• 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.

1975 Greenbrier J-CWFS

MikeyB-17

Well-Known Member
Well you can consider me well pleased with myself. Picked this up from the Post Office this morning, a 1975 Greenbrier Industries J-CWFS, forerunner of the CWU-45/P Nomex winter flying jacket. Bought for £25 on Ebay from a UK 'Thrift Store' seller who didn't really know what he was dealing with-a situation I've done well out of in the past. I'm a big fan of the Bi-swing Nomex jackets, which are warm, comfortable and I much prefer the styling to the nylon MA-1/L-2 types. Plus they're fireproof! I had a Greenbrier CWU-45/P a few years ago which I regretted selling, so I bought another off Greyhound here, with no label, which I wear regularly. I had thought that one was also a Greenbrier, but there are several differences in construction which make me doubt that now (although it's a later jacket-1980 by the cut-off windflap corner). The new one is in the best condition of any I've owned-no shell or knit damage, no stitching issues, and the male end of the zip tape is virtually undamaged, a sure sign it's not had much wear. I wouldn't call it unworn but it's not been worn much. Nice clear, firmly attached label. The zips are Servals (both my Greenbriers had Scovills). I was particularly interested in seeing what evidence remained of the inner signal pocket (unmentioned in the listing), which I knew these had-I was confidently expecting to see two velcro strips where it once resided, but in fact I found not only the pocket but the orange signal flag still in it! It's a large, and as I've always found, the fit is excellent, very comfortable, a much more modern fit than the 60's jackets. I think I will keep this one for very occasional wear-these bi-swing CWU's are funny creatures, supposedly more sought-after than the later non-bi-swing versions, and I've seen them going for three-figure sums on Ebay, yet I've only paid peanuts for all of mine, and I know I'm not alone. They seem to be obtainable on the cheap if you're lucky, which I think I have been!

DSCF4192.jpg

DSCF4195.jpg

DSCF4197.jpg

DSCF4198.jpg
 

Rutger

Well-Known Member
Excellent fit, also and particularly in the arms (neither too long or too short), which can sometimes be markedly different for identical tag sizes.
 

Stony

Well-Known Member
Nice jacket!

I hadn't had one of these until just recently and mine is the same as yours (Greenbrier), although a year newer (76'). They seem like they would stand up to much more abuse than the MA-1 because of the Nomex.
 

MikeyB-17

Well-Known Member
Stony said:
They seem like they would stand up to much more abuse than the MA-1 because of the Nomex.
Certainly true of the Nomex fabric, Stony, but I've found that Nomex thread doesn't seem to be particularly robust, and I've had issues with seams parting, a common problem I understand. I still love 'em though!
 

Rutger

Well-Known Member
If I remember well, the cloth of the CWU jackets is made up of a very large percentage of nomex (fire resistance), a small percentage of kevlar (I suppose for strength and/or resistance against wear) and an even smaller percentage of conductive material to dissipate static electricity.

I've been googling a bit, what comes up is 92% meta aramid, 5% para aramid, and 2% conductive fiber.
http://www.armyoutdoor.com/Flyers_Jacke ... F5442.html
Not an official source but combined from what I read in the past and at this short notice plausible enough to me.

I do get static discharges when stepping out of the car all the time in dry weather when wearing nylon, I don't remember that with the CWU jackets. The CWU is not a regular wearer though.
 

Willy McCoy

Member
Very good score on the MIL-J Jacket! That my freind, is the nicest around. The NOMEX fabrics is a lot more durable than MIL SPEC DuPont nylon. Love the inner signal pocket!

I think the "thread" issue is with the Isratex manufactured CWU jackets, for which they were sued and dropped from govt. contracts.
 

watchmanjimg

Well-Known Member
First and foremost, let me join the others in congratulating Mikey on a great score. It's an excellent example!

Willy McCoy said:
Very good score on the MIL-J Jacket! That my freind, is the nicest around. The NOMEX fabrics is a lot more durable than MIL SPEC DuPont nylon. Love the inner signal pocket!

I think the "thread" issue is with the Isratex manufactured CWU jackets, for which they were sued and dropped from govt. contracts.

I believe we've had this discussion before, and of course each person's mileage can vary. However, in my experience the Nomex fabric used in CWUs has a greater tendency to sustain pulls and tears than mil-spec nylon. I realize that the thread issue may be solely attributed to the Isratex contracts, but aside from that the lining material used in the CWU-45/P pills easily as do the knits. Overall I contend that the nylon jackets with wool interlining are quite a bit more durable than CWUs. This is nothing I'd fight over, just my personal observation.

Regarding the J-CWFS designation, do we have any real evidence of actual military use of this terminology besides its mention in Suit Up? On the other hand there is tangential support for the proposition that the winter jacket some of us have called the "pre-CWU" is actually a CWU-17/P, as set forth here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=LdMXAA ... &q&f=false

Based on the foregoing one can infer that prior editions of the technical manual included specific mention of the CWU-17/P prior to the change to the -45/P designation, but nowhere is the term J-CWFS used. In fact, this terminology seems inconsistent with typical Army/Air Force usage in general. Of course it could be a Navy acronym, but if so I doubt its use would be exclusive to the first-pattern jacket. As with the durability issue I'm not trying to start a fight, but I'd like to see more solid proof that J-CWFS is a proper term for the winter-weight Nomex jacket.
 

HHjackets

New Member
watchmanjimg said:
... However, in my experience the Nomex fabric used in CWUs has a greater tendency to sustain pulls and tears than mil-spec nylon....

very hard to find them (for this price!!) in this condition, with the pouch and the orange flag but i also believe the above is true.
 

watchmanjimg

Well-Known Member
HHjackets said:
watchmanjimg said:
... However, in my experience the Nomex fabric used in CWUs has a greater tendency to sustain pulls and tears than mil-spec nylon....

very hard to find them (for this price!!) in this condition, with the pouch and the orange flag but i also believe the above is true.

I agree. It was a good score and I'd have bought it myself given the chance. My comments regarding the durability of Nomex fabric have no bearing on my love of the jackets. I must have close to 25 on hand currently. :lol:
 

Stony

Well-Known Member
Based on the foregoing one can infer that prior editions of the technical manual included specific mention of the CWU-17/P prior to the change to the -45/P designation

I don't see the CWU-17/P anywhere on the label of the one I have. :(
 

MikeyB-17

Well-Known Member
watchmanjimg said:
Regarding the J-CWFS designation, do we have any real evidence of actual military use of this terminology besides its mention in Suit Up? On the other hand there is tangential support for the proposition that the winter jacket some of us have called the "pre-CWU" is actually a CWU-17/P

I admit I have nothing but 'Suit Up!' to go on, but I interpret the CWU-17/P as having buttons and possibly other means to attach a hood, which the later versions don't seem to have. Just from looking at the pics in 'Suit Up!', the CWU-17/P appears to have buttons at the front near the windflap where the hood attaches, and possibly something round the back of the collar for the same purpose. Mine doesn't say 'J-CWFS' or 'CWU-17/P' on the label either. My old CWU-45/P, and the one in 'Suit Up!', actually says 'CWU-45/P' on the label. I'd like to know myself what the differences, if any, are between these jackets.
 

flightmac

Member
MikeyB-17 said:
I admit I have nothing but 'Suit Up!' to go on, but I interpret the CWU-17/P as having buttons and possibly other means to attach a hood, which the later versions don't seem to have.

The hood that attached to the CWU-45 was issued with buttons to be sewn under the collar.
 

watchmanjimg

Well-Known Member
MikeyB-17 said:
I admit I have nothing but 'Suit Up!' to go on, but I interpret the CWU-17/P as having buttons and possibly other means to attach a hood, which the later versions don't seem to have.

flightmac said:
The hood that attached to the CWU-45 was issued with buttons to be sewn under the collar.

You're both correct. The Army Technical Manual/Air Force Technical Order I cited previously sets forth the procedure for essentially converting the CWU-45/P to the configuration of the CWU-17/P by attaching the buttons, etc. Interestingly, the manual also mentions the optional attachment of a web clip tab to flight jackets and coveralls, a la the early nylon jackets. I have yet to see an example of this having been done as late as the '80s, but I suppose anything's possible in a rigger shop.

Here's a definitive explanation of the difference between the CWU-17/P and CWU-45/P, taken from a 1982 training manual for US Navy Aircrew Survival Equipmentman rate. The term "J-CFWS" does not appear anyhere in the manual. The full text can be found in the following link:

http://www.archive.org/stream/aircrewsu ... p_djvu.txt

COLD WEATHER FLYER'S JACKETS,
CWU-17/P AND CWU-45/P

The Cold Weather Flyer's Jackets, CWU-
17/P or CWU-45/P (MIL-J-83388) are designed
to be worn as outer garments in cold weather.
See figures 5-7 and 5-8. They are designed to
provide thermal anti-exposure protection at low
temperatures.

Configuration

The CWU-17/P and CWU-45/P jackets are
identical except that CWU-45/P does not have a
hood.
The jacket consists of an outershell with
wristlets and waistband of aramid material, and
a quilted lining. An emergency marker panel and
emergency marker panel pouch are included
with the jacket. A detachable fur ruff hood with
mouton lining and drawstring adjustment is pro-
vided with the CWU-17/P jacket. This jacket is
available in the following sizes:

Size

Chest Measurements

Small

34-36

Medium

38-40

Large

42-44

Extra Large

46-48

Extra Extra Large

50-52

To make matters even more interesting, here's the label from a '78 bi-swing CWU-45/P under specification MIL-J-83388A--the same as that of Mikey's jacket:

83388A.jpg


So in the end it would seem that the original MIL-J-83388 must have been the CWU-17/P (presumably manufactured with the provisions for attachment of the detachable hood mentioned above), while the A and subsequent revisions are CWU-45/Ps.
 

deeb7

Gone, but not forgotten.
watchmanjimg said:
The term "J-CFWS" does not appear anyhere in the manual.

Thanks Jim, that's all a lot clearer now.

Regarding the use of J-CWFS (Jacket-Cold Weather Flyer's System) ... I don't believe that Suit Up is affording the acronym any official status, but merely using it as a page heading.
 

Stony

Well-Known Member
My 1976 model only has MIL-J-83388A on the label, so what would you call those jackets before the CWU-45/P?
 

MikeyB-17

Well-Known Member
OK, so as I understand it, the CWU-17/P had a hood and the means to attach it, the CWU-45/P didn't. You could retrofit a hood to a 45/P using the buttons supplied with it. I assume the 'CWU-45/P (mod)' in 'Suit up!' is a -45/P with a retrofitted hood? Would a -17/P say so on the label?
 
Top