Cleaning Nylon Flight Wear

[bn1966]

Afternoon Gents,

I've just lost my UK specialist military wear dry cleaners & restorers (Bradleys of Milton Keynes).

My L-2B needs a clean (too many parties), does anyone have a good UK dry cleaning source?

Out of interest also, has anyone handwashed these items & if so what were the results like?

Regards Lee

 

[Doctor Damage]

That's unfortunate about the cleaners. This is presumably an L2B with a wool lining? I suspect you might have luck hand-washing with a sponge and some detergent in cold water. I have a friend who hand-washes his camel hair overcoat every few years and it's fine.

 

[Lebowski]

That's unfortunate about the cleaners. This is presumably an L2B with a wool lining? I suspect you might have luck hand-washing with a sponge and some detergent in cold water. I have a friend who hand-washes his camel hair overcoat every few years and it's fine.

L-2B is a very lightweight summer jacket designed for warm weather, lined only with thin rayon lining.
Very gentle handwash should work well with L-2B.

 

[Peacoat]

I don't know about any other L2-Bs, but my L2-B has a lightweight wool liner. It is listed as 35% wool, 65% rayon. The final words on the tag are, "DRY CLEAN ONLY" That advice should be heeded as the jacket will shrink in a minute. I would keep your jacket as far from water as possible unless it is a size or two too large.

 

[Ernest P Shackleton]

Sounds like something I would tackle on my own, but proceed with caution. This is how I clean my wool, "dry clean only" garments.

https://www.thefedoralounge.com/thr...e-for-buying-used-vintage.96246/#post-2509017

 

[bn1966]

Thanks Folks,

Was considering a cold handwash given the fact the L-2B has been subjected to heavy rain & heavy beer falling apon it.

I've just been pointed in the direction of a 'Dry-cleaners' that are sympathetic in respect of vintage military jacket cleaning.
They've informed me they are happy to clean the L-2B

 

[Big J]

This is a very good idea for a thread!

I've found nylon flight jackets to be fairly water repellent. But on the occasion when I've spat coffee on them, gentle spot cleaning with a wet cloth has been enough.

My original MA-1s and repros say only 'dry clean only'.
My BR L-2s all say the same, but also have a tag inside the pocket which has all the modern symbols for no washing/tumble drying etc (they also specify the lining is 35% wool).

It makes me wonder about originals. They must have got soaking wet at some point in their service lives, how did that affect them? How were they cleaned back in the 50's/60's and how has dry cleaning technology changed since then (and what effect will that have?)?

How often were they ever really even cleaned? How often did g-suits get cleaned? It's all just 'flight gear'.

I've only ever seen one NOS MA-1 for sale still in its box. I'd be interested to know if every original I've ever handled and seen had suffered some kind of wool lining shrinkage, and if unworn originals look/fit differently for corresponding tag size compared to those that have been soaked/washed/repeatedly dry cleaned with vintage technology.

I had a modern off-the-peg suit that was absolutely decimated by 'modern' dry cleaning and on that basis alone, it's my last choice for any kind of cleaning these days.

 

[Seb Lucas]

I'd be interested in that too J. I rarely use dry cleaning - maybe once a decade. I have always washed my nylons with no problems but I have only owned repro stuff by Alpha. I have noticed that we may be more preoccupied with cleaning clothing than previous generations. I have noticed stains and things on the clothing of many vintage photos of even well to do people.

 

[Doctor Damage]

I have noticed that we may be more preoccupied with cleaning clothing than previous generations. I have noticed stains and things on the clothing of many vintage photos of even well to do people.

You can be sure they were not sending jackets to the dry cleaners after every flight or even once a week. Probably an annual thing, although ground crew would have been the ones who got dirtiest. I know all the pilots are going to chime in and claim aircraft are dirty, etc, but in actual fact no they aren't if you aren't doing maintenance. If a pilot's jacket gets oil on it then something is really wrong!

 

[Peacoat]

Our cockpits were clean, so no dirt or grease on the jackets. We only wore them in cool weather, so no sweat got on them. Not much reason to clean or wash them. But there have been many flight jackets shrunk by wives who threw them in the wash.

 

[Big J]

@Doctor Damage,
I'm not a pilot, but I am going to disagree (sorry).
Whilst every civil aircraft I ever saw was indeed clean, every non-display in-service military aircraft I ever saw *that wasn't at an air show* was filthy.
Covered in panels with chipped paint on the edges, ground crew boot marks all over it, and all sorts of streaks from panels, latches, control services etc.
In fact, have a look at Robin Olds F-4 in Vietnam, there are plenty of photos; it looks like a kids knocked about Tonka toy; exposed metal and dirt everywhere. Olds specifically said that he didn't want his plane repainted when it was put on display, but comparing photos of it then and now, it's clearly been cleaned and the paintwork touched up.
And every nomex jacket I ever bought needed to be put through the washing machine 3 times to get all the grime out of it.
Maybe modern fly-by-wire aircraft are cleaner because they don't have a couple of sets of hydrolics for the flight control systems running through them?

 

[nick123]

Sweat.

 

[Ernest P Shackleton]

I had a repro MA-1 that said "dry clean only", and I washed it all the time. I used it for car repairs and maintenance. I didn't do any of the gentle cleaning I described above in my linked post. I threw it in the washer on a normal cycle with cold water. It had poly fill though. Washed it tens and tens of times with no damage of any sorts.

 

[bn1966]

My L-2B has some wool as part of the lining but I cant imagine a sympathetic cold wash in the Bath-tub will cause any harm given the punishment it has experienced during my ownership..needs a clean due to my uncertainty as to how half of it got 'damp' during a 'Scooter Club' party..I'm still struggling to work out how I got back to my Motel too

 

[Edward]

And every nomex jacket I ever bought needed to be put through the washing machine 3 times to get all the grime out of it.

In terms of how pilots cleaned them when these jackets were in issue-use, your experience would seem to suggest they didn't bother!

 

[Big J]

@Edward, ha! Yes!

Anyone who frequently drives long distance will have seen the film of grime that coats their automobile. High speed aircraft pick up a similar film. Brushing up against that getting in/out of the cockpit is going to make your flight jacket dirty.
Also, reading about the jet experience in Korea and Vietnam, many pilots say cockpits smelled of urine, faeces, vomit, and cigarettes.
They don't seem very clean to me.

 

[Big J]

I was just thinking about the difference in perceptions of aircraft dirtiness between Doctor Damage and myself. We could both be right.
I think DD (from fit pic photos) is maybe 10-15 years or more younger than I, and that generational difference may account for differing perceptions.
I grew up with Generation 3 jets, but maybe DD grew up with Generation 4?
I'm thinking that Gen. 3 jets like the F-4 were all metal with hydrolic control systems. When they hit the mach, air friction heated their airframes causing them to go through hundreds of cycles of expansion/contraction over their service life. For (extreme) example, Concord developed 1/2 inch gaps when it heated up and expanded INSIDE the cockpit! And it got about a foot longer. The SR-71 fuel tanks were designed to not leak at speed, but on the apron, the cold contracted tanks leaked fuel (along with all other fluids) straight out of the airframe onto the concrete.

By contrast, by the 80's, gen. 4 aircraft like the F-15/16 were fly-by-wire, and made extensive use of composite materials, that (presumably) didn't expand and contract constantly, giving rise to fewer fluids and fewer fluid leaks/streaks on the aircraft. Paint technology must surely also have improved over the years.

Maybe this accounts for our difference in perceptions?

 

[nick123]

Reading an old Finescale Modeler tonight and by coincidence the topic of aircraft cleanliness came up (discussing the amount of weathering on models). Can't speak for the cockpits (or for anyone who was there).

 

[Big J]

@nick123, that's an interesting article. His comment about WWII aircraft reminded me of something I read about the challenges of restoring Spitfires; they were built to last about 2 weeks, not 70 years (according to the guy who ran the restoration company).

As for his comments that planes (apart from B-52's) were clean, two things stand out to me.
Given that he says this was during the Vietnam war;
1) Without knowing if he was stationed at U-Tapao, Thailand or Kadena, Japan or Guam, we don't know what the level of base facilities was. There was a big difference. SAC poured money into Japan and Guam facilities but felt robbed by the prospect of investing in Thailand.
2) We don't know the model of B-52 in question. SAC sent their older B-52D models to Thailand for most of the war. I would expect these older versions with a high number of flying hours to have more leaks/streaks. But he could be referring instead to B-52G models stationed in Guam and Japan that flew in Linebacker II. These aircraft were newer and lavished with attention. If they were leaky/dirty I would expect other aircraft to be dirtier.

Without knowing where and when this guy served, his statement is not particularly helpful, although thought provoking. The guy seems to have been around SAC aircraft which had access to significantly more funding that TAC.
If anyone's interested, apart from Robin Old's biography, the excellent Eleven Days of Christmas explores the rivalry in the air force between SAC/TAC, budget hogging by SAC (70% of total US military expenditure at its peak), SACs lack of commitment to the Vietnam mission, and TACs neglect by USAF commanders. It a pretty damning read, and puts Olds 'arrogant' attitude in perspective.

 

[Doctor Damage]

And every nomex jacket I ever bought needed to be put through the washing machine 3 times to get all the grime out of it.

In terms of how pilots cleaned them when these jackets were in issue-use, your experience would seem to suggest they didn't bother!

In my experience nomex has never been soaked through with grime, it's just been surface grime which washes out relatively easily. Oil stains don't wash out but after washing they end up being more like a paint stain, i.e. a 'dry' stain. But obviously nylon is a different animal, and it's worth pointing out that nylon was never used by the USN. I think this simply comes down to the USAF not washing 'working outerwear' very often and crud building up on them. I'd be interested in hearing from Atticus who has a huge collection of vintage nylon; he's never mentioned them being dirty, although it's quite possible I think that really dirty jackets got disposed of while the 'clean' ones were kept by their wearers and eventually changed hands. What was the USAF's policy regarding jackets? When you were out the door did you get to keep your jacket? Did airmen get to keep their jackets (probably not), or did only more senior officers and NCO's keep their jackets thanks to their relative clout/immunity from supply sergeants? I think it's possible the jackets we see on the used market are mostly the cleanest examples only and mostly from senior personnel who weren't doing daily 'oil changes' as it were. I think Peacoat's observations are very useful since he was flying helicopters in a combat area - was the army tidier than the air force??