Current USAF Issue A-2s

[HackerF15E]

A discussion over at The Fedora Lounge inspired me to take a trip down to the Flight Equipment Issue office at my base and take a look at some of their current-issue A-2s for comparison purposes. The discussion on the other board centered on if Cooper/Saddlery jackets pre-1998 had additional side panels in the design. My contention was that they did not, but another poster insisted they did. So, I was hoping to help settle that argument by this visit. This is a re-post of a similar thread I started at TFL as an answer to that question.

As a result, I thought you all would enjoy the iPhone snapshots I took. For you serious researchers, sorry the photos aren't of better quality.

At the base I'm at, the equipment issue office maintains a rack of A-2s that are used for fitting/trying on. They have every size from 36 up to 48, and a variety of manufacturers. I figured that would help sort out what jackets had what features.

Here's what the rack looks like:

Some details of the jackets hanging up there:

In this photo (L to R): An Orchard, a Saddlery, (unknown), and an Avirex.

In this photo (L to R): a couple Saddleries and a Cockpit USA.

A Saddlery, Cockpit USA, and Orchard:

First off, regarding the question of side panels: we're both correct. It looks like Saddlery jackets size 42 and smaller had no side panels, and 44 and larger did (that would explain why the ones I owned in 42 didn't).

First up, 1995 Size 36 Saddlery without side panel:

Next, a 1995 Size 48 Saddlery with side panel (but no underarm gussets):

The most interesting thing I learned is that the side-panels-and-gussets mod did not start exclusively with the Avirex jackets in '98, nor did all Avirex jackets have the gussets.

Here is a 1998 Avirex in 44R that does not have gussets or side panels.

Here is a 1998 Saddlery WITH side panels and gussets

Here is a 1992 Orchard, a bit of a rarity:

Here is one of the new Cockpit USA jackets (made in 07). These are the most currently-supplied jackets...and they are HORRIBLE. This, IMHO, represents the absolute lowest in A-2 quality that I've ever seen outside of fakes in Korea. Although the tag claims the shell to be actual leather, it appears to my eyes to be some kind of pleather/fake. Even if it is the real thing, it looks, feels, and wears absolutely terribly. The people working in supply related stories to me of these Cockpit jackets delaminating and cracking even only a short time after issue. Let's hope that Cockpit USA either changes their suppliers of leather, or loses the contract.

 

[SuinBruin]

Interesting. Is it just me or does it look to anyone else like gussets on the Saddlery A-2 were added later? The leather used in the gussets looks completely different than the body & sleeves.

 

[dmar836]

Interesting too are the hand warmer pockets.

 

[dilbert]

Okay, I'm a bit slow, but I can understand the gussets but what is the added side panel all about? The Navy's G-1 has the gussets so no problem, but I can't figure what the purpose of the panels? They don't appear to add any function to the jacket. To me it makes the jacket look poorly pieced together.

 

[Mac]

Side panels to lower manufacturing costs? Incorporate side panels in order to use smaller hides or more of the hides that are used?

HackerF15E, thanks much for posting the pics.

Mac

 

[zoomer]

Side panels to lower manufacturing costs? Incorporate side panels in order to use smaller hides or more of the hides that are used?

Yes, while avoiding the dreaded 2-3pc back panel that makes everyone think, "mall jacket."

Gussets to aid in freedom of movement.

Plasticy finish for water repellency, low cost (compared to, say, chrome tanning), and possibly, fire retardancy and/or disguising the species of leather used (cow? goat? pig? chicken????)

 

[dilbert]

It seems a pity. We've had discussions of the poor quality of the later-issued Navy G-1's ("E" series that changed to cowhide and synthetic mouton collars along with poor construction) but the Air Force's modern A-2's seemed to be good quality. This seems to have changed for the worse. Too bad.

You find current active duty military discussing their leather jackets on various websites and the general conclusion is that if you want quality you have to buy your own. Some even opt to avoid military-issued leather jackets altogether.

By the way Zoomer, the pig and chicken leather possibility was classic. Who knows, maybe?

 

[R7000]

Thanks for posting! Always like the insider peek.

 

[Tim P]

I'm not a fan of the new issue and the more recent the less desirable in my opinion. I would spring for an ELC Star or house seal goat and wear that if I were serving. No one would ping it in all probability but I would know

 

[HackerF15E]

I'm not a fan of the new issue and the more recent the less desirable in my opinion. I would spring for an ELC Star or house seal goat and wear that if I were serving. No one would ping it in all probability but I would know

The fact of the matter is that most military pilots aren't "enthusiasts" of most of their flight or military equipment.

They aren't into their jackets...not into their watches....not into their uniforms....not into their helmets....not into their flight gear....most aren't even really into the enthusiast nuances of the very airplanes they fly. Many of the things that are discussed to infinite anorak-level detail on the internet aren't even in the sphere of awareness of nearly every pilot I know.

So, most of us are simply happy with whatever gear we're issued to wear while on duty. It's a daily utility work outfit -- We're way more concerned with the utility of it's use, rather than anything else. Remember, we're in the military to do a job, and most of the time the equipment is simply a means of accomplishing those duties.

 

[Tim P]

I'm honest enough to say that the uniform I wear is not one that I have any enthusiasm for, I too regard it as work clothing so I do see what you are saying but then its not cool or iconic like the A-2.

 

[HackerF15E]

I'm honest enough to say that the uniform I wear is not one that I have any enthusiasm for, I too regard it as work clothing so I do see what you are saying but then its not cool or iconic like the A-2.

There are certainly some of us who have an appreciation for the flight gear on a different level -- I'm one of them -- but we're an anomaly across the pilot community.

I've certainly considered seriously buying a WW2 repro A-2 and put velcro on the chest so I could wear it as a uniform item. Who knows, I may still do that one day.

 

[dilbert]

I'm not a fan of the new issue and the more recent the less desirable in my opinion. I would spring for an ELC Star or house seal goat and wear that if I were serving. No one would ping it in all probability but I would know

The fact of the matter is that most military pilots aren't "enthusiasts" of most of their flight or military equipment.

They aren't into their jackets...not into their watches....not into their uniforms....not into their helmets....not into their flight gear....most aren't even really into the enthusiast nuances of the very airplanes they fly. Many of the things that are discussed to infinite anorak-level detail on the internet aren't even in the sphere of awareness of nearly every pilot I know.

So, most of us are simply happy with whatever gear we're issued to wear while on duty. It's a daily utility work outfit -- We're way more concerned with the utility of it's use, rather than anything else. Remember, we're in the military to do a job, and most of the time the equipment is simply a means of accomplishing those duties.

Hacker brings up a good point. My interest in military flight jackets is relatively recent. I am a former Navy pilot, Viet Nam era of the '60's and '70's. I was issued a leather G-1, A Ralph Edwards "C" version, and it was the only jacket I ever used. None of us pilots back then had any idea of its construction, I only learned recently that it was goatskin, none of us ever referred to it as a G-1, it was simply our flight jacket. We liked the leather but it was merely one of many items issued and was considered utilitarian by all of us. We didn't sit around the ready room and discuss the drape of the leather off the shoulder, we didn't compare ours with older jackets, etc. It was really taken for granted much the same as our flight boots, gloves, helmets or zoom bags. I flew with mine sometimes but often threw it in the baggage compartment because the bubble canopies were like greenhouses and, once strapped in you were stuck and couldn't remove clothing if you got too hot.

I found the leather flight jacket to be very comfortable and still have mine. I was not comfortable wearing it out as it has squadron and "been there" patches all over it and always seemed to attract attention. I always thought of getting a new jacket without all the accoutrements and came across this website as a result of looking for what to buy. I have subsequently become very interested in the history of flight jackets, both leather and cloth, and have a few originals as well as reproductions, leather, nylon and nomex. While I think the subject is fascinating you have to keep in mind that these jackets were simply one of many items issued and may or may not have been of interest to the pilot who wore it.

 

[RCSignals]

All of these variations are interesting.
I owned an early ('86 or '88) first re-issue Saddlery (by Cooper) A-2 in size 40, and it had the side panels.

All of these manufacturers, Avirex(pre cockpit) Cockpit, Cooper/Saddelry, USWings (maybe some more) jackets are made in the Schott factory.

 

[Atticus]

....While I think the subject is fascinating you have to keep in mind that these jackets were simply one of many items issued and may or may not have been of interest to the pilot who wore it.

I think most of us civilians understand that. A few years ago, after I had become very interested in collecting vintage military jackets, I tried to start a conversation with my father about his WWII flight jacket(s). I guess I expected him to know all about B-10s, B-15s, A-2s, B-3s, B-11s and B-6s. He didn't. He was mildly amused at my interest, but could only remember his "leather" one and his "green one...the one with the fur collar". Said he didn't really like the leather one, but the green one was comfortable...and that he turned both of them in after the war.

AF

 

[Tim P]

I have always cringed when I have heard reenactors badgering vets about details of what they wore, using nomenclature that is purely in place for the postwar enthusiast or collector. The vets to a man look baffled and bat the question as politely as they could. When the reenactors then continue I hang my head.
Its an easy mistake to make when you are new to the field but people don't learn.
Fact is if you havent had to buy it and it is there for you to work or fight in, 98% of the time it is immaterial.

 

[navvet]

I was a student naval aviator in the mid 1970's and although we wore our G-1's frequently, I couldn't tell you the maker or much else, except it came in handy for those raw Pensacola winters. :|

 

[usafwso]

That brings back a few memories..............

 

[usafwso]

I'm not a fan of the new issue and the more recent the less desirable in my opinion. I would spring for an ELC Star or house seal goat and wear that if I were serving. No one would ping it in all probability but I would know

The fact of the matter is that most military pilots aren't "enthusiasts" of most of their flight or military equipment.

They aren't into their jackets...not into their watches....not into their uniforms....not into their helmets....not into their flight gear....most aren't even really into the enthusiast nuances of the very airplanes they fly. Many of the things that are discussed to infinite anorak-level detail on the internet aren't even in the sphere of awareness of nearly every pilot I know.

So, most of us are simply happy with whatever gear we're issued to wear while on duty. It's a daily utility work outfit -- We're way more concerned with the utility of it's use, rather than anything else. Remember, we're in the military to do a job, and most of the time the equipment is simply a means of accomplishing those duties.

An accurate comment and agree with that from my own flying experience this was pretty much the same attitude until you get to the watches. In the 1980's - 90's the Rolex GMT Master was all was all the rage for a certain type, think the 80's era Chuck Yeager Rolex advertisements and lets not forget Captain Scot O'Grady in the 90's with his GMT Master II.

 

[herk115]

In regard to purchasing your own jacket for wear on duty, I recall reading a reg a while back that said we weren't allowed to wear leather jackets other than the one issued. Being in the Guard, those who cared about leather jackets largely ignored that reg (one guy wore a navy G-1 he'd found in a surplus store and a lot of other guys thought that was so cool). I'm wondering if you could get away with it on active duty, though. A well made russet repro A-2 would stand out like a sore thumb. That is, if that reg is still around.

After I got out, though, I did just that: bought a repro A-2 and put the velcro and modern patches on it. After some time I took them off. It just didn't look right. Of course, I never liked that hideous name tag the AF insists be worn on the A-2.

Ever since I was issued my Cooper (1989), I've wanted to have a talk with whatever moron it was that decided on Cooper and that particular design. That said, I've always thought that if my house ever burned down and I could save only one of my jackets, it would be that Cooper I was issued. Why? Because that's the one I earned. Yes, I kept it. There was no way they were going to get it back!