Robert99

FlyJack, do you understand the following terms? What are MAGNETIC headings? What are TRUE headings? How are SECTIONAL LINES aligned?

Exactly.

I don't know where FlyJack got this "going J-5" quotation but it may have been in reference to the J-5 High Altitude IFR route that goes to the southeast from Seattle. Jet High Altitude IFR routes are used above Flight Level 180 (18,000 feet ASL in a standard atmosphere). But the reference may have just been that the crew was just discussing things well knowing that they were going to be limited to 10,000 feet ASL.

Any 12-year-old Boy Scout in Washington state, and I was one a long time ago, could easily determine if the airliner was headed south. If I had my compass with me, it would just a matter of taking a look at it. Even if I didn't have my compass, if I could see a few stars, I could figure out what was south in just a few seconds. Those were just some of the basic skills that Boy Scouts were taught and tested on in my time.

Kamkisky is correct. Using the OleMiss map, V27 would require the airliner to fly on a heading of 227 degrees magnetic when leaving Seattle. Ignoring the wind correction factor, the 22 degrees east variation must be ADDED to the 227 to obtain the true heading of the aircraft. These values are clearly shown on the map. The true heading of the aircraft on V27 would be 227 + 22 = 249 degrees true. True west is 270 degrees. V27 goes west from the Seattle VORTAC to the Hoquiam VORTAC which is located on a very narrow piece of land (about 2 miles wide) with the Pacific Ocean on the west side and the bay at Hoquiam on the east side. V27 then goes essentially straight south from the Hoquiam VORTAC to a point south of the latitude where the airliner turned toward Reno. V27 is ALWAYS very near to the Pacific Ocean and actually OVER the Pacific for substantial distances. The actual IFR low level charts that the airliner would have been using are available on Sluggo's site and they clearly support the above. I suspect that OleMiss can post additional VFR segments that they also support the above. I would suggest that FlyJack make some effort to understand what he is talking about before he starts pontificating.

Who is GC? When the aircraft was sitting on the ground in Seattle it was already on V-23. When it took off, it passed within a few hundred feet of the Seattle VORTAC which was located between the southern ends of the two Seattle runways. V-23 is the segment between the Seattle VORTAC and the Malay Intersection. From the Malay Intersection V-23 goes to the Battleground VORTAC and then continues south from there. Why go further west when the crew didn't know if they had enough fuel to make it to Reno until they were in the Portland area. That is why the crew was passing fuel flow information to the performance engineers in Minneapolis until they were assured that they could make it to Reno.

The flight crew was specifically told not to fly over the ocean by Soderlind in Minneapolis. In selecting a route south, the flight crew needed to consider radio communications capabilities, radio navigational aids availability, terrain clearance, and other such factors. For most of those factors the minimum altitude was 10,000 feet above sea level which was the same altitude Cooper told the crew to fly at. And V-23 was the logical choice for the flight south from Seattle.

If the money was ever on the bottom of the Columbia River, and there is nothing to suggest it ever was, then it stayed on the bottom. There is no magic way for it to get off the bottom and up on the Tena Bar beach.

There will be a very slight increase in drag, relatively speaking, but not the 2118.8 pounds that FlyJack claims. Nor a 10 - 20 Knot reduction in the airspeed as FlyJack also claims.

FlyJack, what I posted was not an insult. You apparently have little contact with the real world. If you do your numbers again as I asked you to do and come up with the same thing, then I will show you how to do it. You do understand that neither of us has accurate information about the aft stairs so if our numbers are even in the same ballpark, they will be acceptable. This will give you some experience in the art of number crunching.

FlyJack, I am seriously beginning to question which planet you are coming from, and it does not seem to be the Earth. Since you have repeatedly refused to reveal what training you have, if any, in mathematics, physics, or aviation, I humbly submit that you should repeat your calculations and take care to adhere closely to the following suggestions. Use the same system of units in all your calculations. Don't switch between metric, nautical, or other systems without making the necessary corrections between the systems. The good old fashioned English system of feet, seconds, Miles Per Hour, etc., is still a great system and most of the posters on this site are probably familiar with it. Also, you list 194 MPH as being the airliners speed when Cooper jumped. Actually, the airliner was flying at 170 Knots Indicated Air Speed (KIAS), which results in a 194 Knots True Air Speed (KTAS) at 10,000 feet under the temperature and pressure conditions that then existed. And 194 KTAS is 225 Miles Per Hour. Double check your previous calculations and post the new ones.

Lisa Story has apparently got us pegged. OleMiss, when is your book going to be released.

The performance engineers in Minneapolis told the flight crew to fly at an Indicated Air Speed of 170 Knots to achieve the best range (most miles per gallon in automobile terminology) with the aircraft configuration that Cooper specified. Information is not available about the climb airspeed but when they slowed down to about 135 KIAS to help Cooper get the stairs down, they would need to lower the flaps more than 15 degrees. But at some point they climbed on up to 10,000 feet and with the flaps down to 15 degrees were doing 170 to 180 KIAS when Cooper jumped.

As pointed out previously, the original 727s would probably have at least 10,000 pounds of drag with the landing gear down and the flaps slightly down at 15 degrees under the flight conditions that existed during the hijacking. Even if the aft stairs were down enough for a 225-pound man to stand on the bottom step, the increase in the drag component would be less than his weight. The increase in drag under these circumstances would be insignificant. The change in airspeed would be hardly noticeable, if at all, to the flight crew even if the airliner was being hand flown.

They were probably already in the neighborhood of 7000 feet when they decided to level off. There is nothing magic about the altitude here. They may have wanted to slow down a bit or whatever. But it was probably mainly just to show Cooper that they were trying to help him with the stairs.

No. With the flap geometry staying the same, the only thing that controls the airflow at the aft stairs is the airspeed. For the same airspeed, it doesn't matter if the aircraft is flying level or climbing.

Basically, there is not sufficient information available to make a meaningful detailed calculation of this. So what follows here is the analytical equivalent of "hammer and tong engineering". During the FBI test flights, it is reported that one of the USAF parachutists did in fact walk to the bottom of the stairs. As he walked down the stairs he would also be moving toward the rear of the aircraft. This movement would cause a slight NOSE UP moment for the aircraft. The amount of this increase in moment depends on his distance from the center of gravity of the aircraft. As the aft stairs move downward, the aerodynamic force on the stairs can be resolved into two components. The component parallel to the fuselage reference line is the increase in drag. This force will be quite small compared to the overall drag of the aircraft which is probably already well in excess of 10,000 pounds. This drag force component will probably be below the center of gravity of the aircraft and will cause a slight NOSE DOWN moment for the aircraft. The vertical component of the aerodynamic force on the stairs will be up and will also cause a slight NOSE DOWN moment for the aircraft. Even with someone standing on the bottom of the stairs, where the wind chill factor is about 30 to 40 degrees below zero, the effect on the overall performance of a 727 is going to be slight and may not even be noticeable if the aircraft is on autopilot or being hand flown in even mild turbulence. We need to address a remark made by Rataczak that when Cooper jumped and the aft stairs slammed close it caused enough of a disturbance that his headset almost came off. It should be noted that the flight crew had been told by the FAA Chief Psychologist that Cooper would probably blow up the aircraft when he jumped. With this cheering news, when the stairs slammed into the fuselage and created a pressure disturbance in the cockpit as well as a lot of noise, I suggest that all four people in that cockpit did a lot of jumping thinking that the bomb had gone off.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT COOPER HAD ANY ACTUAL PARACHUTE JUMPING EXPERIENCE. He said he didn't need the brochure on how to use a parachute. That means only that he knew how to put on a parachute and had a one minute briefing on how to use it. The briefing for passengers on how to use a parachute was essentially just: "Jump out of the airplane, count to 10, and then pull the ripcord." No more, no less.

My post from 2011 that you quote is self-explanatory. Cooper was simply looking for two skydiver type rigs as they were widely known in 1971. Again, "front and back" was not a military term or even a civilian skydiver term in the 1971 time frame.

Nicholas, Georger, and Ollemiss are absolutely correct. "Fronts and Backs" is NOT military jargon. I have never heard that term uttered by a paratrooper or military free fall parachutist. And backpack, seatpack, and quick attach rigs, where only the harness is worn, were always described by a single word - parachutes. This thread, like a number of others on this site, is a waste of time.

Everyone needs to pay attention to what Olemiss is saying. First, on the matter of the 302's. The agent doing the interview may not have any experience in the specific subject that is being discussed. And the person being interviewed may have only very limited knowledge of the subject. The terminology they use will probably not be the terminology that an expert in the subject would use. So don't try to make a Federal case out of the semantics. Just try to understand what they are talking about. An experienced interviewer will probably approach a vital point from several different directions to make sure he understands what the subject is saying. Second, Olemiss is certainly correct in saying that the present day parachute terminology is not the same as the 1971 or prior terminology. Finally, it appears that Cooper did have some parachute experience but not necessarily as a skydiver. There is no evidence that Tina had ever seen a parachute before much less touched one.

If my memory is correct, Cooper cut about 90 feet of cord from the risers of the reserve parachute that was left behind. This is not enough cord to securely tie the money bag and also have a "drag" bag option. Also, it would not be a good idea for Cooper to tie things around his waist. He should tie them to the parachute harness. Otherwise, if he has a 10-g parachute opening shock he is going to be looking for a Chiropractor as soon as he lands. NOTE: I will make every effort to respond to FlyJack's post number 65625 this weekend. He has asked valid questions and they require a lot of writing which I don't have time to do immediately.

You are relatively new to this site so here is the sad news for you. Those of us who have been here 15 years or so have seen the same recycling of nonsense dozens and dozens of times. It has become basically a site for debating, or just plain arguing, without any real interest by some posters in solving the hijacking. Some of the debaters probably don't even know which end of an airplane takes off first. It has probably been several years since any meaningful progress has been made here relative to the hijacking. Sorry.

Olemiss, when will your book be published. I'll be very happy to buy one of the first copies.

Oh, Georger! Haven't I mentioned this to you, other posters on this thread, and everyone else on the planet, for about the last 15 years that Cooper had to land as a no-pull in a very restricted area near Tena Bar for the money to get to where it was found. The details of the above were last posted here within the last few weeks.