• 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.

Small size vs Big size?

taikonaut

Active Member
I am sure many of you have noticed that regardless of the size of the jacket the pockets, and maybe the waistband, cuffs and if I am correct the collars, maybe even the wind flap remains the same size. This will obviously influence the way the jacket looks on the wearer.
I've read that originally the A2 was designed for a smallish guy, a pilot no taller than 5'4" with size 36" chest so it would be tagged a size 38 jacket, the look would therefore based on that stat. As a size 38 tag wearer myself I noticed how differently comparing that size to one that is larger. The big pockets on a small jacket straightens out the entire abdomen all the way upto under the breasts and then loosens out, this also can force the shoulder to push up a bit higher and you get a fitter squarer look. Not so on bigger size jackets I've noticed and the bigger guys tend to have rounded shoulders on their A2. What does people think about jacket size influencing the looks of their A2? If you are looking for an A2 wearer but not bothered about historical accuracy would you prefer to have bigger pockets and other things in proportion to get that trim look seen in smaller sized jackets?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
taikonaut said:
I am sure many of you have noticed that regardless of the size of the jacket the pockets, and maybe the waistband, cuffs and if I am correct the collars, maybe even the wind flap remains the same size. This will obviously influence the way the jacket looks on the wearer.
I've read that originally the A2 was designed for a smallish guy, a pilot no taller than 5'4" with size 36" chest so it would be tagged a size 38 jacket, the look would therefore based on that stat. As a size 38 tag wearer myself I noticed how differently comparing that size to one that is larger. The big pockets on a small jacket straightens out the entire abdomen all the way upto under the breasts and then loosens out, this also can force the shoulder to push up a bit higher and you get a fitter squarer look. Not so on bigger size jackets I've noticed and the bigger guys tend to have rounded shoulders on their A2. What does people think about jacket size influencing the looks of their A2? If you are looking for an A2 wearer but not bothered about historical accuracy would you prefer to have bigger pockets and other things in proportion to get that trim look seen in smaller sized jackets?
Some repro companies make these "Corrections" for you- thus you end up with giant &" pockets and other weird characteristics- I'd rather have the straight up copy- thanks.
 

taikonaut

Active Member
rotenhahn said:
Some repro companies make these "Corrections" for you- thus you end up with giant &" pockets and other weird characteristics- I'd rather have the straight up copy- thanks.

Thats the points, giant pockets goes with a giant jacket to keep everything in proportion. I believe they use the same size for all jackets sizes because of mass production.
 

rikitiki

Member
Very interesting point. I've often wondered about the proportions of the smaller WWII jackets vs modern large jackets. I had mistakenly presumed pockets, collars and epaulets were proportionately larger as the sizes got larger. I wear a 38" chest, so I presume smaller jackets look better proportioned, like original WWII examples, than large 50" jackets on a more modern sized wearer. But would larger pockets and collars actually look better on larger sizes? We'd have to look at a number of pictures of guys in 50" jackets, for example, with small WWII pockets and collars, versus 50" jackets with proportionately larger pockets and collars, and see whick looks better.
 

taikonaut

Active Member
I like the pockets, collars, wind flap and waist band size of a size 38 jacket but I would dread if any of these were made smaller or bigger. I suppose it depend if people are use to it however I believe A2 were originally designed for a size 38 pilot, smallish guy that can fit comfortably in the cockpit of war era fighter planes so everything about jacket of that size should in theory be proportional.
 

Jason

Active Member
I've got two 16175P Perrys to compare, one a size 44, one a size 42 (though the 42 is actually more like a size 40).
While the pockets remain the same size, the collar is definitely and noticably larger on the size 44. I've not thought to compare the windflap or waistband, I'll check it out later on.
 

shanghai joe

New Member
taikonaut said:
I like the pockets, collars, wind flap and waist band size of a size 38 jacket but I would dread if any of these were made smaller or bigger. I suppose it depend if people are use to it however I believe A2 were originally designed for a size 38 pilot, smallish guy that can fit comfortably in the cockpit of war era fighter planes so everything about jacket of that size should in theory be proportional.



depends on the function.........turrett ball gunners would need to be smaller than pilots.........I think


and let's face it............with really large originals the vet would be flying over a desk........... :shock:
 

taikonaut

Active Member
shanghai joe said:
taikonaut said:
I like the pockets, collars, wind flap and waist band size of a size 38 jacket but I would dread if any of these were made smaller or bigger. I suppose it depend if people are use to it however I believe A2 were originally designed for a size 38 pilot, smallish guy that can fit comfortably in the cockpit of war era fighter planes so everything about jacket of that size should in theory be proportional.



depends on the function.........turrett ball gunners would need to be smaller than pilots.........I think


and let's face it............with really large originals the vet would be flying over a desk........... :shock:

According to a book I've read there was something about when they drew up the idea for the development of the A2 they designed it to fit a man about 5'4" to 5'6" with 36" chest actual measurement meaning a tagged size 38. That is probably why there are so many 38.
 

deeb7

Gone, but not forgotten.
taikonaut said:
... they designed it to fit a man about 5'4" to 5'6" with 36" chest actual measurement meaning a tagged size 38. That is probably why there are so many 38.

Then wouldn't that be a tagged size 36?
 

shanghai joe

New Member
taikonaut said:
shanghai joe said:
taikonaut said:
I like the pockets, collars, wind flap and waist band size of a size 38 jacket but I would dread if any of these were made smaller or bigger. I suppose it depend if people are use to it however I believe A2 were originally designed for a size 38 pilot, smallish guy that can fit comfortably in the cockpit of war era fighter planes so everything about jacket of that size should in theory be proportional.



depends on the function.........turrett ball gunners would need to be smaller than pilots.........I think


and let's face it............with really large originals the vet would be flying over a desk........... :shock:

According to a book I've read there was something about when they drew up the idea for the development of the A2 they designed it to fit a man about 5'4" to 5'6" with 36" chest actual measurement meaning a tagged size 38. That is probably why there are so many 38.


Ok, missed that one.....title of book?
 

taikonaut

Active Member
deeb7 said:
taikonaut said:
... they designed it to fit a man about 5'4" to 5'6" with 36" chest actual measurement meaning a tagged size 38. That is probably why there are so many 38.

Then wouldn't that be a tagged size 36?
That would be skin tight, need the extra 2" for room I guess. Different contracts has different chest or armpit to armpit measurement or even the same contract. Wartime size tag is also different than what we use to today. A 36 today is like a 38 back then.
 

deeb7

Gone, but not forgotten.
taikonaut said:
That would be skin tight, need the extra 2" for room I guess. Different contracts has different chest or armpit to armpit measurement or even the same contract. Wartime size tag is also different than what we use to today. A 36 today is like a 38 back then.

Yes, I understand all that, but you seem to be implying that the tagged size is also the chest measurement.

And that allamericanhero was right all along.
 

taikonaut

Active Member
deeb7 said:
taikonaut said:
That would be skin tight, need the extra 2" for room I guess. Different contracts has different chest or armpit to armpit measurement or even the same contract. Wartime size tag is also different than what we use to today. A 36 today is like a 38 back then.

Yes, I understand all that, but you seem to be implying that the tagged size is also the chest measurement.

And that allamericanhero was right all along.

Did I :?: :?
 

shanghai joe

New Member
taikonaut said:
deeb7 said:
taikonaut said:
... they designed it to fit a man about 5'4" to 5'6" with 36" chest actual measurement meaning a tagged size 38. That is probably why there are so many 38.

Then wouldn't that be a tagged size 36?
That would be skin tight, need the extra 2" for room I guess. Different contracts has different chest or armpit to armpit measurement or even the same contract. Wartime size tag is also different than what we use to today. A 36 today is like a 38 back then.

skin tight? ...........think PVC

extra 2"................think SIZE
 

deeb7

Gone, but not forgotten.
shanghai joe said:
extra 2"................think SIZE

That would be right on an A-2.

The book, Full Gear, reproduces some of the US Navy specs for flight jackets. They actually included a chart, showing all the critical measurements for each size.

The cloth jacket, the 37J1B, for example, sets the chest measurements at 4" greater than each tagged size.

Full Gear: Aota Mituhiro, page 111
 

taikonaut

Active Member
I measure 37" chest and most tagged 38 WW2 originals I have come across with armpit to armpit 21" measured from the back when zipped up actually feels a tad tight around the chest area especially when I flex but still look fine though when driving can feel some strain across my back. I have another tag 38 that has a 21.5" armpit to armpit measurement and that was perfect. So a guy measured 36" chest would have been the average size pilot in the 1930s when the blue print of the A2 was specified and would have been tagged 38 and that size is the most common almost became standard. I cant imagine it would be a tagged 36 you need a 34 inch chest to fit that maybe a very skinny guy or a woman which can go down to tag 32.
Squeezing into a jacket while standing still and do nothing is one thing, being able to run with it, do cartwheel, etc with comfort and without restriction is another.
 

deeb7

Gone, but not forgotten.
I'm not arguing about what makes a good fit, Taikonaut.

I'm just saying that a tagged size 38 is SUPPOSED to fit a 38 chest, otherwise sizing would make no sense.

You may well wish to go up a size to do cartwheels in comfort, though I don't imagine that it was something the QM would usually consider.
 

shanghai joe

New Member
taikonaut said:
I measure 37" chest and most tagged 38 WW2 originals I have come across with armpit to armpit 21" measured from the back when zipped up actually feels a tad tight around the chest area especially when I flex but still look fine though when driving can feel some strain across my back. I have another tag 38 that has a 21.5" armpit to armpit measurement and that was perfect. So a guy measured 36" chest would have been the average size pilot in the 1930s when the blue print of the A2 was specified and would have been tagged 38 and that size is the most common almost became standard. I cant imagine it would be a tagged 36 you need a 34 inch chest to fit that maybe a very skinny guy or a woman which can go down to tag 32.
Squeezing into a jacket while standing still and do nothing is one thing, being able to run with it, do cartwheel, etc with comfort and without restriction is another.


tag 38, your jkt, which contract/maker was that?
 

taikonaut

Active Member
deeb7 said:
I'm not arguing about what makes a good fit, Taikonaut.

I'm just saying that a tagged size 38 is SUPPOSED to fit a 38 chest, otherwise sizing would make no sense.

You may well wish to go up a size to do cartwheels in comfort, though I don't imagine that it was something the QM would usually consider.

No one is argueing, just pointing out that sizing is not all true and indeed itself makes no sense and there is no point believing a tag size should be the size one wears in particular for war era A2. A man with a 38" actual chest measurement will pose some problem wearng a tagged 38 WW2 original, thats all.
 

taikonaut

Active Member
shanghai joe said:
taikonaut said:
I measure 37" chest and most tagged 38 WW2 originals I have come across with armpit to armpit 21" measured from the back when zipped up actually feels a tad tight around the chest area especially when I flex but still look fine though when driving can feel some strain across my back. I have another tag 38 that has a 21.5" armpit to armpit measurement and that was perfect. So a guy measured 36" chest would have been the average size pilot in the 1930s when the blue print of the A2 was specified and would have been tagged 38 and that size is the most common almost became standard. I cant imagine it would be a tagged 36 you need a 34 inch chest to fit that maybe a very skinny guy or a woman which can go down to tag 32.
Squeezing into a jacket while standing still and do nothing is one thing, being able to run with it, do cartwheel, etc with comfort and without restriction is another.


tag 38, your jkt, which contract/maker was that?

Can you be more specific?
 
Top