Goldsmith A-2 Reproduction - Headwind Mfg Co

Skyhawk

Well-Known Member
I have to admit Aero probably boobed big time in NOT using a Spun Silk for our Goldsmith, never mind "Mark the "X" on the epaulette, faux pas"
Yeah it may be worth changing to silk in the future if I can find a source. It appears that change happened during the SAT contract, according to this new evidence.

With the X on the Eps, god only knows. They were all over the place. Ours will be showing the X though.
 

Skyhawk

Well-Known Member
You know that theory makes sense. The Goldsmith contract was only 25 jackets so Silk was probably not a problem to source. Take the SAT contract a year later for 1600+ jackets, they may have gotten through the first 100-200 jackets and couldn't source enough Silk. The Army scratched out silk and changed to Tan "Cotton Sateen".

That jacket of Buckcheck may be even more significant than we thought. As we know, a silk liner was stated in the original specs and then changed early on. As far as we know, a silk liner has never been seen and we just thought the spec was changed before any were made.......maybe not.
-Jay
 

Ken at Aero Leather

Well-Known Member
Yeah it may be worth changing to silk in the future if I can find a source. It appears that change happened during the SAT contract, according to this new evidence.

With the X on the Eps, god only knows. They were all over the place. Ours will be showing the X though.
Like I said, get one of our silk chits (You'll get trade price) and you've got the exact fabrfic to show folk
 

Skyhawk

Well-Known Member
Hey thanks Ken! I may take you up on that. I appreciate the help. I know you are well studied in liner materials and your liners are top notch. Especially those nice Tartans.
 

foster

Well-Known Member
Another point though is why so do many A-2's have single line of stitching on the pockets and double lines on the epaulets? Shouldn't they both be single stitched?
That's a great question. Certainly would have made for a more secure pocket attachment, but my guess is because you can't get the double lines to sew easily on a curve (pocket corner) whereas on the epaulet it is more or less a straight line stitch.
 

Bombing IP

Well-Known Member
Jay I would ask Geboo for help sourcing the silk liner material ,he is right in the middle of the textile supplies and seems to find anything he wants to make his jackets with accurate materials without compromise .

Jeff
 
Last edited:

33-1729

Well-Known Member
Cool thanks Ken! I will try but may have to go with Tan cotton. There are examples of cotton being used on the SAT and I would think that Silk was only on a very limited number of A-2's. I don't think we have seen another example of silk. As we know, the specs were changed and showed up with the Silk blacked out very early on.
The 94-3040 spec dated May 9, 1931 (the same day the A-2 was released as standard issue) showed silk was NEVER used on the production A-2. (Crossing something out or adding something with a pen was fine in the days before word processors.) The document showing the first three A-2 contracts confirms that fact by stating they all met those spec requirements.

Yes, a primary source of information on flying/pilot jackets was a single summary "Type Designation Sheet" (TDS) and it was found to contain a few errors, so references using the TDS as an information source contain those same errors. For example, the A-1 drawing number is AN-6501 and not 074737, the A-2 drawing number is 30-1415 and not 31-1415, the A-2 were manufactured with a cotton and not spun silk lining, etc. Don't make the same mistake.

With that said, silk would be a great option. Don’t use reject-quality spun silk as mentioned erroneously in the TDS as it is much more fragile than cotton while being substantially more expensive. Use a high quality filament silk instead. (Even the crossed out A-2 spec versions NEVER mentioned "spun silk" in any way, shape or form.)
 

2BM2K

Well-Known Member
The 94-3040 spec dated May 9, 1931 (the same day the A-2 was released as standard issue) showed silk was NEVER used on the production A-2. (Crossing something out or adding something with a pen was fine in the days before word processors.) The document showing the first three A-2 contracts confirms that fact by stating they all met those spec requirements.
Specification 94-3040 also says that drawing 30-1415 forms part of the specification. Until that is found it is not possible to be absolute about anything.

I do not understand where you get the date of May 9 1931 for specification 94-3040 from.

The documents you found gives October 1931 for a proposed specification 94-3040 and
a clearance of specification 94-3040 of July 1932.


Drawing 30-1415 forms part of specification 94-3040 and so should be archived with the specification. Maybe the archivists missed something when they found the previous documents. Might be worth asking them to have another look.
 

33-1729

Well-Known Member
Specification 94-3040 also says that drawing 30-1415 forms part of the specification. Until that is found it is not possible to be absolute about anything.

I do not understand where you get the date of May 9 1931 for specification 94-3040 from.

The documents you found gives October 1931 for a proposed specification 94-3040 and
a clearance of specification 94-3040 of July 1932.


Drawing 30-1415 forms part of specification 94-3040 and so should be archived with the specification. Maybe the archivists missed something when they found the previous documents. Might be worth asking them to have another look.
If the specification and the drawing provided conflicting information that would be a real issue, wouldn’t it? Why believe one over the other? Or either at all since an error would then clearly exist?

The picture below shows the handwritten 5-9-31 date when the spec was first signed off for use (it’s also the date listed in the TDS). At this point it would be an internal document for use with vendors to procure stock until enough stock was procured to officially release (clear) the spec so people could learn about the new item and requisition it from stores.

Capture.JPG


Note "silk lined" was cross-out in section II.1. The term "spun silk" is not used.
 

2BM2K

Well-Known Member
The picture below shows the handwritten 5-9-31 date when the spec was first signed off for use (it’s also the date listed in the TDS). At this point it would be an internal document for use with vendors to procure stock until enough stock was procured to officially release (clear) the spec so people could learn about the new item and requisition it from stores.
Thanks , I missed the hand written date.


If the specification and the drawing provided conflicting information that would be a real issue, wouldn’t it? Why believe one over the other? Or either at all since an error would then clearly exist?
The specification states that drawing 30-1415 forms part of the specification. The way I read it is that if something is crossed out in the specification it may be covered in the drawing and not necessarily deleted.

The term "spun silk" is not used.
Yes it is. Under general specification with it's own spec number but crossed out.
silk.jpg


To sum up:
Drawing 30-1415 forms part of specification 94-3040, it is complimentary not contraditory.

I feel that the drawing should hve been archived with the spec 94-3040, it is possible that the archivist
missed the drawing when retriving the spec.
 

Ken at Aero Leather

Well-Known Member
Re the constant repilition that the Army never used the term "Spun Silk" That's correct but why would they be aware of the term when so few in the cloth trade were/are not?
Until the latest Security Togs advert showed up, I'd always credited the firm that made our Spun Silk for the term. The day we met them they said, "what you want is Spun Silk."
We used it in all our promotional material from aroiund 1986 on and the words seem to stick, just like another Aero term from way back in those days........."Barnstormer"......to id the US D/B flight coats of the 1920s
The name is now generic for such a garment
"Spun" is like "Drill" "Polished" or "Lawn" etc where refered to cotton for instance
 

33-1729

Well-Known Member
Good catch on finding the word “spun” under all the ink!

I haven’t been able to find a spec, old or new, on spun silk other than for measuring spun silk yarn size. So far I’ve mostly found references to using spun silk yarn as a cartridge cloth during WWI (when silk burns it doesn’t leave an ash in the barrel that would require periodic cleaning, nor smolder to light another bag unintentionally). Other references all direct me to braiding silk. Maybe Ken knows what that means. Haven’t been able to find a spun silk reference to cloth or linings, but I’ll keep looking. If they listed a spec number it must be somewhere, even if obsolete. I have found a number of references on silk thread though.

There was a surplus of cartridge cloth after WWI, but it was still quite expensive (over sixty cents a yard per the 1920 National Museum Report versus the $4.00 price listed in the April 1944 Illustrated [supply] Catalog for an A-1).
 

foster

Well-Known Member
Braided silk may have been used at the time as surgical suture material. Although replaced by synthetic fibers now, surgical suture is usually a finely braided form, not merely twisted as in typical thread.
 
Top