The Wonkyness of USN Jackets ( Ok…..,that’s different )

[B-Man2]

So … last night I was texting back and forth to Mulceber ( Jan) and we were discussing a Star G-1 1977 7823 E jacket I recently picked up that has the USN vertically perforated on the wind flap. I had mentioned that I thought that was a little unusual and Jan suggested that we check out some other Star G-1 contracts to see if that was normal for that maker. Well I looked at a 1968 Star G-1 and a 1973 Star G-1 that I have and both of those jackets have the USN in the horizontal position that we can often see in other contracts . So we got to wondering just when Star decided to make the horizontal to vertices change OR if in fact it never changed and It’s just another example of a wonky thing on a USN jacket. So we’ve discussed the wonky thing on WWII A2 jackets but I don’t think we ever looked closely at USN jackets. If you guys have any that you’d like to show or discuss please do jump in here .
Cheers
1968 Star with horizontal USN on wind flap

1973 Star G-1 with horizontal USN on wind flap

1977 Star G-1 with vertical USN on wind flap

 

[Spitfireace]

1966 Ralph Edwards USN vertical.

 

[B-Man2]

1966 Ralph Edwards USN vertical.View attachment 103539

I notice one thing in all of these photos so far, the verticals USN perforations are smaller and less discernible holes than the horizontal USN holes . I wonder if that’s normal or just depends on the manufacturer. ( I know I’m grabbing at straws here)

 

[Spitfireace]

I think in the case of older jackets the holes close up after time and I can barely see them at this point. Same way as patch stitch holes will close up after the patch is gone for a number of years.

 

[Spitfireace]

This 66 had a name tag a long time ago but the stitch marks are so faint now you really have to examine it to see.

 

[B-Man2]

I think in the case of older jackets the holes close up after time and I can barely see them at this point. Same way as patch stitch holes will close up after the patch is gone for a number of years.

I guess that’s possible but then if that’s true then shouldn’t the 1968 and 1973 jackets holes be small or smaller than the 1977 jacket ?

 

[Spitfireace]

I do think that different contracts had different size holes punched (not gov spec reg size?). Some were larger holes and some smaller. The smaller holes closed up and the larger ones didn't as much obviously.

 

[B-Man2]

I do think that different contracts had different size holes punched (not gov spec reg size?). Some were larger holes and some smaller. The smaller holes closed up and the larger ones didn't as much obviously.

Very possible …

 

[Spitfireace]

I think I'm going down the rabbit hole of holes.

 

[ties70]

Here is the perforation on my Orchard G-1 from 1986….just one extra hole turns the „active duty“ USCG into a „decommissioned“ U6CG:

 

[johnwayne]

My two ‘57 Cagleco’s - one horizontal and one vertical!

 

[B-Man2]

My two ‘57 Cagleco’s - one horizontal and one vertical!

Well … that’s different .. definitely wonky !

 

[Lord Flashheart]

Never ceases to amaze me Burt just how strict, and how relaxed, the application of the specification can be. Wonky indeed!

Edit. I thought after the Foster litigation and change from BuAer to MCTSA there’d have been less of this “discretion”. Obviously not

 

[B-Man2]

Well … that’s different .. definitely wonky !

JW
Any chance to see a couple of photos of those?

 

[B-Man2]

Never ceases to amaze me Burt just how strict, and how relaxed, the application of the specification can be. Wonky indeed!

Edit. I thought after the Foster litigation and change from BuAer to MCTSA there’d have been less of this “discretion”. Obviously not

Actually it’s kind of interesting . We’ve discussed these types of issues with wartime A2’s but didn’t give much thought to USN jackets. As we’ve seen so far “wonky ness “ wasn’t limited to A2’s

 

[Otter]

Ken of Aero always said that the inspection standards of the USN were far higher than those of the USAAF.
I wonder what happened to the "fails" ?

 

[Erwin]

It is really interesting regarding punched USN property markings on G-1. Based on the MIL-Spec, only the horizontal pattern is correct.

Not properly punched property markings on the wind flap were treated like minor defects, that's why I assume we can observe some aberrations for horizontal or vertical markings.