My New SM Wholesale A-2

Big J · May 26, 2018

CBI, I thought that you said you asked SM to move the pockets because you didn't like where they were placed, but now you're claiming that SM sought you out and asked for your opinion as to where the pockets should be placed on their A-2 repros and that they deliberately sought you out for your opinion?
That's quite a jump from being a customer who asked for a modification.
Are you now claiming that you helped design SM's A-2 jackets? If so, no wonder (as others observed) the OP reads like an advert. Are SM paying you not only to design the jacket, but sell it too?

Big J · May 26, 2018

As for trim fit (sigh) read my QM/recruit dialogue, that will explain it. No pilot in WWII had this experience EVER;

QM: What size are you?
Recruit: 44.
QM: Here's a size 44.
(5 mins later...)
Recruit: Hi! Y'know that 44 you gave me, I just tried it on, and all my recruit buddies say it's too trim and that I won't be able to turn around in the cockpit. Could I have a larger size please?
QM: Yeah, sure, hold on one moment while I stop the entire war so that you can look good.

I'm a size 48, so I agree with bn1966 that issue jackets in a size 48 are trim, but this is how they are meant to fit because they were issued to 19-21 year old men who were in the prime of their lives and health, not middle-aged guys with man-boobs, and a spare tire around their waist. Men whose body shape was an inverted triangle not a pear. Because the original wearers of flight jackets didn't have a spare tire, pants could be worn at the waist, hence jackets were short. When you do up your pants under your belly (as most modern pants can only be worn) then your jacket will be too short.

But CBI knows all this because I've already told him. So I think it's kind of dishonest to blame the jackets for being inaccurate.

There were no fat fighter pilots.

Edward · May 27, 2018

Cocker said:
Depends on the Eastman contracts. The Rough Wear 1401-P and 27752 and the Star Sportswear in size 44 have 46 inches chest. Similarly, those in size 46 have 48 inches chest. So if CBI is a 44 chest and wants these extra 4 inches, he would have had to go with a size 46 on these ELC contracts too.

Also depends on what sizing they're using. I require 48" too in a leather jacket I'm only going to wear over a shirt or a light sweater. In Aero and ELC this would mostly mean a size 44. Per original sizing used in ww2, however, I think I'd mostly have been a 46 across the board. I've noticed over the years that modern sizing is generally one-up from the WW2 equivalent, i.e. a 42 now is equivalent to a 44 then. USN M442a/AN6552s are much neater cut - I definitely have to go to a 46 in most of those to get 48"chest in the jacket itself.

Technonut · May 27, 2018

Cocker said:
Well I think we all know the fit depends on the maker/contract anyway. I didn't interpret CBI's rant as one against the manufacturer's fit, but more against the fit people want out of their A-2 jacket. A lot of WW2 pictures show guys with jacket that'd be considered one size too big on this forum......

IMO, an A-2 doesn't look 'right' at all unless there is some blousing going on.... Hence, the A-2's known description as a 'blouson':

A blouson or blouse jacket is a coat that is drawn tight at the waist, causing it to blouse out and hang over the waistband. Some of them have a hood. It takes most of its modern traits from the American flight jacket and police blouson. It is related to the Eisenhower jacket. It is considered to be both sportswear and casual civilian clothing.

So, IMO, no A-2 blousing=lacking in authenticity.....

Out of way over 1000 wartime (and others more recent of wearable originals) pics I've collected, blousing IS the norm. One common example of 'the look' here:

EDIT: Another one in color:

Many more on my Pinterest page:

https://www.pinterest.com/jameskurt_poole/leather-flight-jackets/

Seb Lucas · May 27, 2018

Yes, I've often been struck by how loose the fit is on wartime A2 photos. But even the loose ones seem to have trim shoulders at least where the seam goes not fall much below the end of the guy's shoulder. The looseness seems to be mainly around the middle.

Cocker · May 27, 2018

@Big J , your last post is very true. You got the fit you received from the Quartermaster, and that's it. I think there's no point in stating that there was a "correct period fit", as we've all seen WW2 pictures with fit all over the range, from trim (even slim) to blousy or baggy. IMO, the (slightly) too large fit is what is seen in most WW2 pictures, especially compared to what is considered a good fit on forums such as TFL.

Does it have anything to do with the age/physical shape of the people wearing them? Most probably! Does it have anything to do with how people WANT their jacket to fit nowadays? For me, it's a big YES. We've seen lots of people ordering A-2 jackets (myself included) based on actual measurements and trying to obtain a trim fit (because let's admit it, it looks damn good!). We've also seen great deal of people having to return their jacket because they were a tad too tight (from manboobs to beer belly, including the "I'm sure I'll fit neatly in a size 40"), or waiting for the leather to relax and mold to your body. Back then, those garments were work clothes, simple as that. I think most of the guys would have prefered a slightly larger work uniform than one that'll risk to be too tight/restrictive in their activities.

That's just my 2 cents here, I find this subject very interesting!

Technonut · May 27, 2018

Seb Lucas said:
Yes, I've often been struck by how loose the fit is on wartime A2 photos. But even the loose ones seem to have trim shoulders at least where the seam goes not fall much below the end of the guy's shoulder. The looseness seems to be mainly around the middle.

Considering that in reality a flight suit (coveralls) was frequently worn UNDER the A-2, along with perhaps a C-2 sweater, comfort and movement were important I'm sure, and no one in their right mind would want to be 'trussed-up' and restricted while operating the myriad of controls involved in flying the aircraft (only the officers in the semi-heated section of the B-17 for example were able to actually wear the A-2 on missions due to the extreme cold of high altitude)..

EDIT: However, I'm sure that many of the crew changed into their A-2's when returning from the mission at reduced altitude....

The shearling would have been unbearably hot for sure...

A-2 shown as commonly worn during wartime over the flight suit:

Another (Great site, lot's of pics

):

http://www.303rdbg.com/uniforms-gear2.html

This is the classic look of the early days. The A-2 over the dark green A-4 suit...

And yet one more VERY good example:

C-2 sweater:

As this pic shows, it must have been damn cold indeed. A C-2 didn't quite cut it for this fellow (note the 'blousing' on the A-2

):

8919daecab2ae2d73e21b6c422cc86ab (2).jpg

Cocker · May 27, 2018

Technonut said:
Many more on my Pinterest page:

https://www.pinterest.com/jameskurt_poole/leather-flight-jackets/

That's a great set of reference pictures, thanks!!

Peacoat · May 27, 2018

Sometime after I joined the Lounge in early 2006 we had this same discussion about the proper "fit" of the A-2. And we have had it several times since then. As I remember, those discussions were civil. Now with new members involved, it has turned acrimonious. Ahh, how I long for the old days.

At least this time around we have some new photographs to add to our collective knowledge.

Big J · May 27, 2018

Hey look, I'm not trying to be rude to anyone. I'm 46 years old and way too fat to be a fighter pilot. WWII aircrew just weren't middle-aged fat guys, so of course their jackets looked better on them. Trim fit, loose fit, whatever. All I'm trying to say is that WWII wasn't a fashion show, and people didn't get a choice over what they were issued.

BUT, if repro makers are making perfect copies (size wise) of WWII jackets, and your middle aged body doesn't like the fit, then the fault lies in your middle-aged body, not the cut of the jacket.
We also know that the 'fit' we see in vintage photos depends on what was is stock at the depot, and what contract you randomly got because earlier contract A-2s were more 'fitted' than later A-2s.

In addition to that point, I am also now trying to determine if the OP was merely making a customization request with the pocket placement on his SM jacket, or if SM 'headhunted' him as an A-2 expert to advise on their patterns, because as it stands he appears to be claiming so. That's quite a claim, don't you think?

nick123 · May 27, 2018

I took a ride in a B-17 with my dad last year when the Collings Foundation tour stopped by in town. I thought it’d be a leisure flight; I took my G-1. Met a guy there wearing a Real McCoy A-2, complimented him, thought “oh cool, jackets and planes on a warm summer day, great isn’t it?”

Once we took off and were able to walk around during flight, I snaked to the rear side turret position (where it would have been very easy to scrape or snag a jacket on the metal trimmings) and the mood changed to

“good god, this was a real war, with real people involved”, and I was able to relive maybe 1/500000th of the fear those guys went through up there in that coffin. Could you imagine being forced to go on 25-35 missions? It’s involuntary servitude. Thank god they had their fellow airmen. Perhaps that’s where the youthful half smiles in the photos come from.

Yes, the jackets look cool, but I left that flight really feeling (and speculating) that perhaps had I been a WWII airman, I would care less about fit, scrapes, etc, and there’s a good chance I’d want nothing to do with the jacket after the war.

Technonut · May 27, 2018

Seb Lucas said:
Yes, I've often been struck by how loose the fit is on wartime A2 photos. But even the loose ones seem to have trim shoulders at least where the seam goes not fall much below the end of the guy's shoulder. The looseness seems to be mainly around the middle.

Yep, add the more narrow shoulders to high armholes, and a bit of 'blouse' at the bottom for the classic 'bell' shape, and that equals to what I consider to be 'the look'... (with the exception of a few other pesky little details)

It all boils down to individual choice and preference. When a person is throwing down the scratch for one of the more 'pricier' offerings available, they will usually go-in with a preconceived-notion of what 'look' they're after. Generally that 'look' includes a 'boutique' finish (when in reality, the original A-2's were in-the-ball-park of plain ol' varying shades of russet & seal brown, not a 'roasted walnut', with twinges of 'burnt sienna'), along with a fit which is difficult to wedge a tee-shirt under.....

Nothing wrong with that for the $$ spent, and stress involved in many cases. Still, I see quite a few of these A-2's make it over to the Classies as 'just not for them', 'fit is too loose / tight', etc.. Kind of sad to see at times, given that many look / fit very well to my eye.

Me, I do have a couple of A-2's, which while accurate in pattern and features, I still consider to be at the core, 'boutique' A-2's, with hides sourced from unicorns, and stitched by the hands of master-craftsmen...

but I still find myself liking a couple of accurately-patterned renditions which most here would consider 'lesser-quality', much more than their expensive counterparts. Kind of just like the ones actually thrown-at the graduating airmen of the AAF. They represent my idea of the jacket which was mass-produced by the contractor's lowest bid, with no fear of wearing the hell-out-of-them.

Years of wear and personal adventure will develop an outstanding vintage-finish on those which will rival my 'boutiques' any day....

EDITED....

CBI · May 28, 2018

Yes, Techonut - correct!!! Yes, Nick - flying in those warbirds really gives one an appreciation. Yes Peacoat - civility out the door with certain members. Yes Cocker - agreed. No I don't work for SMW. Peace Bros! Yes, et al. cool pics.

Seb Lucas · May 28, 2018

Technonut said:
Yep, add the more narrow shoulders to high armholes, and a bit of 'blouse' at the bottom for the classic 'bell' shape, and that equals to what I consider to be 'the look'... (with the exception of a few other pesky little details)

It all boils down to individual choice and preference. When a person is throwing down the scratch for one of the more 'pricier' offerings available, they will usually go-in with a preconceived-notion of what 'look' they're after. Generally that 'look' includes a 'boutique' finish (when in reality, the original A-2's were in-the-ball-park of plain ol' varying shades of russet & seal brown, not a 'roasted walnut', with twinges of 'burnt sienna'), along with a fit which is difficult to wedge a tee-shirt under.....

Nothing wrong with that for the $$ spent, and stress involved in many cases. Still, I see quite a few of these A-2's make it over to the Classies as 'just not for them', 'fit is too loose / tight', etc.. Kind of sad to see at times, given that many look / fit very well to my eye.

Me, I do have a couple of A-2's, which while accurate in pattern and features, I still consider to be at the core, 'boutique' A-2's, with hides sourced from unicorns, and stitched by the hands of master-craftsmen... but I still find myself liking a couple of accurately-patterned renditions which most here would consider 'lesser-quality', much more than their expensive counterparts. Kind of just like the ones actually thrown-at the graduating airmen of the AAF. They represent my idea of the jacket which was mass-produced by the contractor's lowest bid, with no fear of wearing the hell-out-of-them. Years of wear and personal adventure will develop an outstanding vintage-finish on those which will rival my 'boutiques' any day....

EDITED....

That's how I feel about leather jackets in general. Some of the magic goes for me whan they are over engineered, over thought and overpriced. They become psuedo-relgious fetish items, not garmets. I have little interest in obtaining the highest quality jacket I can possibly get. It's not my way of being a consumer. I prefer a decently made jacket that captures the spirit of the period. I want something that will wear hard and develop character through my wearing it.

CBI · May 28, 2018

Seb:

I feel the same way totally, well w/ one or two exceptions. Many high-end jackets have gotten too "pretty" for me. In the past few years, some of my most enjoyable jacket purchases have been inexpensive items - even retail priced cheaper things!

Edward · May 28, 2018

nick123 said:
“good god, this was a real war, with real people involved”, and I was able to relive maybe 1/500000th of the fear those guys went through up there in that coffin. Could you imagine being forced to go on 25-35 missions? It’s involuntary servitude. Thank god they had their fellow airmen. Perhaps that’s where the youthful half smiles in the photos come from.

Yes, the jackets look cool, but I left that flight really feeling (and speculating) that perhaps had I been a WWII airman, I would care less about fit, scrapes, etc, and there’s a good chance I’d want nothing to do with the jacket after the war.

Exactly. This is the side of it all too quickly forgotten. I remember being shocked the first time I saw an original jacket with little bombs painted on it to mark completed missions. Later I realised to the guy who wore it they probably represented not the people he was involved in killing, but that once more he'd miraculously cheated death. The absolute, banal cruelty of this aspect of the aerial war was well captured in Memphis Belle with the early loss of the rookie crew. As the man said, War is all hell.

CBI · May 28, 2018

Not to belabor the point, but my hours now spent in ground school and flying lessons also brings home how complicated flying is in general. Its easy to take this for granted as aviation is now a normal aspect of daily life for everyone in some form. Back in the day, the level of danger in just flying one of the those old planes with old avionics, design, etc. without all of the modern safety features we have today is quite something to comprehend - let along being shot at by the enemy!!!!

Big J · May 28, 2018

These days, all the flying I do is business class because I can afford it and I like champagne, but when I was a kid in boarding school in the U.K., I got plenty of AEF with the CCF.
I know a guy who builds repro Spitfires in the U.K., and he is absolutely exhausted from disillusioning PPL holders who think they are ready to handle a war bird. Make no mistake, if you haven't done it, you can't possibly imagine what it's like. The difference between going up in your 'Doctor killer' and flying a real WWII fighter is still the same as driving your sedan to the mall and driving and Indy car. Don't kid yourself that you've got a clue how WWII was.

pak · May 28, 2018

J, I'm reasonably certain your friend is more exhausted with people who can not afford one of his planes wasting his valuable time talking to him about their hobby. The basics of flying are relativity simple. If you have average coordination you can fly a plane. It does not however require super human skills to fly any plane. This includes WW2 fighters. What makes pilots able to advance to more complex airplanes is training and practice. What makes good to great pilots is judgement. How judgement is gained is up to each individual. I've known pilots who have terrific stick and rudder skills, that I envied, die an untimely dead in an aircraft because of a judgement error. Do I now think, at my age , I could be trained to fly solo in a spitfire? Certainly not, as my basic skill set has diminished due to age. Do I believe I could have been trained to fly fighters when I was younger? No question. Flying is a worthwhile endeavor to pursue at just about any age. Besides it is fun as hell.

nick123 · May 28, 2018

My dad sold his Bonanza. The true “doctor killer” as its named. But this is due to pilots switching over to a higher performance, retractable gear airplane from a 172, et al. when transition training is pivotal! No doubt decisions are huge. Esp. W/weather avoidance, fuel management, and planning. I took away that the essence of flying was less “stick and rudder” and more accident prevention and cockpit management.

All I know is my dad pinged into ATC that we had encountered “moderate” turbulence on a flight back to S. california. He’d hit his head on the ceiling and the autopilot was thrown off and suddenly we were at an attitude on a collision course with a mountain. Not a big deal to him (cool, calm, and collected as pilots must be) but my leg went into an uncontrollable twitch and panic ensued. I couldn’t do it. My anxiety helps with OCD details but I’m just too tense for it. You need to be calm.

My New SM Wholesale A-2

Call Me a Cab

Call Me a Cab

Practically Family

I'll Lock Up

Practically Family

Practically Family

Practically Family

*

Call Me a Cab

I'll Lock Up

Practically Family

One Too Many

I'll Lock Up

One Too Many

One Too Many

Call Me a Cab

One of the Regulars

I'll Lock Up

Similar threads

Log in

Forum statistics