How much more length does this bomber jacket need?

[Blackadder]

The jacket could be lengthened by at least 2 inches given your preference for low-rise jeans. I agree with Fanch that everything looks off because
1) the sleeves look short given your straightened arm;
2) your wear low-rise jeans too high (it's like you use the belt to pull them up to achieve the looks of a normal jeans) which in turns;
3) make your jeans to almost burst open at your crotch.
IMHO women can carry low-rise jeans and short jackets easily as there is no need to cover the belly. Men on the other hand should consider wearing long half-belt or M-65 etc.

 

[Monitor]

Huh, I wanted to ask you about the measurements of the jacket but yeah, I can see why you thought it would be a good thing to withhold it. I'm not sure what was the standard length for this type of jackets, but I would reckon 25.5" to be more than enough for an A-2. I doubt many originals went beyond 25" in length.

While I still am okay with the body length, I definitely do agree that you need longer sleeves. The cuffs aren't touching your wrists, and the sleeves are completely straightened out and for me personally, that's a clear indicator of too short sleeves.

 

[schitzo]

@Monitor yes that's right, of course the sleeves are too short also, but adding length there is so easy that i haven't asked about those because there's no uncertainty. I believe the body is correct for a 5,10 guy but I'm 3 inches taller, so it would kind of follow that about an extra 1.5" should be about right.

@Blackadder that belt isn't doing anything, just decoration for these photos. After they come out the wash just last week they're too tight so I'm trying to stretch the waist out again and actually getting those on and buttoned at the minute is a bit of a struggle

 

[simonc]

Remember its called a waistband bro and your waist is just under your last rib, yeah there. I honestly do not think the length is the issue. It is an illusion with the hip level jeans. Now to combat this you could go an extra inch but that's it. However I can't think of anything more naff than a long bomber jacket. Not the done thing old boy. Next time get the '55 IH jeans as they are cut to suit such a jacket, or even mine SJC which are straighter in the leg which will be with you soon, all issues will pass and the look you are after will drop into place.

 

[Fanch]

I failed to participate in the poll but would have if you had listed a fifth choice: "I haven't the foggiest" or "I don't know!" I am still unable to reconcile the front and back pictures and am curious: What is the mneasurement of the front wind flap in inches?

 

[bn1966]

Front rise (looks about the same as my L2B...short!!)...I'd want a couple of extra inches there.

 

[IXL]

I feel that jacket needs around 2.4375" more length if it will be worn with those too-low-rise jeans, but I chose the 2.5" option on the poll. I think the problem is one of incongruous styles: low-rise jeans meets short-waisted jacket. But a little length in either piece will eliminate the problem.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Probably not what you want to hear but I don't think it works for you. Yes, because of the low rise trousers. Of course you can wear them but then I would opt for a different jacket.

 

[schitzo]

Probably not what you want to hear but I don't think it works for you. Yes, because of the low rise trousers. Of course you can wear them but then I would opt for a different jacket.

No no Flat foot I absolutely welcome this type of feedback, full steam ahead please

 

[schitzo]

Remember its called a waistband bro and your waist is just under your last rib, yeah there. I honestly do not think the length is the issue. It is an illusion with the hip level jeans. Now to combat this you could go an extra inch but that's it. However I can't think of anything more naff than a long bomber jacket. Not the done thing old boy. Next time get the '55 IH jeans as they are cut to suit such a jacket, or even mine SJC which are straighter in the leg which will be with you soon, all issues will pass and the look you are after will drop into place.

mate, remember when I told you I had a pair of 55s in a sale deal but had to send them back for looking ridiculous on me? Well that was a true story! Perhaps you can prescribe something else in that direction but less extreme? You know I value your wisdom

 

[Smithy]

Just my 2c worth. There's a number of issues here.

Bomber jackets are as others have said waist length jackets and designed at a time when men wore trousers with a high rise. Those jeans of yours aren't doing you any favours and IMHO you'll never get a half decent look trying to wear low rise trousers with waist length jackets.

Saying that, that jacket is a tad short and even in the arms - remember that they're going to ride up half an inch or so with creasing from wear.

If I was you I'd get an extra 1.5'' to 2'' on the body and arms and get some new - at the least - mid rise jeans/trousers.

 

[Brettafett]

Remember its called a waistband bro and your waist is just under your last rib, yeah there. I honestly do not think the length is the issue. It is an illusion with the hip level jeans. Now to combat this you could go an extra inch but that's it. However I can't think of anything more naff than a long bomber jacket. Not the done thing old boy. Next time get the '55 IH jeans as they are cut to suit such a jacket, or even mine SJC which are straighter in the leg which will be with you soon, all issues will pass and the look you are after will drop into place.

Thats how girls wear it...

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

What do you mean, Brettafett?
Girls today wear low rise skinny jeans and oversized tops.

 

[Rabbit]

In my vintage-biased opinion, either choose a jacket style that was designed to have a longer back length, or wear high-waisted trousers/ jeans that fit the style of flight jackets like the A-1, A-2 and the 1920s cossack styles from which those models evolved.
A flying jacket in hip length will have a thoroughly contemporary look, not at all what flight jackets were made for. If that's what you're after, then lengthen by 1" or 1.5" maximum if you have to (no more than absolutely necessary, it's fine to show some belt on low-rise jeans), but be aware that it will throw off the balance in terms of pre-war proportions. Those proportions were not entirely dictated by fashion alone, but by the asthetics of the golden ratio. Dividing your body height at the navel, given normal proportions, will divide the body in a golden ratio which by nature we perceive as well-balanced. For the fun of it, I measured it on myself once and it's true, the measurements do fit the golden ratio.

One more thing: You're more or less standing at attention. In real life, you won't have that overly erect posture and the jacket length may not be too short as it is after all. Better check on that.
Personally, if I preferred low-rise jeans I'd wear the jacket as it is, not longer. Like Flo said, it looks fine.

 

[Brettafett]

What do you mean, Brettafett?
Girls today wear low rise skinny jeans and oversized tops.

My bad.

 

[tropicalbob]

There goes your macho self-image. Frankly, I'm not a fan of the A-2: have you considered the Route 66 or the Happy Days?

 

[tropicalbob]

Second thoughts: you could always get a belly-ring, and then you could match it up with those blue crocs.

 

[schitzo]

Same jacket different jeans



Definitely not more than 2.5 inches! I'm thinking maybe even 1.5 is too much. Perhaps an inch is all it needs. For me it does need to be a little bit longer to feel comfortable on

 

[Fanch]

2" in the body and 1" in the sleeves.

 

[nick123]

Do you think an inch will cover your belt?