philip.ed
Active Member
Haha! Not me John... but perhaps someone who's a 42-44 chest and c. 6ft in the future
-
When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
New Purchase: Original RAF Pre-War 'Links' Irvin Flying Jacket c.1938-9
- Thread starter philip.ed
- Start date
Haha! Not me John... but perhaps someone who's a 42-44 chest and c. 6ft in the future
B-Man2
Well-Known Member
If I might ask , what size is it ? Also I didn’t see a label attached in any of the photos, did I miss one or is it missing ? A jacket in this kind of condition , having little or no wear would have a label I would think . Not criticizing the jacket in the slightest , it’s amazing . Just asking in an effort to learn more about Irvin Jackets .
Cheers
Cheers
philip.ed
Active Member
You can see the outline in the photos on where the original silk label would have been tack-stitched in.
My friend who I purchased it from had owned the Irvin for around 30 years. He used to wear it occasionally, and sadly the silk label disintegrated. I imagine at the time he was not concerned over the potential collectors value of keeping the original label pristine. Due to the fact the labels were tack-stitched in, many would simply have fallen off. I believe on very early Irvins the labels were sometimes machine stitched in place.
B-Man2
Well-Known Member
Thank you for that info . I would like to learn more about Irvin’s . I think a lot of my interest stems from the BOB of course, but I just like the look of the jacket .
Smithy
Well-Known Member
Interestingly by the time the BoB started Irvins were seldom worn by fighter pilots. After the Battle of France, it had become obvious that the jacket was too bulky in the small confines of either a Spit or Hurri and the collar even when down, obstructed the view behind. I know of at least one squadron leader with the AASF in France who forbade his men from wearing them in combat because of this. Another Spitfire pilot I knew when asked if he ever wore an Irvin in combat told me, never and as well as for the reasons above, he said the sleeves would catch on the aircraft controls on the sides of the cockpit. He also said he only ever wore his on the ground for warmth. As an aside, the AM supplied the fighter squadrons of the 2TAF stationed in France during the very bitter winter of 1944/45 with Irvins to keep warm on the ground at the rudimentary fields they were flying from.
Although we have this idea of the Few scrambling for their cockpits in Irvins, it's actually not really the case. Add to that fact and that the summer of 1940 was also very warm with many men on the hotter days flying only in shirtsleeves.
B-Man2
Well-Known Member
Tim
Never knew any of that . Interesting . It raises the question of what the fighter pilots actually wore cruising around at 22000 feet . Couldn’t have just been the battle tunic and the BOB jumper . Now I’m wondering what they wore, as many photos show them wearing Irvin’s in the cockpits .I’m not disagreeing with you, just wondering if there was another type of flight jacket they wore .
Never knew any of that . Interesting . It raises the question of what the fighter pilots actually wore cruising around at 22000 feet . Couldn’t have just been the battle tunic and the BOB jumper . Now I’m wondering what they wore, as many photos show them wearing Irvin’s in the cockpits .I’m not disagreeing with you, just wondering if there was another type of flight jacket they wore .
Last edited:
Smithy
Well-Known Member
Hi Burt,
The wearing Irvins in the cockpit thing in photos after spring 1940 is generally just for photo purposes. Remember a lot of photos are posed and not taken during actual combat scrambles or sorties. Pilots are often not wearing what they wore in combat but often what they wore on the ground before the photo was taken, and often just slapping on a helmet, goggles and sometimes gloves to look the part.
A day fighter pilot in the RAF after summer 1940 would generally have a number of warm undergarments under his SD or later BD, often wearing one or two layers (depending on the season) of woollen underwear - thermals as they're usually referred to today, sometimes a thin woollen jumper or RN jumper or frock, SD or BD. During the BoB it was still common to fly in tie and shirt but this became rare very quickly due to the impracticality of it. Once BD was adopted usually nothing was worn over it by fighter pilots, so there was a lot of layering under it which was the main way to give warmth.
Flying a single seat fighter like a Spitfire which required fast movements and reaction in an Irvin was ungainly and restricted visibility and mobility.
philip.ed
Active Member
Tim, I could not have said any of that better myself!
It's for those exact reasons that, as a BoB collector, I restrained myself from purchasing an Irvin for so long. They just look so damn good though (which reinforces your point of why photographer's loved getting pilots to wear them for photoshoots).
Interestingly in 1943/4 the AM ruled that Irvins would only be issued to bomber command due to the cost of production and impracticality of them for fighter command.
It's for those exact reasons that, as a BoB collector, I restrained myself from purchasing an Irvin for so long. They just look so damn good though (which reinforces your point of why photographer's loved getting pilots to wear them for photoshoots).
Interestingly in 1943/4 the AM ruled that Irvins would only be issued to bomber command due to the cost of production and impracticality of them for fighter command.
B-Man2
Well-Known Member
Great information guys . Sort of blows the lid off of my visions of spit and hurricane pilots running to their aircraft in Irvin’s and AM jumpers . A little sad I must admit .
Smithy
Well-Known Member
They were wearing them in the Sitzkrieg/Phoney War and into the Battle of France but after that, it was exceedingly rare for an RAF fighter boy to fly combat in an Irvin.
The bomber boys on the other hand as Ben points out were a different kettle of fish entirely ;-)
ausreenactor
Well-Known Member
Service Dress and Battle Dress trousers?
Brylcreemer
Active Member
Absolutely beautiful. Can someone help me out: when I zoom in on the graining, it looks to me like it's a subtle broken hide. Were Irvins made with broken hide? Did the acrylic become more subtle after time? I.e. Did Irvin hides look more like the latest Eastmans when they were commissioned?
Smithy
Well-Known Member
Not impossible but rare I would imagine Couchy. I suppose when the first iteration of the Suits Aircrew was introduced you could have for some reason had an aircrew member wear an odds and sods mix. Unlikely though unless he'd lost his new trousers or something had happened to them and he had to fly wearing his SD trousers.
