« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 89 90 [91] 92 93 ... 226   Go Down

Author Topic: General Questions About The Case  (Read 636309 times)

Offline 377

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Thanked: 442 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1350 on: November 29, 2017, 06:34:30 PM »
The raft floats off and lands wherever. It depressurizes as the altitude gets lower. Nobody gets hurt.

Skydivers, smoke jumpers and paratroopers are all taught to carry flotation gear if a water landing is even a remote possibility. I have carried flotation gear when jumping near water hazards.  LPUs were the common solution. LPU 9, which i used, was a small military CO2 inflatable air bladder that cost about $20 for a pair in the early 70s. My instructor suggested always carrying a few condoms in an easily reached jumpsuit pocket. No Georger, not for that, but for use as inflatable flotation devices.  If Cooper had really planned things out he would have jumped with some kind of flotation gear. I doubt if I could unwrap and inflate condoms in a night landing in the Columbia, but I sure could pull an inflation tab on an LPU. Still, it would be a struggle to get away from your gear  in the dark and swim to safety. The river might win.

377
Logged
 
The following users thanked this post: andrade1812, JLa

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9300
  • Thanked: 1024 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1351 on: November 29, 2017, 10:06:30 PM »
Interesting part in the new files of a skydiving school in California. a man matching Cooper's description came in asking all sorts of questions about jumping, including jets..it starts on page 100 of the 317 files....the man from the school came forward after hearing about the hijacking...also discussed drag with full flaps gear down needed to exit the plane..he also asked where the jump centers were in Washington
« Last Edit: November 29, 2017, 10:09:08 PM by Shutter »
Logged
 
The following users thanked this post: andrade1812

Offline JLa

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • Thanked: 7 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1352 on: November 29, 2017, 11:31:24 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The raft floats off and lands wherever. It depressurizes as the altitude gets lower. Nobody gets hurt.

Skydivers, smoke jumpers and paratroopers are all taught to carry flotation gear if a water landing is even a remote possibility. I have carried flotation gear when jumping near water hazards.  LPUs were the common solution. LPU 9, which i used, was a small military CO2 inflatable air bladder that cost about $20 for a pair in the early 70s. My instructor suggested always carrying a few condoms in an easily reached jumpsuit pocket. No Georger, not for that, but for use as inflatable flotation devices.  If Cooper had really planned things out he would have jumped with some kind of flotation gear. I doubt if I could unwrap and inflate condoms in a night landing in the Columbia, but I sure could pull an inflation tab on an LPU. Still, it would be a struggle to get away from your gear  in the dark and swim to safety. The river might win.

377

That is actually pretty damn interesting. Thanks for the insight!
Logged
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1353 on: November 29, 2017, 11:35:54 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Interesting part in the new files of a skydiving school in California. a man matching Cooper's description came in asking all sorts of questions about jumping, including jets..it starts on page 100 of the 317 files....the man from the school came forward after hearing about the hijacking...also discussed drag with full flaps gear down needed to exit the plane..he also asked where the jump centers were in Washington

... that is interesting.
Logged
 
The following users thanked this post: andrade1812

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9300
  • Thanked: 1024 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1354 on: November 29, 2017, 11:55:41 PM »
Also, another entry talking about employee's..checking flight crews, and people with grievances, layoff etc.
Logged
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1355 on: November 30, 2017, 12:06:22 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also, another entry talking about employee's..checking flight crews, and people with grievances, layoff etc.

Its hard to tell what is projection from all the media coverage to what's real and independent.

I have gone through thousands of these tips/suspect files. The only thing missing is: "Cooper was my neighbor who is a polar bear"! ............ and I am not kidding. One of every permutation possible is in these tip or suspect files. Fair warning!  ;)  I think some people were responding to media coverage they had read or heard ... and agents were willing to following up any possible detail that might be a match. 
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 12:10:30 AM by georger »
Logged
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1356 on: November 30, 2017, 12:20:56 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Also, another entry talking about employee's..checking flight crews, and people with grievances, layoff etc.

Ive tried to follow some of these suspects to their final conclusion - NOT HIM. In most cases suspects fail on description details or finger prints. All serious suspects were run through that gauntlet. It didnt matter how well a suspect seemed a good match at first - prints and physical evidence, availability/alibi, and other hard data finally decides each and every suspect. A much smaller group is held as Undecided - Further Investigation. But in all cases it comes down to prints and other hard evidence that either matches or doesn't. The manpower devoted to this involving countless offices and agents etc. was mind boggling!   
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 12:22:37 AM by georger »
Logged
 

Offline andrade1812

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • My Website
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1357 on: November 30, 2017, 02:16:16 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Interesting part in the new files of a skydiving school in California. a man matching Cooper's description came in asking all sorts of questions about jumping, including jets..it starts on page 100 of the 317 files....the man from the school came forward after hearing about the hijacking...also discussed drag with full flaps gear down needed to exit the plane..he also asked where the jump centers were in Washington

Matches perfectly with the Gunther account.
Logged
 

MeyerLouie

  • Guest
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1358 on: November 30, 2017, 02:52:31 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The raft floats off and lands wherever. It depressurizes as the altitude gets lower. Nobody gets hurt.

Skydivers, smoke jumpers and paratroopers are all taught to carry flotation gear if a water landing is even a remote possibility. I have carried flotation gear when jumping near water hazards.  LPUs were the common solution. LPU 9, which i used, was a small military CO2 inflatable air bladder that cost about $20 for a pair in the early 70s. My instructor suggested always carrying a few condoms in an easily reached jumpsuit pocket. No Georger, not for that, but for use as inflatable flotation devices.  If Cooper had really planned things out he would have jumped with some kind of flotation gear. I doubt if I could unwrap and inflate condoms in a night landing in the Columbia, but I sure could pull an inflation tab on an LPU. Still, it would be a struggle to get away from your gear  in the dark and swim to safety. The river might win.

377


So when you go in to buy the condoms, and they ask what size you want, what are you going to say?  Any self-respecting man will only order the large, of course.  Ha!......and they make bigger, better flotation devices to boot -- after they've been up and coming, of course.  I can't believe i'm actually saying all this stuff with a straight face.....
Meyer
« Last Edit: November 30, 2017, 02:53:09 AM by MeyerLouie »
Logged
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9300
  • Thanked: 1024 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1359 on: December 03, 2017, 01:23:41 PM »
Has anyone ever heard of the Martin 2-0-2 aircraft? this was a military cargo plane that ended up being converted to a passenger plane..it has rear stairs similar to the 727...I'm trying to see if the stairs can be lowered from the cockpit as a hunch...perhaps we are thinking too far ahead?

The design of the aircraft also had some quirks. You see, most aircraft around this time (including our friend Convair’s CV-270 and Douglas’s DC-6) were starting to become pressurized to give passengers more comfort and to allow a higher cruising altitude. The 2-0-2… didn’t... for some reason. Moreover, the aircraft lacked batteries. This meant to operate the electric airstairs in the back after a flight, you would need to keep at least one engine running -- because everyone knows nothing can go wrong when you have a bunch of civilians on a tarmac with running engines.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2017, 01:27:09 PM by Shutter »
Logged
 

Offline 377

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1596
  • Thanked: 442 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1360 on: December 04, 2017, 12:33:03 PM »
AFAIK the Martin 202 was never a military cargo plane. I think you may be confusing it with the C-131 which was essentially a Convair 340 which was used widely by the USAF. Three surplus C-131s operated by CONQUEST AIR of FL flew relief cargo to Puerto Rico after the recent hurricane. They could go non stop from FL with about 7500 lbs of payload and land at a smaller airport that the jets couldn't use due to insufficient runway length. They were ferried from an AZ boneyard a year or two ago and refurbed for commercial use by Carlos Gomez, a propliner expert. At least one was relicensed as a Convair 340 which was the variant used by the USAF. C-131s were pressurized. The USAF T29 was a nav trainer variant but the airframe was the same as a C-131.

The USCG used a couple of Martins as VIP planes but I think that was the only military use. 

BTW a Martin 404 was used as a jumpship at the World Free Fall Convention about 20 years ago. Jumpers used the ventral stairway exit.

377
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 12:47:22 PM by 377 »
Logged
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9300
  • Thanked: 1024 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1361 on: December 04, 2017, 12:45:13 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
AFAIK the Martin 202 was never a military cargo plane. I think you may be confusing it with the C-131 which was essentially a Convair 340 which was used widely by the USAF. Three surplus C-131s operated by CONQUEST AIR of FL flew relief cargo to Puerto Rico after the recent hurricane. They could go non stop from FL with about 7500 lbs of payload and land at a smaller airport that the jets couldn't use due to insufficient runway length. They were ferried from an AZ boneyard a year or two ago and refurbed for commercial use by Carlos Gomez, a propliner expert.

The USCG used a couple of Martins as VIP planes but I think that was the only military use. 

377


can't find the article...I looked at so many trying to find the location to deploy the stairs...I must of misread them talking about military planes and conversions...or possibly was reading a C131 article and not realizing...don't know..
Logged
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9300
  • Thanked: 1024 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1362 on: December 04, 2017, 02:51:47 PM »
I don't know if this was from a skydiver, but it's funny. a registration card was sent to the FBI stating they were DB Cooper... :rofl:
Logged
 
The following users thanked this post: andrade1812, JLa, DavidV

Robert99

  • Guest
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1363 on: December 04, 2017, 03:48:41 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
AFAIK the Martin 202 was never a military cargo plane. I think you may be confusing it with the C-131 which was essentially a Convair 340 which was used widely by the USAF. Three surplus C-131s operated by CONQUEST AIR of FL flew relief cargo to Puerto Rico after the recent hurricane. They could go non stop from FL with about 7500 lbs of payload and land at a smaller airport that the jets couldn't use due to insufficient runway length. They were ferried from an AZ boneyard a year or two ago and refurbed for commercial use by Carlos Gomez, a propliner expert.

The USCG used a couple of Martins as VIP planes but I think that was the only military use. 

377


can't find the article...I looked at so many trying to find the location to deploy the stairs...I must of misread them talking about military planes and conversions...or possibly was reading a C131 article and not realizing...don't know..

I have flown as a passenger on both C-131s and ex-T29 USAF aircraft.  And I don't remember an aft stairs on either one of them.   
Logged
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9300
  • Thanked: 1024 times
Re: General Questions About The Case
« Reply #1364 on: December 04, 2017, 10:55:30 PM »
The Martin 202 is the one with the rear stairs....the C131 looks like the Martin and might of been in the search links I was reading and didn't notice they were talking about the C131 vs the Martin 202...

I was trying to find out if any of the past planes with rear stairs had any type of controls in the cockpit...
« Last Edit: December 04, 2017, 10:58:11 PM by Shutter »
Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 89 90 [91] 92 93 ... 226   Go Up
« previous next »