaceshipDC10 · Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:52 pm

Aviation history, hopefully, will remember what happened that day with that aircraft. Beyond that, I don't see why it should be preserved. It's just an airliner that was involved in an incident. It's more the pilots that should not be forgotten. Otherwise we should also preserve the TS A330 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic.

mayor · Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:00 pm

Quoting sk736 (Reply 4):
I see absolutely no reason why the airframe should be preserved. It's just one of many aircraft that, over the years, have been involved in serious incidents.

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 5):
Just why should it be preserved?

It's a run of the mill B762 which happened to survive a forced landing which was caused by human error.

There is nothing "special" in the sense of it being ground breaking, technologically pioneering or symbolic of a new era in air travel, so I question how the expense of preserving it can be justified.

Have you no sense of history? I'm sure that there are airframes that have been preserved, in museums all over the world, that are much more obscure than this one.

pnwtraveler · Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:12 pm

So a few people want to see the Gimli Glider. Open up your cheque (or check) books and write a sizeable donation. Both for the purchase, transport, storage regime, refurbishment to display state, and then 20 to 30 years of upkeep, share of the overhead such as rent, light etc. and then ongoing maintenance of the display. When you add all that up in cost, is it really worth that? Do a storyboard, a video that plays on a loop, even cut the nose and cockpit off and put it in the Museum and you have the memory of the event at a fraction of the cost.

Unless you work day in and day out trying to get people to help pay for all these great ideas, or nostalgic ideas, you don't have a clue how hard it is to get people to part with their cash. Particularly for museums and displays that don't involve puppies with big eyes and needy children. Those you can rely on people's sympathy and to an extent their guilt. Museums are more cerebral and you have to work much harder.

So here is the challenge to all. Before you say someone "should" do something get your wallet ready and promise a large chunk of cash. Better yet issue a challenge to everyone you know or think would help, and raise the money yourself. Say $2 to $3 Million to cover the cost of the lifetime of the aircraft display. Then you have a right and the motivation for a museum to take on the challenge.

Or even better buy it yourselves, park it outside the museum and open up a Tim Hortons with the aircraft as seating.

rampbro · Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:14 pm

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 9):
Otherwise we should also preserve the TS A330 that ran out of fuel over the Atlantic.

Not a bad idea to put her somewhere nice, once her career as a tour-bus is over. Infield at YUL comes to mind. Given the hero status Piche and that flight hold at TS, it would not surprise me at all.

There's enough old junk to turn into pop tins. These aircraft are a testament to the fragility of flight and the human condition, and imperfection of human planning and thinking, but also to the force of will and power of intellect of the pilots and those who designed and built the aircraft.

sdf880 · Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:18 pm

I'm an aircraft dispatcher and I usually have the Gimli Glider picture as my computer wallpaper. A nice constant reminder for me not to mess up my fuel calculations.

SDF880

71Zulu · Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:29 pm

How would AC feel about this aircraft in a museum? Seems like they would rather forget that incident ever happened.

Also have the TACA glider, N697SW which does not have too many more years left.

virgin747 · Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:51 pm

There was a bit of discussion on the WFP site about this which is oddly powered by demand media.... Otherwise i'll just post my two cents here also.

Shirley Renders says the 767 is not really a great fit into the collection because its still to new, meanwhile theres the spirit of Delta (B767-200) on display and the definitely newer A320 from the Hudson landing. What the article doesnt say is the Muesum is looking to build a new place where the old Winnipeg International is. My opinion is that this 767 would be a great center piece at this Muesum. And just on the side, someone should ask Shirley about the CF-100 sitting outside covered in snow, thats a real shame...

Theres also talk about Air Canada donating it. Air Canada seems to be a company that celebrates itself. The evidence is that there was DC-9s they donated to various technical colleges around the country, the one in Thunder Bay repainted to its original colors. CF-TCC their 3rd airplane in the fleet sits inside the Western Canada Aviation Muesum during the Winter and flies around during the summer raising funds for Dreams Take Flight. Theres other Air Canada planes sitting at Muesums across the country.

Gimli would also be a nice place to see this plane land. But ulitimately it comes to who would be willing to open their pocket book to get it there.

As for the people who think it should be scrap metal, I guess we should also scrap the countless 747s on display and the Concordes.... This 767 has its place in history just like any of those other planes... And the Concorde and the 767 are only 6 years apart.

brilondon · Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:51 pm

I thought it was scrapped, wow, I wonder how much they might get for it. Being damaged goods, I imagine a discount would be in order.

skipness1E · Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:55 pm

Excuse me, how many B767-200s are preserved? None? If we're going to preserve one, this one has a great story. Is there a more interesting one? Unlikely.
For all those moaning it's just tun of the mill, you're right and will continue to be right until the last one is scrapped.

SpaceshipDC10 · Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:59 pm

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 17):
Excuse me, how many B767-200s are preserved? None?

An answer to your question.

Quoting virgin747 (Reply 15):
meanwhile theres the spirit of Delta (B767-200)

BlueShamu330s · Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:02 pm

Skipness, try The Spirit of Delta for one:

http://deltamuseum.org/M_Aircraft_B-767.htm

Rgds

Skydrol · Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:05 pm

From Winnipeg Free Press article:

Quote:

Shirley Render, the museum's executive director, said while the plane landed in Gimli with empty fuel tanks almost 30 years ago, it is still too new for their collection.

"It's too much on what people fly today," Render said.

"Our focus is on the old planes which people don't know too much about... it would be lovely but it wouldn't be on our dream list."

Too new? This is a significant piece of Manitoba aviation history, and April 14 will be the one and only chance to get it. In 10 to 15 years, it might not be considered too new anymore, but if you haven't got it, you haven't got it.

With such an attitude towards this incredible opportunity, Ms. Render should consider stepping down.

Because this airplane is so well-known, I doubt serious bidders for this specific plane will be bidding for scrap. It will be interesting to see where this ends up, but it really should be WCAM in Winnpeg, or Gimli, Manitoba. But obviously any museum is better than GAUN being gone.

✈ LD4 ✈

virgin747 · Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:08 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 16):
I thought it was scrapped, wow, I wonder how much they might get for it. Being damaged goods, I imagine a discount would be in order.

I dont know if theres any AC people on the forum here that can confirm this, but I heard theres like tell tale signs of what happened that day still on the airplane.

NASBWI · Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:24 pm

Quoting virgin747 (Reply 15):
meanwhile theres the spirit of Delta (B767-200)

True, but the Spirit of Delta was preserved not because of the type, but because of its symbolism...It was an aircraft purchased by the employees in a sign of their faith in Delta's management.

Quoting virgin747 (Reply 15):
and the definitely newer A320 from the Hudson landing

US 1549 was historic for a few reasons: it's extremely rare for a jet to encounter a flock of birds and lose not one, but both engines in the incident. The fact that this happened - at such a phase of flight, and over an extremely populated area - with no loss of life, or too many major injuries, made it sensational, and it also highlighted the skill of the pilots as well as the endurance of the aircraft. Remember, it was still largely in one piece even after impact (and yes, I'm aware that that was possible in part to the fact that it was a calm day on the Hudson). In any event, this incident happened through no fault of the airline or its crew. Being able to 'beat the odds' that were thrown at one by nature tends to gain a lot more attention than simply excellent piloting.

After all, deadstick landings happen - and have happened - quite often. The big (pardon the pun) difference between the Gimli Glider and other aircraft was that C-GAUN was much larger. While the pilots in question handled the emergency excellently, fault was found with the airline by Transport Canada, and (as someone else mentioned) AC probably doesn't want to draw too much attention to that.

AADC10 · Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:24 pm

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 20):
Because this airplane is so well-known, I doubt serious bidders for this specific plane will be bidding for scrap. It will be interesting to see where this ends up, but it really should be WCAM in Winnpeg, or Gimli, Manitoba. But obviously any museum is better than GAUN being gone.

The danger is that it might be purchased for parts. Old aircraft do not have much value as scrap but since there are still a few 762s still operating that need parts. AA and UA are still flying them and UA's may fly a little longer than expected due to the 787 snafu.

Skydrol · Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:46 pm

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 23):
The danger is that it might be purchased for parts. Old aircraft do not have much value as scrap but since there are still a few 762s still operating that need parts.

That is also the way a museum can offset the intial purchase costs - sell off engines, actuators etc. parts that will never be required once the airplane is on display. With the engines and other mechanical parts having been changed several times throughout the life of the airplane, there is no specific historical significance, but in running/rebuildable condition they are far more valuable in dollars than the fuselage (which is the historically-valuable part of C-GAUN). I see no problem with this approach.

Also consider the number of 767-200s being scrapped and available for part-out anyway... there should be no shortage of parts. There are always airplanes being auctioned. The auction for this one made the news for a reason.

✈ LD4 ✈

Polot · Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:52 pm

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 20):
Because this airplane is so well-known, I doubt serious bidders for this specific plane will be bidding for scrap. It will be interesting to see where this ends up, but it really should be WCAM in Winnpeg, or Gimli, Manitoba. But obviously any museum is better than GAUN being gone.

Is it really though? How many people outside of aviation enthusiast remember this incident, and know that the airplane was repaired and still flying?

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 22):
US 1549 was historic for a few reasons: it's extremely rare for a jet to encounter a flock of birds and lose not one, but both engines in the incident.

It is not just that, the US1549 has one more thing going for it: it is visually interesting to look at because it is still banged up from the water landing. People are attracted to carnage (that is why people rubberneck when there are traffic accidents...). The US1549 plane is still mangled. If the TWA 800 or PA 103 reconstructions were in museums they would be huge draws. A 767s that currently looks like all other 767s that happened to run out of fuel and scrapped it's nose some 30 years ago? That is not something that brings people in. It needs a good visual hook.

longhauler · Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:56 pm

Quoting virgin747 (Reply 21):
I dont know if theres any AC people on the forum here that can confirm this, but I heard theres like tell tale signs of what happened that day still on the airplane.

I have flown it a few times, and no there is nothing unusual about that aircraft. The only thing that made it stick out, is that it was one of the few AC B767s in the fleet that was totally domestic. Light weights, no slide/rafts, no HF, etc etc etc. Back in the day, it was purchased to replace the domestic DC-8-61s.

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 22):
While the pilots in question handled the emergency excellently, fault was found with the airline by Transport Canada, and (as someone else mentioned) AC probably doesn't want to draw too much attention to that.

That accident was a classic Reason Swiss Cheese occurrence, and is often used in crew training as an example. Many new SOPs at AC were developed as a result of that accident, and when new hire F/Os moan "why do we do this", I remind them of that accident ... and if it can happen, it may well happen.

When it was retired from the fleet, virtually timed out, and needing a D check, AC allowed a commemorative fly by at YUL, and rounded up the original crew. I get the feeling its not that AC wants to forget it, just that they know they cant forget it, as that is what makes AC safer today.

71Zulu · Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:02 pm

Quote:
"It's too much on what people fly today," Render said.

English anybody?

skipness1E · Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:08 pm

What a shame there's such negativity on here. So there's one B767-200 preserved on the planet, yet so many enthusiasts are looking for reasons not to preserve a second. I don't get these boards some days. I swear people just argue to be contrary

NASBWI · Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:20 pm

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 28):
What a shame there's such negativity on here. So there's one B767-200 preserved on the planet, yet so many enthusiasts are looking for reasons not to preserve a second.

I wouldn't get too emotional about it just yet, skipness. After all, for that one 762 that's preserved, a great many others are still flying - in passenger use, no less (UA even has some relatively new ones). So the odds of them not gracing our skies anymore is minimal - at least for the time-being. If it was the last airworthy DC-8, however, I'd probably be more in your corner

.

The argument being posed is whether or not this particular example should be preserved, and why. The 767 is indeed a great model of aircraft, but honestly, it's not that revolutionary. Airbus had already achieved twin-engined wide-body travel before the 76' was introduced. Although the 767 brought extra range to the table, neither its performance nor its design was one-of-a-kind: DC-10s, L10-11s, and 747s were already flying further - with more people, and as mentioned, Airbus had already showed the world that twin-engined high capacity aircraft were viable. The 767 simply added range (and more modern systems) to the mix.

Aesma · Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:34 pm

Personally I don't mind if it's preserved, after all I will not be paying for it. But I question the appeal of that specific aircraft, the story is interesting, not the actual plane.

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 22):
After all, deadstick landings happen - and have happened - quite often. The big (pardon the pun) difference between the Gimli Glider and other aircraft was that C-GAUN was much larger. While the pilots in question handled the emergency excellently, fault was found with the airline by Transport Canada, and (as someone else mentioned) AC probably doesn't want to draw too much attention to that.

The pilots were also at fault. But cameras everywhere and 24/7 news channels also make a big difference between the two stories. In 30 years many people that don't really care about aviation will still remember (with some help) the Hudson water landing, while the Gimli is only an aviation enthusiasts thing.

Goose · Fri Feb 22, 2013 11:45 pm

Quoting C172Akula (Reply 8):
Your aviation museum wouldn't want a incredibly cool piece of Canadian aviation history? Just do us all a favour and quit your job now...

I'm not all hot and bothered to preserve C-GAUN, but this is really typical of Canadian aviation museums.

Remember the fracas over the Lockheed Constellation at the Toronto Airport, years ago? Not one Canadian museum cared about it, until the Museum of Flight ponied up to buy it and move it to SEA -- and even then, nobody had any money to buy it with.

longhauler · Sat Feb 23, 2013 12:28 am

Quoting Goose (Reply 31):
but this is really typical of Canadian aviation museums.

Sad but true, and ... it continues. Air museums all over Canada, with some very interesting aircraft are threatened with being shut down and the aircraft scrapped.

Quoting Goose (Reply 31):
Remember the fracas over the Lockheed Constellation at the Toronto Airport, years ago? Not one Canadian museum cared about it, until the Museum of Flight ponied up to buy it and move it to SEA -- and even then, nobody had any money to buy it with.

That was a very interesting aircraft. It was the only L1049G, with a complete passenger interior intact as it was when the aircraft was retired from passenger service. Galleys, Washrooms, Overhead racks, window frames .... all the things for which restorers all over the world were searching ... and here it was in one complete aircraft, as it never made the cargo conversion.

It was almost destroyed during its reconstruction as a restaurant, but it was saved. Everyone made a huge stink about it leaving Canada, but no one would do anything other than gripe. The Museum of Flight in Seattle did an absolute A-One restoration of the aircraft ... and to their credit, kept the Trans-Canada Air Lines paint scheme.

I see the same thing happening to C-GAUN. Everyone will gripe, no one will do anything, and in a few summers, enjoying a beer by the river fishing, I'll wonder if it was old 604!

[Edited 2013-02-22 16:30:19]

Goose · Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:08 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 32):
Everyone made a huge stink about it leaving Canada, but no one would do anything other than gripe.

It was actually worse than that - the Toronto Aviation Museum actively worked to block the Museum of Flight from exporting the aircraft from Canada, by going through the Canadian Heritage people.

Then, when it came time to put their money where their mouths were, the Toronto museum had no money. When they actually offered to purchase the airplane from the MoF, but only for the value of the scrap aluminum.

longhauler · Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:59 am

Quoting NASBWI (Reply 22):
fault was found with the airline by Transport Canada

Quoting Aesma (Reply 30):
The pilots were also at fault

During the investigations, fault kept bouncing around the table.

There were so many "gotchas" with respect to this incident, it is almost frightening. And, I remember a simulator instructor stating, "If we tried to script this in a simulator session, everyone would cry it was too unlikely to be plausible".

For example ....A circuit breaker is not pulled to make the system operative (trust me, that's right), gauges are all blank. The Captain refuses the aircraft as the MEL states otherwise, but is told that the aircraft MEL is out of date and is read the "correct" one on the radio. The fuel is loaded in pounds not kilos, (roughly 2:1 ratio). The drip check is done, but they use inches not centimetres, (roughly 2:1 ratio) so its not caught. Then again in Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!

longhauler · Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:04 am

As always, the edit function does not work ... I wont bother.

Fiedman · Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:46 am

A couple reasons that this aircraft should be preserved. First, the first 767 was delivered only 10 months prior to the incident, and was the first major incident involving the 767. Second, this was also the first time a North American aircraft successfully made a dead-stick landing where there were no fatalities. I do believe this aircraft should be preserved and I am saddened that the people at the WCAM don't want this aircraft because its "too new" it is part of Manitoba history and if they don't want it then I believe it should go to the Canada Aviation and Space Museum in Ottawa

longhauler · Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:58 am

Quoting Fiedman (Reply 36):
I am saddened that the people at the WCAM don't want this aircraft because its "too new"

This March, this "new" aircraft will be 30 years old.

The "old" Viscount that is sitting in their hanger was barely more than 20 years old when it entered the museum. I think their biggest concerns are that they can not afford to purchase the aircraft, and, have no place to put it, even if they did get it.

Sadly, the Canada Aviation and Space Museum has a lot of aircraft sitting outdoors in poor condition.

Goose · Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:13 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 37):
The "old" Viscount that is sitting in their hanger was barely more than 20 years old when it entered the museum. I think their biggest concerns are that they can not afford to purchase the aircraft, and, have no place to put it, even if they did get it.

Yep, you got it -- money and available space are always two things in short supply with most museums I've known. And finding the space to park a 767 would place a lot of strain on even the largest outfit.

Unless it's the first one off the line, or the last one in existance, it's not really noteworthy enough to save in whole.

But that's not to say that perhaps a few pieces can be saved; maybe the breaker will have an auction. Just a thought.

upcfordcruiser · Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:16 am

Turn it into commemorative Pepsi cans.

AY-MD11 · Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:14 am

Quoting Polot (Reply 25):
If the TWA 800 or PA 103 reconstructions were in museums they would be huge draws

What happened to those wrecks? are they somewhere on show or scrapped?

soon7x7 · Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:58 am

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 28):
What a shame there's such negativity on here. So there's one B767-200 preserved on the planet, yet so many enthusiasts are looking for reasons not to preserve a second. I don't get these boards some days. I swear people just argue to be contrary

Yep...always some blowhards here...
The idea of preserving an airframe that was a stepping stone in aviation history is never a mistake however insignificant some here may feel this 767 is.
When @ Munich photographing from the mound, they have on display a Constellation and two other complete airframes. It is a nice touch to an airport that demonstrated a willingness to save some history, educate young kids and open their eyes to aviation. Where or how else can you get near a major transport aircraft other than to fly somewhere on one. If the aircraft has a story to tell...that much the better.
Here on Long Island, a place that used to be the global focal point of aircraft production, there exists little evidence of its history with exception to those that have volunteered their time/money to preserve the very products, manufactured here that put men on the moon, won battles in the European theaters in WWII. With the few museums we have here it is great to go visit. I might add...it is terribly sad to see the absence of schools attending with children, and generally speaking, young people not attending these museums. Kids today can't get their pusses out of their i-phones and into a relic cockpit if you paid them.
Saving this airframe has every bit of significance as preserving a Concorde. Everyone thought scrapping them was criminal yet many are now on display and quite frankly the inside of a Concorde is no more glamorous than a MD-80 with leather CRJ seats.

666wizard · Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:14 am

Quoting AY-MD11 (Reply 40):
What happened to those wrecks? are they somewhere on show or scrapped?

I have an idea that the fuselage of the PA103 747 is at the AAIB site at Farnborough, UK, and is now used for investigator instruction. I believe TWA800 was similarly reconstructed by the NTSB in the US for the accident investigation, but not sure where. Don't think either are publicly viewable.

rwy04lga · Sat Feb 23, 2013 11:02 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 32):
Quoting Goose (Reply 31):
Remember the fracas over the Lockheed Constellation at the Toronto Airport, years ago? Not one Canadian museum cared about it, until the Museum of Flight ponied up to buy it and move it to SEA -- and even then, nobody had any money to buy it with.

That was a very interesting aircraft. It was the only L1049G, with a complete passenger interior intact as it was when the aircraft was retired from passenger service. Galleys, Washrooms, Overhead racks, window frames .... all the things for which restorers all over the world were searching ... and here it was in one complete aircraft, as it never made the cargo conversion.

It was almost destroyed during its reconstruction as a restaurant, but it was saved. Everyone made a huge stink about it leaving Canada, but no one would do anything other than gripe. The Museum of Flight in Seattle did an absolute A-One restoration of the aircraft ... and to their credit, kept the Trans-Canada Air Lines paint scheme.

I've often wondered if this was the plane on which I took my first flight. December 21, 1957 YUL-TPA. Can anyone confirm that (or not)?

zanl188 · Sat Feb 23, 2013 2:03 pm

Quoting 666wizard (Reply 42):
I believe TWA800 was similarly reconstructed by the NTSB in the US for the accident investigation, but not sure where. Don't think either are publicly viewable.

TWA 800 is at the NTSB Training Center.

http://www.ntsb.gov/TC/facilityloc.htm

DTWPurserBoy · Sat Feb 23, 2013 2:11 pm

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 17):
Excuse me, how many B767-200s are preserved? None? If we're going to preserve one, this one has a great story. Is there a more interesting one? Unlikely.

DL has preserved The Spirit of Delta in the museum hangar in ATL. Several days during the week she is open for viewing with retirees acting as guides. This was the 762 that the DL employees chipped in through payroll deduction to buy for the company. Remarkable. Oddly enough those that flew on her said she was something of a "hangar queen."

But it sure is neat to walk into the building and see her sitting there looking so great.

mayor · Sat Feb 23, 2013 4:33 pm

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 45):
Oddly enough those that flew on her said she was something of a "hangar queen."

I had heard the same thing when I worked at DL, but I'm thinking that it was towards the end of her career. I don't think the other 767-200s were immune from this, either.

longhauler · Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:10 pm

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 43):
I've often wondered if this was the plane on which I took my first flight. December 21, 1957 YUL-TPA. Can anyone confirm that (or not)?

On December 21 1957, TCA had 11 L1049Gs (with one more having just arrived), so you have a 1 in 11 chance. Certainly better than Lotto 6/49!

Historical records are long gone for those early flights. I think the only way you could find out, would be (by a long shot) looking at the actual pilot's log book. Just on a whim, I checked my Dad's log books, as he flew the L1049 around that era, but no .... in December 1957, he was still on the DC-4M.

AmericanAirFan · Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:12 pm

Might not seem like history now, but in 50 years it will be quite historical, and much more historically significant than other 767-200s that are out there. Money is a huge motivator as everyone else has stated. We will have to wait and see who takes it, and I'm sure there will be spotters who follow her to her new home or grave site.

longhauler · Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:37 pm

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 45):
DL has preserved The Spirit of Delta in the museum hangar in ATL.

I am always heartened to see airlines recognize the importance of the past, even during tough economic times.

DL, as mentioned, also the AA CR Smith Museum at DFW. Such endeavors can not be cheap! AC, maintains and flies one of its original Lockheed 10 Electras around the country, and has donated several aircraft to museums.

I also recall once, when visiting several air museums in England, that BA sponsored the storage and display of several of its aircraft from the past. KL, AF and LH have done the same, have they not?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net