unTaLL A-2s the only way to go?

[johnnyjohnny]

recently educating myself on a-2s in a rather wallet-painful way of purchasing them and then learning what does and doesn't work...i've been a little less than happy with how a 'tall' sized a-2 looks in some brands...

this happened with the current cockpitusa a-2, i got a 44tall (does not have the military cut, but the normal fit), and found it looked good for a normal jacket, but just lost that a-2 quality...especially when compared with their horsehide that came only in regular mil sizes...a 46 in that jacket was perfect...

i did get a current production g-1 (uscoastguard) a few years ago in a tall, again a 46tall, but since it was the mil cut and the g-1 has the longer fabric portion under the leather, the leather still ended a bit high up and it looks very military...

got me wondering if it's just inappropriate to get a-2s in tall since (from what i've read here and a few places elsewhere) i am under the impression 'tall' a-2s were never made in ww2?

i did order a 44tall in the gibson and barnes horsehide, which has a rather military cut...i was about to change the order until talking to the staff there...they said the 44tall still is only 45 1/2 inches long from bottom collar seam to end of jacket...my cockpitusa current prod 44tall is 27 1/2" long in the same measurement...and this is even after a little shrinking with various members suggested water treatment (seems to have tightened up about 1/2")

so, question being, are talls just totally out of order in a-2s? the gibson barnes 44tall sounds right for me (6'1" wearing 32" length pants), so i wouldn't have gotten a straight 44...but wondering what the 'orthodoXy' here think of 'talls'?

thanks,
johnnyjohnny

 

[BigSleep]

I'm not a tall but a regular fit in jackets.
I bought a WWII repro in horsehide.
The interesting thing I found when I bought my A-2 was that it felt odd to have a jacket that fit me perfectly.
What I mean by that is, I am so used to wearing modern over sized jackets that one that fit right was odd.
If I wear my shirt tucked in, the bottom of the A-2 falls at just the right level to my belt line. If I wear a T-shirt untucked, it hangs out the bottom of the jacket.
I think what's going on is that the A-2 was designed to be worn with a shirt tucked in and the pants of the day were cut with a higher waist.

Just an observation.

 

[Juanito]

got me wondering if it's just inappropriate to get a-2s in tall since (from what i've read here and a few places elsewhere) i am under the impression 'tall' a-2s were never made in ww2?

so, question being, are talls just totally out of order in a-2s?

It depends on what you want. If you are not a purist, then get one of the jacket's that is "tailored" to your fit. After all consumerism and capitalism is about choice, and that is what America is based upon.

Personally, with today's choices though, I wouldn't even consider buying a reproduction A-2 that is not the closest replica of a particular original pattern--but that is just me. Fortunately, or unfortunately, I am closer to the size of a WWII era man that today's, taller and larger versions, so I have never had to deal with fit issues.

I think you have struck upon one of the largest issues with reproduction jackets over the past 20 years--fit (with the other issue being componentry and materials).

Until Chapman came along, the Eastman and Real McCoys seemed to be the closest option. I have purchased 6 Eastman jackets (4 A-2's and 2 B-3's), and the one thing that always bothered me about them (aside from the leather finish) was the issue of fit, or rather the "blousy" nature of the fit, even after they we're "resized" in the 1990's after being "resized" from the 1980's. Depending on the era of the jacket, as it was explaind to me by Chanrles D and Gary Eastman, the A-2's were all "resized" to fit the modern man eithir in upsizing the jacket to label size or in proportion, or they were built to one's custom measurements.

In anycase, it seemed that I could never buy an exact or even close copy, in terms of pattern/size. I always found it ironic to own four original size 42 A-2's (a Purghkeepsie, a Roughwear, a Bronco, and a Cable) which all fit great (except for the Bronco), but the Eastman jackets were wildly out of proportion, and I couldn't just say, "Please send a Horsehide A-2 size 42, please." Charles actually sent one of his personal jackets to me to try on (a steerhide size 42) and I was swimming in it as it fit more like a 46! By the way, this is no means a hit on the service--Charles' service is second to none--I just found the fit issue a little trying.

Anyway I have kind of gotten off track. I think it comes down to that...why are you buying the A-2? That will answer the question for you.

 

[johnnyjohnny]

A-2 mystiQue? they're all different, even at the same size?

thanks for the replies...i guess one of the things i'm finding out about a-2s is that each one is different in sizing, even from the same eras but different manufacturers...here is what i've found:

uswings actual issue g-1 (i know, not an a-2, but gives some fit info):
this jacket was a 46L in the real military fit sizing, and was perfect...i search through the eternities for this fit>>>>>

but wait, the replica cockpitusa jacket 46R i just got, a horsehide flying tigers repro, fits just like the g-1 i reference above except a perfectly good 1 inch shorter...this cocpitusa seems perfectly authentic in it's design, not just from my perspective, but after poring over the a-2 Bible, American Flight Jackets, Airmen & Aircraft - 2nd Ed...and even though 1" shorter than my perfect fit g-1, the 1" shorter works perfect for the A-2 look...the g-1 is kind of a 'ocean' jacket if you ask me (mine is the uscoastguard actual issue...so meant to hold off against the vagaries of the ocean)...so 1" more coverage on the bottom side is nice, and looks very proper since this jacket is about the same length in the leather portion, but the extra inch is in the fabric, which i like looxwise>>>>>

so those two jackets, though bought 5 years apart and from different manufacturers, were totally accurate to each other, and to true mil sizing...

now, the rest are quite different, and makes me feel sizing has to be thoroughly checked out ahead of time:

got a cockpitusa CURRENT issue a-2...knowing it was a modern fit jacket, even tho mil spec (current day, which is looser), i got it 44L rather than 46 as in the mil fit...good as far as the fit, but the length was just too long...about 1 1/2" to 2" longer than the g-1 milspec 46L...

you'd think that coming down a full size would have yielded the same jacket length and size mil size to regular size...but here the length didn't coordinate...not at aLLL blaming cockpitusa, this all seems relevant to all manufacturers when you start to get into the current day jackets...they have their own sense of sizing...whilst the cockpitusa flying tiger replica was right on the money, their current issue has been apparently made longer in the regular size, which in the current day is being made about 2" longer than the old milspec regulars...about 25 1/2" from bottom collar to bottom jacket, which ironically is the same length as the 44L gibson and barnes (flightsuits.com) authentic horsehide ww2 replica...and, of course, the cockpitusa is a bit blousier in fit...truly a modern jacket...

i used to think this was what i wanted in a miljacket, but this forum had got me thinking, and then trying on the true milspec size in a-2s has shown the mil sizing to be best with an a-2 i feel...

lastly, before i knew of the difference in mil sizing vs. regular sizing, i purchased a 46L cooper a-2 new 5 years ago with the milspec sized g-1...i was confused when it turned out looser than the g-1...now i understand why...

i like the idea of a modern day a-2, but i have come to not appreciate the fuller fit...so tonight i got an ebay mint cooper a-2 that had the throat hook and non-side entry pockets, clearly an 80s-90s mil sized jacket...the other cooper i had, 46L, was modern day sizing...no throat hook, side entry pockets...

last interesting point however was a spiewak and sons 80s-90s mil speck and mil sizing 46...this was almost the size of the recently bought cockpitusa horsehide flying tiger replica, but about a half-size smaller for some reason...just too tight to really wear and look right, though i've seen many pix of ww2 flyers with such tight a-2s...i don't know why this mil sized jacket was off the g-1 and cockpitusa replica mil sizing...but chalk it up to the vagaries of a-2 sizing...everything about these jackets seems to be individual...

will be selling the cockpitusa current day 44L as it's about 27 1/2" from collar bottom to jacket bottom, and the spiewak and sons, as military spec it is, is really the equivalent of a military size 44...go figure...both lovely jackets, but it seems that a lot of people in this game are buying, and then having to sell, lovely jackets that have sizing which sometimes can be predicted about as well as tomorrow's weather

johnnyjohnny

 

[Mr. 'H']

Great topic.

PADDY - would you know the answer to this? I own an Aero with 2" added to lenght and sleeves as I am 6'4". It fits perfectly and I believe does have a good WWII look to it on me. But it does cross my mind that the etra 2" would not have been available back then and that guys mu height would haave to go with the regular fit only.

PADDY...?

 

[PADDY]

Brian...spot on!

Absolutely. Today we are talking about the A-2 as a fashion item that we can all look sharp in.

But it's original purpose was very different, as a military issue utility jacket for aircrew and the US Govt., no more custom made jackets for aircrew in 1942, than they would do with a disruptive pattern combat field jacket for troops in Iraq or Afghanistan in 2007.

So you're quite right, it was 'best fit,' from the army quartermaster, and most times that meant a sizing by the Mark One eyeball of the QMS. Most times it worked, sometimes it didn't, but servicemen have a habit of putting things right and that's how jackets go 'walkabouts.'

 

[davyjones007]

I feel you. I am 6'2 with a 48 chest and 38 waist. I do not think that a '40's era jacket would fit me. Even if I found an original that I liked, I could probably never fit into it. I do own a USA A-2 46T. It fits well but does seem a little long in the waist. I am waiting for an Aero 21996 from John. So at least I will have a "correct" size A-2 in HH for me. :eusa_clap I was thinking about getting one of Aero's Russet HH also. made wakanai!

 

[johnnyjohnny]

going reaL...

the talk is interesting about a-2 sizing, whether the 'tall' and 'long' that we purchase to fit ourselves has relevance to the original a-2, and why that original in fact existed...

as mentioned by paddy i think, the a-2 is now a fashion statement, but a statement is not bad since the a-2 was brought back in 88 (correct date?) because it WAS a statement that the air force felt was relevant and needed for today's u.s. military pilot...pride in the history of the air force, which means the look of the air force...

ironically, today's military contract a-2s do allow for talls, handwarmer pockets, no throat hoox...

reading this forum, learning about a-2s, and buying a-2s, has taken me on a wandering course regarding why i am getting one, or a number of them (as is inevitable once one starts with these addictive things)...

at first i just liked the general styling...then i learned some, and wanted to be more authentic...then i learned more, and read more here, and knew authentic was only achievable to an extent...a large extent if choosing the right manufacturer...but somewhat costly too...

at that point i had to make a decision...did i want to continue with authenticity? that left a very few of the exquisite replica makers, and their higher price tags...however, there was an out...i could have my authenticity, and my cake too...and that cake was to go for authentic military contract jackets...nOt from ww2, but from the second generation, or after the 88 bring back...

an obvious compromise one might say...but i was just young enough (if that's the term considering it's 2007) to miss having been called up for vietnam...so my point of reference for the a-2 may be a bit skewed to the later versions...

sure, it's not those classic ww2 trimfits, but i've purchased a few of the post-88 a-2s and they are remarkably like the ww2...however, that's the opposite of the point i was making...the fact is, they are their own generation...and even better than the best ww2 replica, the authentic post-88s (sounds like a tarantino film) are NOT replicas, they are authentic...

and, while authentic, the coopers, flight apparel industries, spiewak and sons, etc. are all new enough not to be cracked remnants that one has to be concerned wearing...often, these 2d generation authentic military contract a-2s are near new...

i do have a replica horsehide ww2 a-2 that is right on in design, if not in lining and label specificity...and i must say i am entranced at the ww2 mystique and beauty inherent in that piece...but in the end, i know it's a replica...and i wouldn't spend $1000 to have the real deal, and then go about wearing for margaritas on a saturday night...

so, going for a new generation of a-2s, but authentic mil contract ones, has been my choice... and it is interesting...the differences, or similarities, between brands...

in so doing i have disdained the beautiful a-2 styled jackets that are not authentic...the schotts, the tri-piece-back korean-made avirex a-2s, the lambskin modern-fit replicas, etc...

again, like all have said, it's what you decide to look for...

johnnyjohnny