DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 700]

15 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I’ve asked Bill this and he says it was a long time ago when he spoke with “Mr. Tosaw”, but he found Tosaw to be a pretty scrupulous guy. Bill said he can’t remember  that detail specifically, but said if Tosaw attributed it to him, then it’s likely accurate. 

Tosaw's quote... not exactly attributed,,, it could be his clothes (semicolon... this or this or this...) Looks like it is Tosaw speculating about Mitchell's odd socks claim. Mitchell has never said he saw what he beleived to be long underwear.

Mitchell ‘did wonder why the blond stewardess was paying so much attention to this “older man” when he also desired some attention and was obviously more her age. He concluded that whatever the man’s attraction, it couldn’t be his clothes; the man’s socks or long underwear or whatever it was that was showing didn’t match his shoes or trousers.

Edited October 20, 2023 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 700]

20 minutes ago, Slim King said:

You need to contact the Peca/Reca family. They have the actual Thermal Underwear Cooper wore. Easily dated to 1971....

of course they do....

 

[Robert99 50]

15 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Found some info..

The 28' a round flat circular is a C-9

The 26' is a Navy conical

The 24' is a reserve conical

 

The museum chute was described as a conical... a 26'

The card found missing a chute presumed to be from the one Cooper used reflected it to be a "Conacol", if accurate that means it wasn't a 28' chute. Cooper's chute could not have been a 28' canopy and corroborates the chute being a 24'.

 

Background – A Short History of the Development of Parachute Equipment

Military Surplus Parachutes

Prior to about 1968, most pilots in civilian aircraft in the United States (and much of the rest of the world) used surplus military parachutes in their aircraft. The common harness/container models in use were the USAF B-4/B-12 and the USN NB-6/ NB-8 backpacks as well as several variants of military seatpack parachutes. The most common canopies were the 28’ person- nel canopy (the C-9) used in all Air Force and most Navy para- chutes, the 26’ Navy conical used in the NB-6, and the 24’ (T10A) canopy used as reserve for the Army troop para- chutes. The common factors in all of these various models are that they are heavy, bulky and uncomfortable. Although there are still a great number of surplus military parachute systems in use, only a small number of these items are still available as new surplus and they have largely been supplanted by newer technology products (which will be discussed below) in sales of new equipment.

 

The 28’ Military Canopy

Aside from being the only readily available canopy in the 1960’s, the C-9 really didn’t have all that much going for it when compared to the operational requirements in civil use. It is rugged and cheap but suffers from a variety of problems, mostly related to the fact that the basic design dates from the late 1920s. These problems include its relatively high weight and bulk; lack of steering capability; severe oscillations in the unmodified condition; a relatively high rate of descent that in- creases the injury rate; and tendencies for post-inflation col- lapse due to its flat circular design. It also has slow openings at low speeds such as a zero/zero ejection condition and hard openings at high speeds such as a low altitude, high-speed ejec- tion.

Over the more than 60 years since its introduction, the only sig- nificant improvements to the C-9 have been: 1) the change to nylon cloth and lines in the late 1940’s which effectively dou- bled the strength of the canopy; ; 2) the development of reefing systems for some versions which allowed the canopy to operate at somewhat higher speeds without the loads exceeding human tolerance and; 3) the addition of the 4-line release modification in the 1970’s that significantly reduces the oscillations and rate- of-descent (but only if activated by the user).

Skydiving Equipment

Not surprisingly, given the paucity of available equipment, sky- divers in the 60’s were also using the same basic equipment albeit with an amazing variety of steering modifications to the main canopies (usually the 28’). But, during the 60’s, Pioneer Parachute Company introduced the Para-Commander, which took the sport by storm and virtually owned the main canopy market until the early 70’s when the first practical ram-air can- opy appeared and sealed its fate. Skydivers in the 60’s and 70’s

 

also used military surplus canopies for their chest reserve para- chutes with the Navy 26’ Conical being the most desirable. They also used modified military harness/container systems with chest reserve parachutes. During the late 60’s and early 70’s a number of companies (primarily Pioneer Parachute Company, Security Parachute Company and Strong Enter- prises) began the introduction of a series of new products (main and reserve canopies and harness/container systems) that gradually replaced the military surplus equipment in use by skydivers. In the mid-70’s Para-Flite ram-air canopies and the Relative Workshop Wonderhog harness/container system were introduced and largely completed the transition to purpose built skydiving equipment for the great majority of jumpers. During the 80’s and 90’s many more companies entered the skydiving equipment market (and some others dropped out) with the re- sulting competition fueling the development of an amazing va- riety and range of products.

The canopy in the WSHM parachute is NOT a conical canopy since it is substantially more bulky than a 26-foot conical canopy.  And based on Bruce Smith's interview with its owner, the parachute that Cooper jumped with could not possibly be a 26-foot conical canopy either.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that a Navy NB-6 26-foot conical canopy was involved in the Cooper hijacking.  The two backpacks had 28-foot military surplus canopies and the one serviceable reserve chest pack had a 24-foot military surplus canopy. 

[FLYJACK 700]

2 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

The canopy in the WSHM parachute is NOT a conical canopy since it is substantially more bulky than a 26-foot conical canopy.  And based on Bruce Smith's interview with its owner, the parachute that Cooper jumped with could not possibly be a 26-foot conical canopy either.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that a Navy NB-6 26-foot conical canopy was involved in the Cooper hijacking.  The two backpacks had 28-foot military surplus canopies and the one serviceable reserve chest pack had a 24-foot military surplus canopy. 

Robert,

You keep saying that with no evidence.. the container looks stuffed to you..

It looks stuffed because it is a 24' container with a 26' canopy.

It is not a 26' container.

 

 

[FLYJACK 700]

Reca was not Cooper reaction.

https://www.captiongenerator.com/v/2293842/hitler-finds-out-walter-reca-was-not-db-cooper.

[Robert99 50]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Robert,

You keep saying that with no evidence.. the container looks stuffed to you..

It looks stuffed because it is a 24' container with a 26' canopy.

It is not a 26' container.

 

 

FlyJack, have you ever worn a parachute?  The WSHM parachute container is designed for 28-foot canopies.  This is plainly obvious.

Can you come up with WW2 surplus backpack containers that are designed for 24-foot canopies?

[olemisscub 510]

1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack, have you ever worn a parachute?  The WSHM parachute container is designed for 28-foot canopies.  This is plainly obvious.

Can you come up with WW2 surplus backpack containers that are designed for 24-foot canopies?

Of course. Here is one that is identical to the museum chute. 

https://www.ogallerie.com/auction-lot/us-military-parachute-model-p3-b-24-by-pioneer-pa_13E4434BC1#0

Designed for 24 foot canopy:

 

[wmw999 2,446]

Actual parachutist here… not as qualified as RiggerRob or JerryBaumchen, but back in the day I did own and refer to a Poynter book. 
C9’s (28’ flat circular canopies) and 24’ flat circular canopies were more common for Air Force and Army paratroopers. A 24’ flat circular puts you down in a pretty noticeable hurry, but in those days it was rare for the main not to open at all; instead they’d open and throw the reserve out into a malfunction to get more fabric over their heads. The Navy conical (a gold standard of early reserves because it landed slower than the 24’ and packed smaller than the 28’) was generally packed into an NB-6 container I believe. That’s a back container, but remember that WW2 didn’t have a lot of Navy guys who planned on jumping… 

At the time of the hijacking, a 28’ flat circular with a 24’ flat circular reserve would have been common, and readily available from any local DZ or rigger. A 26’ conical reserve or a 28’ flat circular reserve would have been slightly harder to get, but not uncommon (but maybe not the first things volunteered, as they were less common). A 24’ canopy in a main (back) container would have been unlikely.

Mainly because most jumpers jumped for fun, and few people who were heavier than Twiggy would deliberately choose a 24’ canopy. The 28’ reserves were desirable because the big boys needed them, and the 26’ conicals because of what I already said. So a 28’ main and a 24’ reserve would be what I’d have offered 7 years later, when I was an active rigger.

Enough pedantry. Back to the topic

Wendy P. 

[Robert99 50]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Actual parachutist here… not as qualified as RiggerRob or JerryBaumchen, but back in the day I did own and refer to a Poynter book. 
C9’s (28’ flat circular canopies) and 24’ flat circular canopies were more common for Air Force and Army paratroopers. A 24’ flat circular puts you down in a pretty noticeable hurry, but in those days it was rare for the main not to open at all; instead they’d open and throw the reserve out into a malfunction to get more fabric over their heads. The Navy conical (a gold standard of early reserves because it landed slower than the 24’ and packed smaller than the 28’) was generally packed into an NB-6 container I believe. That’s a back container, but remember that WW2 didn’t have a lot of Navy guys who planned on jumping… 

At the time of the hijacking, a 28’ flat circular with a 24’ flat circular reserve would have been common, and readily available from any local DZ or rigger. A 26’ conical reserve or a 28’ flat circular reserve would have been slightly harder to get, but not uncommon (but maybe not the first things volunteered, as they were less common). A 24’ canopy in a main (back) container would have been unlikely.

Mainly because most jumpers jumped for fun, and few people who were heavier than Twiggy would deliberately choose a 24’ canopy. The 28’ reserves were desirable because the big boys needed them, and the 26’ conicals because of what I already said. So a 28’ main and a 24’ reserve would be what I’d have offered 7 years later, when I was an active rigger.

Enough pedantry. Back to the topic

Wendy P. 

Wendy, thanks for the information.

In my very limited skydiving days back in the early 1960s, the small club I belonged to on the East Coast used 28-foot military surplus backpack canopies with a 5-TU or 7-TU modification and standard military surplus 24-foot reserve packs.

I also flew aircraft in that time frame that had very cramped cockpits and the NB-6 rigs were highly desirable and very hard to obtain.  But my rigger did manage to get one for me and the 26-foot conical canopy alone cost at least $100.  My complete backpack rig, without a reserve, only cost $40.  That was a completely different era and before Para-Commanders.  

I used to jump a 5-TU modified 28-foot canopy until one day I came down on the 24-foot reserve canopy.  I landed in some trees and didn't make it quite all the way to the ground, so I don't have any firsthand experience with the ground impact.

One question.  Can a 26-foot conical canopy be packed in the military 24-foot canopy reserve container? 

[wmw999 2,446]

7 hours ago, Robert99 said:

One question.  Can a 26-foot conical canopy be packed in the military 24-foot canopy reserve container

Probably, but I don’t know for sure. The belly reserve container wasn’t as shaped as the back containers are. I never packed one with a 26’. The 26’ conicals often (or maybe always) came with what were called sea anchors — extra fabric at the bottom designed to catch water and sink to hide the gmfact that someone jumped, further reducing the bulk. Those were likely to be cut off of canopies used as sport reserves.

But they were relatively rare; I doubt a rigger would give something like that over to a hijacker unless it were specifically demanded.

Wendy P. 

[olemisscub 510]

11 hours ago, Robert99 said:

 

One question.  Can a 26-foot conical canopy be packed in the military 24-foot canopy reserve container? 

Why are you asking this question? 

[olemisscub 510]

Double post 

Edited October 21, 2023 by olemisscub

[olemisscub 510]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

 

But they were relatively rare; I doubt a rigger would give something like that over to a hijacker unless it were specifically demanded.

Wendy P. 

The only functional reserve given to Cooper had a 24 foot canopy. Not sure what R99 is talking about

[Robert99 50]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Why are you asking this question? 

377 has posted over the years that he used a 26-foot conical canopy as a reserve and came down on it two times.

Presumably, if it could not be packed in the standard military surplus reserve container it would need a special container and there is no evidence of one.

This whole discussion adds to my belief that no NB-6 parachute, or even a 26-foot conical canopy, was involved in the Cooper hijacking.

As I have repeatedly said, if you just ignore everything Cossey claimed then there is no problem with the parachutes.

Edited October 21, 2023 by Robert99

[Robert99 50]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

The only functional reserve given to Cooper had a 24 foot canopy. Not sure what R99 is talking about

The Sergeants got it right.  

[FLYJACK 700]

3 hours ago, Robert99 said:

377 has posted over the years that he used a 26-foot conical canopy as a reserve and came down on it two times.

Presumably, if it could not be packed in the standard military surplus reserve container it would need a special container and there is no evidence of one.

This whole discussion adds to my belief that no NB-6 parachute, or even a 26-foot conical canopy, was involved in the Cooper hijacking.

As I have repeatedly said, if you just ignore everything Cossey claimed then there is no problem with the parachutes.

Not exactly... there is no problem with the chutes but you still have it wrong.

The WSHM chute serial #226 card says a 26' Ripstop Conical...  a 28' is not Conical.

The WSHM tan container is a WW2 era Pioneer P2, those were 24' originally with a silk chute and used by the public as well as military. This is probably why it was referred to as a "civilian luxury chute".. It was sold to the public.

That means the WSHM container is a 24' stuffed with a 26' conical canopy..

You keep saying the card is wrong but have NO evidence. The card was originally written by Cossey when he first packed it in 1971 and repacked twice after Hayden got it back. There is no reason to believe the card is wrong.

 

 

Additionally, the only chute in question with multiple descriptions is the one Cooper used.. Why,,, IMO, Cossey claimed he was called after the plane landed in Reno and given the description of the chutes left behind, he was also at some point shown the chutes.....  So, Cossey had personal post hijack knowledge of the WSHM chute. That is why the descriptions are accurate and consistent for that chute and not the missing one.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 510]

52 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

 

Presumably, if it could not be packed in the standard military surplus reserve container it would need a special container and there is no evidence of one.

The ONLY reserves involved are the reserve that Cooper opened then cannibalized and the dummy chute. 

Why are you referring to backpacks as reserves? The museum chute is not a reserve. It's a WWII Pioneer that is some variant of the P2-B-24. Could also be a P3-B-24 unless Flyjack knows specifically which one. 

[FLYJACK 700]

20 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

The ONLY reserves involved are the reserve that Cooper opened then cannibalized and the dummy chute. 

Why are you referring to backpacks as reserves? The museum chute is not a reserve. It's a WWII Pioneer that is some variant of the P2-B-24. Could also be a P3-B-24 unless Flyjack knows specifically which one. 

I found "P2" printed on the WSHM container.

Edited October 21, 2023 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 50]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

The ONLY reserves involved are the reserve that Cooper opened then cannibalized and the dummy chute. 

Why are you referring to backpacks as reserves? The museum chute is not a reserve. It's a WWII Pioneer that is some variant of the P2-B-24. Could also be a P3-B-24 unless Flyjack knows specifically which one. 

Olemiss, you need to actually start reading my posts.  I have NEVER referred to a backpack as a reserve.

As I have pointed out, 377 has posted that he had used a 26-foot conical canopy in a reserve parachute and had used it two times.  He did not use it as a backpack.

If 377 could not get his 26-foot conical canopy packed in the container for the military 24-foot reserve canopy, then he would need a different container.

[olemisscub 510]

3 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Olemiss, you need to actually start reading my posts.  I have NEVER referred to a backpack as a reserve.

As I have pointed out, 377 has posted that he had used a 26-foot conical canopy in a reserve parachute and had used it two times.  He did not use it as a backpack.

If 377 could not get his 26-foot conical canopy packed in the container for the military 24-foot reserve canopy, then he would need a different container.

My bad, I guess I figured whatever you were talking about actually had something to do with Cooper’s parachutes…

[temporary17 5]

8 hours ago, Robert99 said:

377 has posted over the years that he used a 26-foot conical canopy as a reserve and came down on it two times.

Presumably, if it could not be packed in the standard military surplus reserve container it would need a special container and there is no evidence of one.

I don't know if what I'm about to say is specifically true for 377's reserve rides, but it is a possibility. There was a fair period of time, a transition period, when sport skydivers moved away from using military surplus 'gutter gear' (back mains and front reserves), and started using 'piggyback' rigs (main and reserve both on the back) designed and built specifically for sport jumping. This started before square chutes were used at all, and continued for some years as squares were used for mains but rounds were still used for reserves. 26' navy conicals were popular reserves through that period, then sport gear manufacturers were designing round reserves, and eventually square reserves took over. So 377's 26' conical may have been in a sport piggyback rig. My first reserve ride was also on a 26' navy conical packed in a sport piggyback rig.

-------

7 hours ago, olemisscub said:

The ONLY reserves involved are the reserve that Cooper opened then cannibalized and the dummy chute. 

Why are you referring to backpacks as reserves? The museum chute is not a reserve.

Actually it is. All the gear in the Cooper case were reserves, with the possible exception of one of Cossey's rigs, IF in fact any of his were taken. Pilot emergency bailout rigs ARE reserves. The harnesses, containers, and canopies are designed and built as such, are tested to FAA TSO standards, and are required to be packed by FAA licensed riggers. Such requirements do not apply to sport mains. (For sport skydiving gear, the TSO standards apply to the harness, reserve container, and reserve canopy, but not the main container or canopy.)

[olemisscub 510]

13 hours ago, temporary17 said:

All the gear in the Cooper case were reserves, with the possible exception of one of Cossey's rigs, IF in fact any of his were taken. 

Thanks for the info about the lingo. 

And none of his personal rigs were taken. This is known for absolute certainty at this point. Cossey made up stuff in a 2003 article in Parachutist magazine that stuck around in the cultural zeitgeist about the Cooper case for quite some time. Both of his backpacks were emergency bailout rigs provided by a local stunt pilot. Cossey's only connection to those were that he packed them several months prior back in May 1971. 

[Robert99 50]

15 hours ago, olemisscub said:

My bad, I guess I figured whatever you were talking about actually had something to do with Cooper’s parachutes…

Something seems to be getting lost in the translation here.  Everything Wendy and I were talking about was related to the Cooper parachutes.

[FLYJACK 700]

Problem,,

How do the particles get on the shorter narrower piece of the tie that was behind the wider front piece? with a tie tack/clip holding them together..

Only if they were deposited when it wasn't being worn.

[FLYJACK 700]

Found out the Pioneer P1 and P2 had the same container but the P2 had a more civilian oriented canopy and harness. 

The WSHM chute is modified with a newer harness and to fit a 26' conical.

The P2 was primarily a civilian chute though the container was the same as the P1 which was for military and civilian use.

Cossey variously referred to the Pioneer left behind as a sport chute, freefall chute and B-4....