B-6 jacket made by John Chapman

[B-Man2]

During our recent email exchanges, John Chapman shared some photos of original B-6 jackets with me (without me even asking).
Here's the link to those photos if any of you are interested :

https://goodwearleather.com/B6_Originals/

Looks like B-6s were a lot more prevalent than first thought .

 

[Kermit3D]

Looks like B-6s were a lot more prevalent than first thought .

That's exactly what JC told me. Contrary to what one can read everywhere, the B-6 was quite common.

 

[flyincowboy]

Saw one B6 once but it was to damaged to be worn!

 

[ButteMT61]

You are correct in that the jacket was made for ground crew members , but as with most pieces of kit in the military during WWII , officer pilots had priority and access to most of the kit available . I have seen photos of pilots wearing D-1 jackets .

My limited understanding of this situation is that many pilots would trade ground crew B3 >> D1 as they were slimmer and made moving about the cockpit, etc. easier. Ground guys likely appreciated the extra warmth.
I could be wrong, but that was the talk years ago and it stuck in my head as my Pop wore a D1 in the USAF when stationed in Bicester, Eng.

 

[Micawber]

My limited understanding of this situation is that many pilots would trade ground crew B3 >> D1 as they were slimmer and made moving about the cockpit, etc. easier. Ground guys likely appreciated the extra warmth.
I could be wrong, but that was the talk years ago and it stuck in my head as my Pop wore a D1 in the USAF when stationed in Bicester, Eng.

Yep I can vouch for that having had more than one veteran
tell me the same. Of course it all depends on what stage of the war, later on when cloth replaced dead sheep the old B-3's were very often snaffled by some of the ground crews.

 

[flyincowboy]

This jacket was not called the" bulky" B3?

 

[B-Man2]

My limited understanding of this situation is that many pilots would trade ground crew B3 >> D1 as they were slimmer and made moving about the cockpit, etc. easier. Ground guys likely appreciated the extra warmth.
I could be wrong, but that was the talk years ago and it stuck in my head as my Pop wore a D1 in the USAF when stationed in Bicester, Eng.

You’re spot on . I remember those conversations as well .

 

[Smithy]

I've read and heard that P-38 jockeys were exceptionally fond of shearlings whilst flying in the ETO due to the piss poor heating in the Lightning. I'd imagine the thinner shearlings would have been perhaps more popular due to the more limited confines of a fighter office.

 

[Kermit3D]

I also read this story with the P-38.
Here is what I recently learned : B-6 jackets were made in fairly large numbers, with most being produced between 1941 to 1943. They were originally designed and tested in 1939, and were made just by Aero (Acme) until 1941, when Arnoff and Poughkeepsie also made contracts. No Rough Wear contract seems to have existed for the B-6 jacket.
Aero pattern had zippers on the bottom of the jacket on the sides to adjust the size.
On the Arnoff these zippers have been replaced by straps.
The Arnoffs had Conmar zippers while the Aero had Talon or Crowns.
The Aero contracts seemed rather "redskin" while the later ones (Arnoff and Poughkeepsie) are rather "seal".

 

[Kermit3D]

Here's a test model in 1939 that has a riveted zipper, made with redskins (Again according to John Chapman's information) :

 

[mulceber]

I also read this story with the P-38.
Here is what I recently learned : B-6 jackets were made in fairly large numbers, with most being produced between 1941 to 1943. They were originally designed and tested in 1939, and were made just by Aero (Acme) until 1941, when Arnoff and Poughkeepsie also made contracts. No Rough Wear contract seems to have existed for the B-6 jacket.
Aero pattern had zippers on the bottom of the jacket on the sides to adjust the size.
On the Arnoff these zippers have been replaced by straps.
The Arnoffs had Conmar zippers while the Aero had Talon or Crowns.
The Aero contracts seemed rather "redskin" while the later ones (Arnoff and Poughkeepsie) are rather "seal".

Really interesting argument on his part. The only problem that leaves is why it's so hard to find an original B-6 up for sale. You can find B-3s, D-1s, heck, all the rest of the B-series on eBay every day. B-6s really seem to be hard to come by.

 

[Kermit3D]

Is it possible that the thinness of the B-6 and D-1 fur (compared to the B-3) makes these jackets more fragile ? Which would explain why the D-1 and B-6 series did not survive until our time ?
And I think that there were many more B-3 manufactured.
I wonder if the B-6 was manufactured in roughly the same proportions as the ANJ-4...
... Don't worry, it doesn't keep me up at night

 

[Smithy]

Is it possible that the thinness of the B-6 and D-1 fur (compared to the B-3) makes these jackets more fragile ?

USAAF kit isn't my speciality but I would imagine that's very possible. US shearlings have a reputation for degrading markedly over time much more so than things like Irvins. That sounds a very plausible explanation but you'll need one of the guys who have handled a lot of these to confirm.

 

[B-Man2]

I’m sure some of you already know this but for those who may not ... The US shearling jackets , all of the B-3 , D1and B-6 jackets hides were finished off with a heavy acrylic finish to protect the hides particularly during wet weather . This acrylic finish over the decades that followed , is what caused most of this jackets to get dry rot or to crack the surface and cause the jackets to fall apart over time . The British Irvins did not have this finish and thus they do t have that problem and lasted longer .

 

[Kermit3D]

I’m sure some of you already know this but for those who may not ... The US shearling jackets , all of the B-3 , D1and B-6 jackets hides were finished off with a heavy acrylic finish to protect the hides particularly during wet weather . This acrylic finish over the decades that followed , is what caused most of this jackets to get dry rot or to crack the surface and cause the jackets to fall apart over time . The British Irvins did not have this finish and thus they do t have that problem and lasted longer .

Interesting, I didn't know that.
What was the purpose of this acrylic finish? Was it just to protect against rain (which turned out to have the opposite effect in the very long run) or was it to dye the leather?

 

[Smithy]

Interesting, I didn't know that.
What was the purpose of this acrylic finish? Was it just to protect against rain (which turned out to have the opposite effect in the very long run) or was it to dye the leather?

That finish was a waterproofing finish to protect from water but also aircraft fluids: gas, oil, grease, etc.

 

[mulceber]

Yeah, it improved the short-term durability of the jackets and it was a quicker way to finish them. It just damaged them in the long term. The problem I see with this as an explanation for the rarity of the B-6s is that both B-3s and D-1s received the same treatment and are much more common on eBay.

 

[B-Man2]

Interesting, I didn't know that.
What was the purpose of this acrylic finish? Was it just to protect against rain (which turned out to have the opposite effect in the very long run) or was it to dye the leather?

It was a final clear coat that went over the dye and covered all of the exterior hide for protection against the elements . That’s why those jackets have a bit of a shiney appearance . There are several past threads on this topic .

 

[Kermit3D]

Thanks for all the clarification, I learned some things today.

 

[Smithy]

The problem I see with this as an explanation for the rarity of the B-6s is that both B-3s and D-1s received the same treatment and are much more common on eBay.

But couldn't that be simply down to B-6s being made in fewer numbers than B-3s and D-1s Jan? I don't have the numbers but I imagine that more B-3s and D-1s were made than B-6s.