Current USAF Issue A-2s

[Peacoat]

Peter 1956: Here is a sizing chart for G-1s over the years, starting in 1940. As you can see, the P2P measurements for the same stated size have stayed about the same, or in some instances, gotten more generous. http://moorecustom.com/jackets/sizing.htm

And here is a thread from 2014 that discusses G-1 sizing. Doc Damage has printed a spec guide from 1971 toward the bottom of the thread.
http://www.thefedoralounge.com/threads/usn-g1-flight-jacket-sizing.80020/

 

[Peter 1956]

Yet again grateful to all the replies. Apologies for replying with the quotes. New on here as you gather but getting the hang of it now. Ha ha!
I am normally a 38 in most things but the issued jackets are a law to themselves. The vintage G1s i am a 40 and a perfect fit as is the current issue Excelled. 38 in both are just too small.
In A2s Saddlery Cooper its a 40 for a perfect fit but Cockpit and Excelled current issue its a 38.

Saying that i have seen Excelled 40 which were very short in body and in arms . I thought they were labeled wrong but seen several.

Thanks again

Regards

Peter from a cold and wet UK

 

[Doctor Damage]

Modern issue A-2s always big once size too big, these days.

 

[Doctor Damage]

The vice-president in a modern A-2 (cross posting from another thread).

 

[Sloan1874]

Awful, awful fit. I'm still at a loss as to how they managed to perfect the pattern during the 30s/40s, then somehow decided to throw away the patterns. It's as if somebody has described what an A-2 looks like to the maker and they've made one based their best guess.

 

[Seb Lucas]

I guess the answer is that is fit doesn't matter much at all to most people, who don't even see jackets the way we do. They are the fortunate ones.

 

[Doctor Damage]

Body types have changed since the 40s and the new jackets reflect that. But yeah, they are too generous in the lower torso (modern military G-1 jackets don't seem to have ballooned as much as the military A-2 jackets have).

 

[Atticus Finch]

I like the new A-2, but the first generation jackets (1988-1998) had notoriously low arm holes. This caused the entire jacket to "ride up" when the wearer raised his arms. It was enough of a problem that aircrew often modified their jackets by having extra leather sewn in the arm pits. Jackets that somehow avoided the low-armhole problem were those made in the 1992 Orchard/Branded Leather contract. They fit more like WWII A-2s than did the Averix and Saddlery versions. Looked more like them, too.

I've never worn one of the second generation A-2s. I understand, in addition to adding interior and hand warmer pockets, the designers also adjusted the pattern to address the armhole problem. But I don't know this to be a fact.

With respect to the fit of the new A-2, I agree with much of what's been said on this thread. It's a bit of a shame. With only a few minor alterations of the jacket's design...and a relaxation of the rule requiring the use of USA made leather...the current A-2 would be a much more wearable and desirable jacket.

AF

 

[Atticus Finch]

Some other rambling thoughts with respect to the fit of the new A-2:

In my opinion, some of the fit issues with the current A-2 arise when people attempt to wear jackets that are too small for them...probably due to the myth that WWII A-2s were cut trim and worn close to the skin. Some call this a "military fit". The problem with the "military fit" concept is there isn't much evidence to support it. Period photos almost invariably show WWII aircrew wearing loose or even baggy A-2s. Of course, if a jacket has a design flaw...and the modern A-2 probably does...that flaw will be greatly magnified when someone tries to wear his jacket as tight as a second skin.

Parenthetically, my father, who disliked his A-2, often told me it was basically worthless unless you wore a wool sweater beneath it. If other WWII pilots shared his opinion, it would argue against them purposefully choosing closely-fitting jackets. It may also help explain why so many period photos show pilots in almost baggy A-2s. One thing is for sure...the jacket never had any insulation. Anyone who's ever worn a military A-2 in cold weather can attest to this fact. Whatever warmth it provides is due to air that's trapped between the jacket's shell and the wearer's skin. Unless you're wearing your A-2 purely as a fashion statement, you'd probably want to maximize...or at least optimize...that warm layer of air.

So...if you like the idea of wearing an actually issued (real) A-2, as opposed to a reproduction WWII jacket...you may want to abandon any ideas of a tight "military fit". But don't despair. It won't be much of a sacrifice of authenticity. The "military fit" probably never had anything to do with real A-2s, anyhow.

AF

 

[Doctor Damage]

Some other rambling thoughts with respect to the fit of the new A-2:

In my opinion, some of the fit issues with the current A-2 arise when people attempt to wear jackets that are too small for them...probably due to a myth that WWII A-2s were cut trim and worn close to the skin. Some have even called this the "military fit". The problem with the "military fit" concept is there isn't much evidence to support it. Period photos almost invariably show WWII aircrew wearing loose or even baggy A-2s. Of course, if a jacket has a design flaw...and the modern A-2 probably does...that flaw will be greatly magnified when someone tries to wear his jacket as tight as a second skin.

Parenthetically, my father, who disliked his A-2, often told me it was basically worthless unless you wore a thick wool sweater beneath it. If other WWII pilots shared his opinion, it would argue against them purposefully choosing closely-fitting jackets. It may also help explain why so many period photos show pilots in almost baggy A-2s. One thing is for sure...the jacket has never had any insulation. Anyone who's ever worn a military A-2 in cold weather can attest to this fact. Whatever warmth it provides is due to air that's trapped between shell and the wearer's skin. Unless you're wearing your jacket purely as a fashion statement, you'd probably want to maximize...or at least optimize...that warm layer of air.

So...if you like the idea of wearing an actually issued (read: real) A-2, as opposed to a reproduction WWII jacket...you may want to first abandon any ideas of a skin-tight "military fit". But it won't be much of a sacrifice. The "military fit" probably never had anything to do with real A-2s, anyhow.

AF

This is an excellent post Atticus and you should post it in every A-2 thread that comes up!

 

[Doctor Damage]

her story:
https://www.defense.gov/News/Articl...f-defense-airman-pursues-her-dream-of-flying/

 

[Doctor Damage]

 

[Big J]

Aren't these modern A-2 jackets unisex? I've never seen a 'ladies' version that was issue.
If it's the case that they are unisex (and that's fine) it'd go a long way to explaining why the fit is so bad. I wouldn't buy a unisex suit jacket expecting a good fit. Maybe that's what's changed here?
I have two of the newer A-2s. They are pretty shapeless bags of leather. Good for USAF Vietnam tribute jackets though.

 

[Deacon211]

Aren't these modern A-2 jackets unisex? I've never seen a 'ladies' version that was issue.
If it's the case that they are unisex (and that's fine) it'd go a long way to explaining why the fit is so bad. I wouldn't buy a unisex suit jacket expecting a good fit. Maybe that's what's changed here?
I have two of the newer A-2s. They are pretty shapeless bags of leather. Good for USAF Vietnam tribute jackets though.

That’s actually a very good observation! I hadn’t considered it before.

Back in the '90s some AF general decided that his contribution to aviation was to redesign the standard issue flight suit. So they ripped off the thigh pockets, broadened the midsection, and made several other minor changes.

The things fit horribly with lots of extra material in the waist and torso. Most guys held onto their old flight suits until, thankfully, the new suits were discontinued and the old ones were brought back.

No one had ever said that the fit changes were intended to make the suit “unisex” and, technically, the old flightsuit was perfectly suitable for either male or female pilots. But we always wondered if the baggy fit of the new suits was intended to fit some particular demographic.

Not that the female pilots I knew liked the new suits any better than the men.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Sloan1874]

Gotta say, I really hate the 'sliding off the shoulder' look that seems to be common among the new ones.

 

[Big J]

@Deacon211, thank you for your kind reply, and flightsuit anecdote!
I find it interesting that in both the case of the A-2 and the flightsuit, it was never explicitly stated that the goal was to create uni-sex garments. I wonder why?

I've got no problem with ladies being ladies and fighter pilots at the same time. I was watching a documentary about a Saudi female pilot bombing IS in Yemen and thinking how her gender would really rile them up if they knew.

I'm kind of surprised that even though these jackets have been around for the last 30 years, must have been issued to thousands of women (and I'm pretty sure every one of them took a photo) and we have hundreds of official USAF photos of ladies wearing A-2s, that I never noticed this before.

I guess this is how male entitlement works? I never thought it was a problem I had, but the fact that I could see pics of ladies wearing A-2s for over a quarter of a century, and it never occurred to me that women's requirements differ from men's, kind of makes me think that maybe it is. I don't want to be that guy. I have two daughters who deserve better.

The fact that no one else ever noticed (and I'm not pointing fingers) and the fact that ladies never post in the outerwear section makes me wonder if we've inadvertently created a social space that is more blinkered than enlightening?

 

[Doctor Damage]

Atticus in his post a few posts back made the definitive post about the Great A-2 Fit Debate.

As for the uni-size theory/"theory", nobody here has any evidence for it, so at this point it's a conspiracy theory.

 

[Big J]

Well, it's an absolute fact that men and women are issued the same jacket, isn't it? I've never seen an official issue 'ladies A-2'. If anyone has, please post details.
In the absence of such, it's fact that this is a unisex jacket.
And a staggering fact that none of us noticed before.

 

[Edward]

The fact that no one else ever noticed (and I'm not pointing fingers) and the fact that ladies never post in the outerwear section makes me wonder if we've inadvertently created a social space that is more blinkered than enlightening?

The issue of male privilege has caused controversy on the lounge in the past. Nonetheless, it would certainly behove us all to make sure we each avoid doing anything that might put the ladies off posting in these parts. TBH, though, I think there are other powerful issues we shouldn't forget wrt lack of women being interested in the leather jacket scene:

1] Women think different than we do. As Andrew (ASWatland) once put it, "All men are a bit autistic". In the vinyl hobby, there is a recognised difference between what is called "boy collecting" - "I like this band, they released this album - their best one - on this label, in three pressings. I have all three pressings, plus this super-rare one with a spelling mistake on the sleeve...." - and "girl collecting" - "I like this band. I have a copy of all their albums because I like their music." Fixating on the details the way we all do here is simply a very male trait. Ladies aren't as caught up on those sorts of details as us, even where they appreciate quality.

2] You don't see many leather jackets made for women by the sort of makers we favour (Lewis and Aero stand out as exceptions). The thing is that women's bodies vary far more than men. With us, there's basically height, and weight. You're tall or short, and you're fat or thin, or in the middle. Different styles suit different buys better, but by and large, it's not hard to pattern grade men's stuff. With women, on the other hand, you've got curves, you've got a whole range of variations that are possible even within one size; I've known several women who all wore a UK size 18 but had significantly different bodyshapes, between hips, waists, busts; no two of them could have worn and looked good in the same jacket in the same size. Our niche is not one where we see firms that are big in the mainstream; we're talking a cottage industry that doesn't have the resources to cater fully to a market that doesn't really seem to be there....

3] Also worth noting that when you look back to the 30s and 40s, it's a very rare photo you'll see of a lady in a leather jacket. Given that the significant majority of us on TFL (outside, it seems, of the leather jacket crowd, which is that bit different) aspire to dress 30s/40s/into the 50s most/all/some of the time, it's unsurprising that the ladies are less inclined towards what seems to have been a highly a typical look. Notably, when you get into a different retro scene, e.g. the British Rocker scene based around the early 60s British motorcycle and rock and roll scenes, you'll see a lot more girls in motorcycle leathers because there actually were quite a few of them around back then.

 

[HanauMan]

Female pilots wore the same A2 and B3 jackets as their male counterparts in WWII. Female pilots were used in transporting aircraft from one airfield to another, for example. There are plenty of photographs showing women wearing A2 jackets. The jackets weren't 'unisex' but an item of workwear utilized by those whose job required wearing one, such as pilots. As long as the jacket fitted it didn't matter whether the wearer was female or male.

As to modern A2s, I have a 1992 Cooper A2 and I wouldn't say that the chest and waist are 'unisex' in design. I do agree, however, that the more modern jackets are quite roomy, but I guess that is because of the changes in body mass and shape rather than a desire to make a unisex jacket.