Are USWINGS JACKETS BUILT TO MILITARY SPECS?

Stefan Hills · Post by **Stefan Hills** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:04 pm

Hi all

Just wondering "Are uswings jackets especially their Indy jackets built to military specs?"

Kind regards and all the best,
Stefan

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Mar 03, 2003 2:21 pm

Absolutely. All Wings jackets are, regardless of style. Regards. Michaelson

Redbeard · Post by **Redbeard** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 5:31 am

What does, in that case "military specs" mean?

Indydawg · Post by **Indydawg** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:38 am

The US Government has certain quality specifications for any garments made by any manufacturer that is to be used by any branch of the US military. US Wings and Flightsuits, both makers of an Indy style jacket, manufacture all their jackets to the same strict quality specifications that they use for the Govt. issue jackets.

It means they're tough enough to be used by our troops in the field.

That's what it means.
Later!
Indydawg

Redbeard · Post by **Redbeard** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 1:03 pm

Thanks for the info. The only question is: Would a Wested also fulfill these specs?

Indydawg · Post by **Indydawg** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 1:08 pm

unfortunately that would be a negative. Peter makes a GREAT jacket, and plenty tough for just daily wear, but he does not use the strict standards that US Wings and Flightsuits uses for their jackets.

Bear in mind, however, that the Wings jackets and FS jackets are built MORE than tough enough for daily wear and tear. They're built to withstand serious abuse. So, if you don't plan on swinging from pillars by your whip, fighting Nazis on the backs of tanks, being drug behind trucks, and such as that, you SHOULD be just fine with a Wested. I've had one for two years that's been through the wringer pretty well with me and looks better today than when I got it.

So, take that for what it's worth.

Later!
Indydawg

Stefan Hills · Post by **Stefan Hills** » Tue Mar 04, 2003 2:26 pm

THANKS GUYS,

STEFAN

PETER · Post by **PETER** » Sat Mar 08, 2003 9:43 am

Can anyone tell me what exacly the military spec is on the Raiders jacket just in case I get asked to make one.
Cheers
Peter

Indydawg · Post by **Indydawg** » Sun Mar 09, 2003 4:21 pm

Not laughing AT you, Peter...laughing WITH you.

You're right...the military has NO set of specs for anything like the Raiders jacket.

What FS and Wings DOES do, though, is take the same specs that the military gives them for the G-1, A-2 and other Flight gear that they provide, and they use the same standards to make the Indy jackets that they make. So the result is an Indy jacket that COULD stand up the the military's specifications for something they would supply the troops with...

That's all that means

Later, my friend!
Indydawg

PETER · Post by **PETER** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 12:24 pm

I realize that but what exactly is the difference.
I have examined the FS jacket.
Same leather, same stitching, same jacket?
or is Military Spec just a sales ploy.
Scratching my Head.
Peter

Indydawg · Post by **Indydawg** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 12:48 pm

I dunno then, my friend! I, too, have your jacket, and one each of the FS jacket and the Wings. I'd need a better eye than I have to be able to tell you the difference. I don't think that it's just a "sales ploy"-I mean these folks do actually contract with the US military to provide them with garments that meet the rigorous expectations of military use, but as to what exactly those differences are, I just can't tell you. Maybe they use different stitching? Like I said, I just don't know....

Sorry I can't tell you more...._? Anyone?

Cheers, mate!
Indydawg

Harry Steele · Post by **Harry Steele** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:24 pm

IMHO, no Indy jacket can be made to "military specs" simply because Peter's grand creation was never a military issue garment, and therefore no military specifications were established.

For example, the beloved A-2 was military issue and specifications were established. Even then, specifications were somewhat general ... "seal brown horsehide leather, knitted wristlets and waistband (skirt)." This led to the variety in collar and epaulet sizes, thread color (often olive drab, sometimes russet brown), stitch count (stitches per inch!!!), hide quality. etc.

Of course, once Indy finds the alien flux capacitor in Area 51 we can send Peter back in time, and he can establish military specs for his jacket when he introduces it in 1930!

Harry

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:40 pm

Sales ploy? Well, in my opionion, yes and no. The specs that exist for mil -spec items are stated in an open bid for any and all manufacturers of items to bid on, and contain (as mentioned above) in regards to clothing material construction things like material to be used, thread count, stress factors concerning worse case scenario that the item HAS to survive before acceptance by the military (in this case, the U.S. military) for use and purchase by the government. Once a manufacturer obtains a contract with the government by meeting that criteria, it's more of a certification than anything else. FS and Wings got those certifications on their A-2 flight jackets, and just used the same criteria to make their versions of the Indy styled jackets. This is one of those odd situations where you're actually comparing apples to apples in point by point comparison between the Wested and other makers, but with the mil-spec certification and contract, it sort of becomes an apples to oranges comparision, if that makes any sense.

To take it another step, in the U.S. there is an ISO 9000 industrial type standard that many industries try to achieve that requires a lot of hoops for a company to jump through in order to be certified as having a particular high standard in quality control. If you have an ISO 9000 certification, it's considered a 'feather in ones cap' that you did all that testing. Now that's not to say we don't have companies in the U.S. with JUST as high a quality standard in terms of production. Heck, there are some with even HIGHER standards, but they just don't care to take the time or effort to go for that certification. They'd rather use those efforts to make their product, and sell their wares to an appreciate public. Did that make any more sense? Regards. Michaelson

Indydawg · Post by **Indydawg** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 2:31 pm

You stated the "mil-spec" argument extremely well.

To take your second statement and take it to another level, and sortof wrap up Peter's question, just because Peter doesn't have the military "stamp of aproval" (because he has not applied to provide garments to the military) does NOT mean that his jackets don't meet the same standards. They very well may. His jackets just have not been evaluated BY the US government in connection with trying to determine if the quality of his work would meet those same rigorous standards. Again, his jackets very well are just as good, he just can't "officially" state it to be fact.

Did THAT clear it up?

Later!
Indydawg

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 3:06 pm

Uh, just to clean that up a little more...yes, Peter CAN state it to be fact, and show testimonials from customers to support the claim...he just can't show a mil-spec certification as being one of those supporting items.....sort of like PETER is the only one who can supply a COA with HIS jackets, where no one else can. How's THAT for muddying the water even more? (grins) If (God forbid) another company should pick up a Indy movie contract, they could provide a COA, but then Peter could apply for a mil-spec certification, and we've muddied up the situation even more!

Ah, the games we sometimes play.....Regards. Michaelson

Rundquist · Post by **Rundquist** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 3:09 pm

From what I remember, "Military specs" in a leather garment has a lot to do with the stitching. Things like, how many stitches per inch, how close to a seam the stitches are, what the tread is made of, and things of that nature are the areas targeted. The zippers have something to do with it as well. I believe what the current military manufactures are using for thread is cotton wrapped nylon because cotton rots and nylon thread by itself would cut into the leather. If you get a lambskin jacket (original Indy jacket material), military specs won't make much of a difference. You'll probably tear up the hide quicker than the stitching anyhow. Cheers

Indydawg · Post by **Indydawg** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 3:16 pm

Good Grief!

Indydawg

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 3:32 pm

Yep, some of the requirements are so picky, and so silly, one wonders why vendors even bother. For example, in the purchase of firearms, one of the requirements is for a weapon to be able to fire 10,000 rounds with no cleaning, using provided proof loads (WAY heavier than anything a normal firearm would use in regular use) without jamming or frame/parts failure. Some have lasted until close to the end of the test, and on the 9,998 round the frame cracks, or a spring fails. According to mil-spec, it had a total failure as far as they're concerned, and they move on to the next candidate. Crazy! Regards. Michaelson

Bushman · Post by **Bushman** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 4:17 pm

We should be talking "Spielberg-spec," not "military-spec"!

Hmm, it seems there is one Indiana Jones jacket that fulfilled those original specifications . . . .

Bushman

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 4:30 pm

True, but that wouldn't be answering the original question, would it?

Regards. Michaelson

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 5:13 pm

Fast and loose with the term? Yep, I think so. Ball peen hammers from the 80's that were provided to the Army were mil-spec'd, and with the certification cost the military $100+ a pop? Why? They were the same run of the mill hammer you can pick up at Wal-mart, but because they were given the certification, the price went through the roof. Fortunately that came to a screeching halt (well, sort of) in the mid 1990's when a Congressional investigation was held regarding this kind of fraud, but it sure gave the certification process a black eye. I'm impressed with the certification myself, but have a more jaded opinion than I used to, say, 20 years or so ago. Regards. Michaelson

Rixter · Post by **Rixter** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:35 pm

All these ‘magical’ terms (as I like to call them) are simply employed to attract your attention to a vendors product, and all vendors use them to some extent, either implied or up front in their ads; but for those truly informed buyers, it’s the customers actual experience with the product, or lacking that, the referrals or testimonials from actual purchasers of their products that are the ultimate, and determining factor as to what people choose to spend their $$$ on. That’s just one reason why this board is so important. Much of the gear is unique to this hobby, and therefore many of us only have only a limited knowledge of what is out there. IMHO.

FLATHEAD · Post by **FLATHEAD** » Mon Mar 10, 2003 8:24 pm

one of the requirements is for a weapon to be able to fire 10,000 rounds with no cleaning, using provided proof loads (WAY heavier than anything a normal firearm would use in regular use) without jamming or frame/parts failure. Some have lasted until close to the end of the test, and on the 9,998 round the frame cracks, or a spring fails. According to mil-spec, it had a total failure as far as they're concerned, and they move on to the next candidate. Crazy!

I have something I would like to add to this for you all to think about.

Put yourself in the persons shoes who is thousands of miles from home,
defending this country, or one of our allies in the military. You have a gun
that is supposed to shoot 10,000 rounds of ammo. You are being overrun by some
crazy race of people who don't care if they live or die. You are holding
your own, when your gun jams. You have two rounds left out of the 10,000
and one last guy is coming at you, fully intent on killing you. Would you
be ticked if you couldn't use the last two shots to defend yourself? Would
you be dead if that gun jammed and you couldn't use the last two shots?
Or would you just tell the crazy person to hold on while you get another
gun?

Military specs are in place for a reason, as "crazy" or insane as people
who are not in the military may think. I do agree on the point of the
$100.00 hammers and the $40.00 toilet seats. But there are some areas
of military specs that save lives. Period.

Put it another way. Suppose a vendor of our jackets, and it could be any
vendor, states that there are "10,000 stiches in every jacket!!". You think
wow, pretty impressive. But suppose the last two stitches are not there?
And the seam is not fully stitched closed at the end. And suppose this
vendor makes 2000 jackets with these two stiches missing.

Now, we the consumer buy these jackets. And slowly, over time, all the
stitching starts to unravel from the end that was supposed to be closed
because there was two stitches missing. And all 2000 jackets did this.
Would you NOT consider this to be a total failure in the whole lot? It would
not be crazy to think that this was a very costly mistake, and you know
that we would be bad mouthing this vendor, and people would think twice
about ever ordering from this vendor ever again.

Its the little things like _ said that make the difference in details.
If there is supposed to be a button or snap in a certain spot, you know it
will be. You won't have to send the item back for missing parts because
you know they were checked by a true quality control department before
the item was shipped.

Think about this too. How many leather jackets from WWII are still
around? The leather may be cracked from age, and the wool or cotton
hem or cuffs may be torn, and a sleeve may be ripped, but how many
do you see that are still held together by the stitching? Think about it.

Just my .02 cents....

Flathead

PETER · Post by **PETER** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:50 am

Having read the above I am begining to wish I had never asked the question.
Having made a lot of Bond 007 jackets I think I will ask Q to help me make a Raiders jacket that will fire 100 rounds from the left sleeve whilst leaving a smoke screen from the right. The zip will have a camera in the puller and the lining can double as a parachute.
I will then approach the Military and ak them if they want to buy it for their current campaign in Iraq, after all if it was good enough for Indy in the desert and he won!
Cheers
Peter

Indydawg · Post by **Indydawg** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 7:56 am

Too good, Peter!

High Regards!
Indydawg

Indiana Texas-girl · Post by **Indiana Texas-girl** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:11 am

Haha, Peter! Put me down for one of those jackets. That might be handy in a classroom...but instead of shooting rounds, can you make it shoot water? For the camera, I could use it to show a couple of the parents how disrespectful their child can be at times. hahhaaa!

Post by **Michaelson** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:45 am

Yep, Peter, you opened this can of worms. (grins) As to Flatheads post, agreed, but now you're talking probability and statistics. Using the same scenario, you could ALSO have that approved weapon that DID survive the 10,000 proof loads and got the certification in our soldiers holster, and our soldier is out there in the same scenario with his approved weapon, and on the 10,002 round, it jams or the frame cracks. Ok, should the military have spec'd to 11,000 rounds? 12,000 ? Where do you draw the line? Was that one sample that only fired 9,998 a fluke frame that failed in a one time event, and of the next 60,000 frames forged of that weapon, it never, ever experiences that kind of failure again? On and on. Of course, that's not what Peter was wondering about, but I think he gets the picture of what a quagmire this can be when we're talking about the infamous 'mil-spec certification' Many times the military slants the tests to a particular manufacturer too, and no matter what another vendor creates, it will not measure up. This is also required in the government in a bid situation. You may have a lowest bidder, but if they want the product of the higher bidder, they have to produce proof as to WHY the lowest bidder is not acceptable. That's how the Beretta ended up in the holster of our present military, but that's another long story. Having worked for the Federal and two State governments over the past 28 years, I've seen it happen over and over again, and admit I've even played the game myself when needing a specific product, but having to circumvent the bid process in order to get it. Once again I say, ah, the games we play.

Regards. Michaelson

Rundquist · Post by **Rundquist** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:54 pm

FLATHEAD wrote:
Think about this too. How many leather jackets from WWII are still
around? The leather may be cracked from age, and the wool or cotton
hem or cuffs may be torn, and a sleeve may be ripped, but how many
do you see that are still held together by the stitching? Think about it.

Just my .02 cents....

Flathead

Not to dispute you flathead, but on some of those jackets, the leather is still there, but the cotton thread has rotted away. I know that it doesn't have anything to do with your argument, but I thought that I'd just throw it in there. Cheers

PETER · Post by **PETER** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:04 pm

Runquest is correct.
When making Memphis Belle they tried using Authentic Originals but before they even started filming they started falling apart.
Perished skin, rotten thread etc.
Film buffs would notice that only the sheepskin trousers were original and looked a little strange covered in patches by us as they feel apart and being worn with perfect undamaged B3's. Look at the cover picture and see what I mean.
Modern threads used are cotton polyester which not only cannot rot but have a stretch element (shock absorber) to stop ripping.
Cheers
Peter

Lord Sinclair · Post by **Lord Sinclair** » Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:21 pm

FLATHEAD wrote: You have a gun
that is supposed to shoot 10,000 rounds of ammo. You are being overrun by some crazy race of people who don't care if they live or die. You are holding your own, when your gun jams. You have two rounds left out of the 10,000 and one last guy is coming at you, fully intent on killing you. Would you be ticked if you couldn't use the last two shots to defend yourself?Flathead

Uhm, yeah, I think I'd be a shame to shoot only 9,998 of some crazy race of people all by myself. Then again, I assume that crazy race of people is advancing slowly, and I could just strangle the remaining two fiends with my bare hands.

Post by **Michaelson** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 12:44 pm

Just make sure you're wearing 'mil-spec' gloves when doing so. If you don't, they won't figure into the official body count. (grins) Yep, I know, tacky tacky tacky!

High regards. Michaelson

FLATHEAD · Post by **FLATHEAD** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 3:22 pm

Then again, I assume that crazy race of people is advancing slowly, and I could just strangle the remaining two fiends with my bare hands.

I don't know, but in all the accounts of enemies approaching that I have
read, they usually try to move pretty fast if someone is shooting at them.
And if the people stop shooting at them for any length of time, you can
bet your house that the ememy is going to move as fast at they can to
take advantage of the situation! But I can agree that there are people
in this world that I would personally like to strangle!

Not to dispute you flathead, but on some of those jackets, the leather is still there, but the cotton thread has rotted away. I know that it doesn't have anything to do with your argument, but I thought that I'd just throw it in there. Cheers

True. But remember that these jackets are over 60 years old! And
they were not placed in a closet for most of that time. Most of that
time they were worn VERY often. It really is quite impressive that these
things lasted as long as they have.

But to add another point, I have looked at many "Military spec" jackets,
and they all seem to have certain things in common. Like all the straps
and belts are "Box stitched" with an "X" thru the box. This helps prevent
any "rip out" from happening. They also seem to use a much heavier
grade of thread than normally made jackets as Indydawg had said
before.

They also seem to use higher quality "hardware" in them. Better, metal
zippers of a heavier gage than regular jackets. And if there are any
snaps or metal buttons on them, they seem to be of a larger variety, and
they seem to have a larger, flat area of metal around them to prevent
them from ripping out.

Also, think about this in regards to why standards and specifications
are in place. Back a few years ago, Firestone was making their truck tire
called the "Wilderness AT". During a run of making this tire, it was
discovered by some employees, that the tires did not meet the specs
that are in place by the National Highway Traffic and Safety commity for
tire safety and load standards.

A lot of these tires were taken out of the line, and deemed unusable by
the employees. Then, the bonehead beancounters came in and said, hey
look, we need to sell so many tires and we are not going to meet our
quota if we take these tires out of our inventory, and scrape them. So,
according the line employees that rejected the tires initially, they were
put back into inventory, and sold to the general public.

Now, the tires were sold to Ford, and many other tire places, and they
began to have problems, and they actually ended up KILLING people.
Why? Because they say some may have been under inflated? 80 percent of
all cars on the road have tires that are not inflated to the proper pressure
all the time! And do all these tires have problems blowing up or
delaminating? Maybe some, but not at the same rate as these Wilderness
tires.

People are now dead because someone up in the corporate office wanted
to meet a quota, and they didn't follow the proper guidelines set forth
by the government. They did not listen to the quality control employees who took them off
the line and said they did not meet there required specs.

I am only saying that specifications are in place for a reason, whether
we want them, like them or agree with them.

Flathead

FLATHEAD · Post by **FLATHEAD** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 3:24 pm

Oh, and all the information about the Firestone Wilderness AT tires
can be found in the governments investigation into this matter.
You can access it on the internet and read all the employees
depositions involved in the case against Firestone as well as the
governments findings as to fault in this matter.

Flathead.

Rixter · Post by **Rixter** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:22 pm

Well Flathead, you seem to hold your ground pretty well, so I won’t suggest running very, very fast in the opposite direction as another possible alternative; but I do think most people here get your point, in general, but are just having a little fun with the topic and the possible extreme fringes of the initial example you put forth.

Personally, I think that’s also why there is a big market for military items like WWII A-2s and other gear that people seek out, and not just for nostalgic, or historical reasons. And sure, if they have not been taken care of properly, any item, no matter what specs they have will fail you. And also, like you said there are “specifications” that should be in place, and are in place for a reason. I don't think many people would deny that especially when buckling up their infant in a child saftey seat.

Post by **Michaelson** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:30 pm

I think it's also the nature of the public, specifically the U.S. purchaser, that tends to want to buy something that will withstand a nuclear blast, and the mil-spec certification indicates that the product has passed and should do just that? No wonder Peter asked the question, as I'm aware that the folks over the big water don't think in those terms. I mean, to be a realist, who's going to even CARE if their jacket is still standing should one find themself in the crosshairs of a cruise missle? But, being a U.S. buyer, I admit that I fall in that catagory (must be my environment

), and find items with certifications a plus, though in the final equation, it's the quality of the merchandise that REALLY counts. Just different mind sets in different locals I suppose. Another theory... Regards. Michaelson

Band Director Jones · Post by **Band Director Jones** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 5:27 pm

I don't plan on going into battle with my Wested (although teaching 8th graders and a few of those parent conferences come close

), so the fact that it doesn't meet "mil-spec" is fine with me. I do however appreciate the fact that my Wested "Is an authentic reproduction being Hand Cut from the original patterns used for Harrison Ford in the film Raiders of the Lost Ark." "Mil-spec" is fine, but to a collector it's the COA that makes the difference. Some people don't care about the COA and would rather have a jacket that can withstand being dragged behind a truck (how you get to work in the morning is you own business

). That is why I like the fact that there are several jacket makers out there; there is something for everyone.

Kit Walker · Post by **Kit Walker** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 6:23 pm

Band Director Jones wrote: rather have a jacket that can withstand being dragged behind a truck (how you get to work in the morning is you own business ).

Beats taking the bus

FLATHEAD · Post by **FLATHEAD** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 9:13 am

Well Flathead, you seem to hold your ground pretty well,

I have to say that I am a bit of a hardhead, and when I see a topic that can
be debated, especially in a heated fashion between people, I tend
to stoke the fires so to speak!!

Its always great to hear both sides of peoples opinions on a subject,
and to hear their passions come out when they are debating for
their side of the arguement!

Now, as long I don't ever have to buy a 100 dollar hammer, I will
be o.k.!!

Flathead

Pyroxene · Post by **Pyroxene** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 9:56 am

Michaelson wrote:...that tends to want to buy something that will withstand a nuclear blast, ...

Ha! I was wondering when this quote would appear again! I was sure it was going to show up around March 10th. Oh well. That's why I'm not a betting man.

Cheers,
Pyro.

Post by **Michaelson** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:01 am

Considering I'm quoting myself, it's bound to pop up just about ANYTIME! (grins) Regards. Michaelson

Are USWINGS JACKETS BUILT TO MILITARY SPECS?

Are USWINGS JACKETS BUILT TO MILITARY SPECS?

Well...

Hmmmm.../well,

LOL!!!

Yep...

Well...

Very well said.

One of those Charlie Brown moments...

LOL!!!!

Could I offer yet another thought?

Re: Could I offer yet another thought?