I agree, but nothing was found of value, so it wouldn't be introduced into the courtroom, no?

As we try to digest the recent reports from TLC, I'd like to bring up another matter. I spent most of the day with my older brother who retired from Portland Boeing in 2001. I asked him when he started at Boeing and he said 1966. He said it was Electronic Speciallties at the time he was hired. I recalled that also but asked him why Boeing bought them out in 1974 from Iron Fireman who have been manufacturing parts for Boeing for many years. He said both Iron Fireman and Electronic Specialty were names both used within the plant. He didn't really know about the ownership details. What is relevant is that Iron Fireman has been making part for Boeing for many years. Perhaps I missed it on this site but IF there is suspicion that COOP might have been a Boeing employee, has anyone done any investigation into Iron Fireman/Electronic Specialty ? I jokingly mentioned it to my brother that perhaps he might have been working with good old COOP. He just smiled !

I just wanted to clarify one of my earlier posts regarding Iron Fireman and Electronic Specialty. I ran across a rather interesting State Tax lawsuit which clarified a number of things but also raised some eyebrows for me. Apparently Iron Fireman and Electronic Specialties had merged into one corporation known as ESCO. However in reading through the legal brief, it mentioned specifically that the company mainly worked on providing parts for Boeing's 727 aircraft in years 1960 and 1961. Very interesting that this plant worked almost exclusively on the 727 in those years. It also mentioned that they had been providing parts for Boeing for many years. I intend to have breakfast with my brother tomorrow and perhaps pick his brain a bit as to what parts ESCO was producing in 1966 when he first started working for them. I also will question him regarding whether there were layoffs at this Boeing plant in that time frame. Since Portland was where this highjacking originated and also the fact that the Portland plant specifically worked on providing Boeing with 727 parts, this could be a overlooked workplace for Cooper.

R99 wrote: "Cooper did know that the rear stairs on the 727 could be lowered in flight but did not know how to lower them himself, even after Tina gave him specific instructions on how to do so.  This suggests to me that he was not directly involved in the production of the airline aircraft.  However, it is highly likely that the modified 727s that were used in SEA had a different control panel and a more powerful motor to insure that the stairs could be closed in flight, plus other modifications.  This would require different electronics for the modified aft stairs."

I don't think we ever got the whole story on the 727 airdrops done in SEA. The SAT 727 airdrop video we saw on YouTube had the stairs removed.

As I understand the rules, if Boeing modified the airstair actuation gear for 727s to facilitate airdrop ops it would require an FAA issued STC (supplemental type certificate) to be legally flown in civilian  service. There is no such STC required for military aircraft but Air America and SAT cargo jets were not true military aircraft and carried civil registrations. I could find no such STC or FAA waiver for mods on Boeing 727 airstairs or doors. You even need an STC (or waiver) to fly with a door removed on a Cessna 182.

377

377, let me point out something to you.

You state that the SAT 727s in SEA had their rear stairs removed for the parachute jumps in the video.  Then you state that SAT required an STC for that, but that you can't find any record of such an STC or an FAA waiver.

Now what is your specific question?

And why would Boeing do additional flight tests on the SAT 727s unless there had been structural changes made to the rear stairs?

Robert99

I agree Shutter, no FAA compliance was needed for those SEA covert ops, but the whole idea of 727 airdrop capability was the ability for civil airliners to covertly drop things/people on routine overflights of interesting or hostile areas. Countries that were at each other's throats often allowed overflights of civil aircraft. If you didn't have an STC, then that modified plane would be useless for normal commercial activity.

The US govt paid Pan Am big recurring fees to have their passenger 747s retrofitted with heavy reinforced cargo floors so that they could be used for military transport purposes should a need arise. Pan Am's capacity and range suffered from the extra weight and they were paid handsomely for this.

Might there have been airdrop capable 727s that served as normal airliners receiving a subsidy? Maybe no mods were needed and therefore no STC and no subsidy.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

377

I agree Shutter, no FAA compliance was needed for those SEA covert ops, but the whole idea of 727 airdrop capability was the ability for civil airliners to covertly drop things/people on routine overflights of interesting or hostile areas. Countries that were at each other's throats often allowed overflights of civil aircraft. If you didn't have an STC, then that modified plane would be useless for normal commercial activity.

The US govt paid Pan Am big recurring fees to have their passenger 747s retrofitted with heavy reinforced cargo floors so that they could be used for military transport purposes should a need arise. Pan Am's capacity and range suffered from the extra weight and they were paid handsomely for this.

Might there have been airdrop capable 727s that served as normal airliners receiving a subsidy? Maybe no mods were needed and therefore no STC and no subsidy.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

377

377, 

The 747s you mentioned above were modified under a well known program in which other airlines participated as well.  It was known as the Civil Air Reserve Fleet or some such thing.  I don't know all the details but I think it all started long before the 747 and C-5 came along and probably involved the early 707s.  But I think I can state with almost complete certainty that it did not involve the 727s.

Basically, the 707 prototype started the commercial jet age and the USAF bought a lot of KC-135 tanker aircraft to start off what became known as the 707.  I think the USAF tankers were dimensionally similar to the 707 prototype (the "dash 80") but that the actual first 707s that went into civilian airline service were modified by increasing the cabin width in order to have 6 seats across plus some other modifications.

What became the civilian 747 was developed from Boeing's entry in the C-5 competition which was won by Lockheed. 

If the SAT 727s were not involved in civilian revenue operations, then they probably would not require an STC.  There are probably plenty of aircraft flying, especially those carrying outsize cargo, that have never been certificated by the FAA in the first place (that is, they are operating in the experimental category) or operating under some very limited authorization.

Robert99 

Watched "cold case files" today on the Zodiac killer, probably old but they tested the stamps from letters sent in. they could only get a partial, enough to rule a suspect out...sound familiar?

I had breakfast with my brother who retired from Portland's Boeing in 2001. He started there in 1966 when it was known as Electronic Specialty until Boeing purchased them in 1974. He said although it is true that they were working on the 727 in the early 60's, the main project when he was hired was the 737 and 747. Business was fantastic until sales of the 747 went flat in 1969/70 and there were layoffs big time both in Seattle and in Portland. I asked him about Titanium use and he said it became the big thing with the later 777.