I think the reason for the lack of discussion with the configuration of the plane is the fact of it being accepted. the stairs were a different story. they switch to 30 degree's to slow the plane down further while he fumbles with the stairs. the flaps set at 30 only last about five minutes after they realize it will burn even more fuel. I believe they switch back to 15 when they start climbing to 10,000.
A wild guess could be Cooper watching the stairs come down from the tarmac thinking the they were lowered from the cockpit when it's actually the stew lowering them. this of course would mean Cooper has never been inside a 727 for any flights in the past.
was he smart enough to cover all these angles, or was he dumb enough to get himself killed over the crime? criminals always make critical error's, that's how they get caught. some work years preparing for it only to be caught with the critical error, or oversight.
Cooper could of easily asked for the cloud levels, or to drop the altitude if he was really looking for the key position to jump. why do it half ass, or did he screw up missing his original jump location? you would think a pilot would ask these types of questions..life saving questions.
I have always felt that the most concrete actual evidence left behind by Coop is the placard find and location. I believe we can identify the location of Aircraft pretty accurately! What figures do we need to do a fairly simple Mathematical solution.
1. We need the exact altitude of Placard find.
2. We need exact location of placard find.
3 we need altitude of aircraft at time of placard being dislodged from stairs.
4. We need wind speed to help determine drift of placard.
5. We need to know weight of placard approximated.
According to above post it appears the aircraft was at an elevation below 10,000 feet as Shutter mentions the stairs being already down and pilots realizing the extra drag will,cause fuel problem so they change flaps to 30 as they climb to 10,000 ft. I am curious what math figures were used when Simulations were done to try to locate flight location at time of placard find ! All of these figures are important to come to an relatively accurate conclusion. I have noticed in a earlier post that Robert 99 answers a question about the placard location as being just a few miles from Tina Bar ? Really ? I’ve been close to the placard find location and I’m curious as to what a few miles means to R99.
My main point is let’s try to agree on some accurate figures that I listed above and we can fairly accurately estimate where the aircraft was at 8:05 IF I’m reading correctly.
Kermit,
Many of your questions have already been answered on the flight path thread that I posted on extensively on these very questions. If you take the time to read that thread, you will know why getting the unredacted Seattle ATC radio transcripts are so important.
On the placard matter, if the placard was on a small door and that entire door disappeared then the placard would probably have stayed on that door all the way to the ground. But the placard that was found on the ground was obviously torn off with a substantial part of it left on whatever structure it was mounted. Reportedly, the remaining part of the placard was found by the maintenance people still attached to the structure when they repaired the aircraft in Seattle.
See Tom Kaye's site for the calculations that I used in predicting where the placard was torn off and separated from the aircraft.
After reading the items referenced above, get back in touch and we can discuss the matter further.
For the record, in my lingo "a few miles" means "a few miles". 
LOL YES , a few miles it is I guess ! I’ve been there and it’s “ quite a few miles “ in my lingo !
Although it’s interesting to note what Tom Kaye’s figures are, I’m trying to get a consensus of what is the most likely accurate figures. I’m aware that some of these stats cannot be 100% verifiable but you and I are certainly aware that any Math conclusion is only as accurate as the figures punched in the formula. I don’t claim to know all the figures but I certainly hope some of the intelligent gentlemen on this forum will assist me. Give me the approx correct figures, and I am very capable of doing the Math. If not I have a friend who is a Mathematical true genius who would hopefully help me out. He got a full scholarship to MIT.
Kermit,
The family that found the placard took Tom Kaye to the exact location where they found it. Tom then used his hand-held GPS receiver to record the exact location. I don't know how accurate Tom's GPS is but mine is accurate to within about six feet.
The most accurate numbers you will ever find on this matter are in the references that I gave you earlier. As I understand your comments, you have a friend who is a "Mathematical true genius" who you believe can come up with better numbers than previously used. I don't think you understand what you are actually saying.
For the record, I have known about 30 or 40 technical graduates of MIT, the USAF Academy, the Naval Academy, and the US Military Academy at West Point. All were involved in the aeronautical sciences and not a single one of them would make the statements you make above.
I look forward to seeing what you come up with.
What statements are you questioning ? The guy I mentioned is by far the best Mathematician I have ever known. Is that who you are questioning ? He was awarded a full paid 4 year scholarship to MIT and he was eons above everyone in our Class including the teacher. What has this to do with the 30 or 40 graduates you mentioned?
Kermit, are you saying you went to MIT with this fellow? But regardless of his knowledge of mathematics, he needs to know quite a bit about fluid dynamics and its sub-fields (which includes aerodynamics), about flight dynamics and its sub-fields, and a lot of other things that he is not going to learn in math class.
Further, your friend does not get to manufacture his own set of "facts". He will have to use the same facts that have already been used.
Here is a true story. A long time ago, and while working toward a degree in aeronautical engineering, after finishing the basic mathematics requirements for that degree, I used ever opportunity to take additional courses in advanced mathematics. One of the courses I took was on vector and tensor analysis. I was apparently the only engineer in that class with everyone else being math majors. During one class, the professor stated that "you will probably use the material in this course a couple of times in your career". Unfortunately for him, he didn't know that there was already a textbook in print on fluid dynamics (of which aerodynamics is a sub-field) that used vectors and tensors starting on page 1.
In addition, a young relative of mine did a PhD in Political Science. He has been publishing papers in various refereed journals since he was a junior in college. He kept me informed of some of the papers he was writing and I read some of them. After a few of those papers, I told him that I was surprised at the level of mathematics he used in those papers. So he and I compared our mathematical training. It turned out that he, as a political science student, and I, as an engineering student, had very comparable basic mathematics training. At the advanced level, we diverged a bit with him becoming more oriented toward advanced statistics and me towards more speciality courses in advanced engineering mathematics.
Anyway, I look forward to seeing what your friend has to say.
