PDA

View Full Version : Flying Boots...


Yeoman_dai
30th Apr 2009, 13:43
This may seem like a bit of a daft pointless question, but what are the difference between special flying boots, and 'normal' boots, like a pair of Lowa's or issue Combat Boots - High. What advantages do they give over normal boots?

Can you tell that there isn't a lot going on in life at the moment :P

622
30th Apr 2009, 13:44
I believe it's mainly due to tread patterns...I think flying boots have an 'anti Fod picking up' pattern...

GPMG
30th Apr 2009, 13:47
Do they have a +2 modifier when using a 20 sided dice?

Wader2
30th Apr 2009, 14:11
I can't speak for the new pattern but my '67 pattern were also lighter than a pair of DMS shoes. Also, unlike the later, but not the latest, combat boots they also had a leather lining. With proper treatment they were also water proof. My 1981 pair are still fine.

Yeoman_dai
30th Apr 2009, 14:13
GPMG - yeah I heard that too, but they cost over 600 Gold Pieces, way out of my price range

Runaway Gun
30th Apr 2009, 14:28
As mentioned earlier, the RAF flying boots have less tread, which is meant to drag less crap into the cockpit.

Wader2
30th Apr 2009, 14:34
As mentioned earlier, the RAF flying boots have less tread, which is meant to drag less crap into the cockpit.

They still allow crap into the cockpit though.









But we try and weed them out in training :}

hat, coat, scarf

NutLoose
30th Apr 2009, 14:39
Damn, you beat me to it, I was going to say they convey it to the cockpit

R 21
30th Apr 2009, 15:27
Flying boots have also been through the burn chamber ie can protect the feet from the cartridges on an ejection seat.... I think but stand to be corrected.

Could be the last?
30th Apr 2009, 17:49
They are all of the above; however, because they are hand-made and are very expensive. It is highly likely that, when resources become available (manpower), the Mk1 Aircrew will be withdrawn from service for all but a few.

As with most of the AEA, the boot has it's origins within the FJ world, but as many are aware they are not very effective for other users. More importantly, the requirements for other users are not so specifc and a selection of boots will be cleared for use by RW and FW aircrew.

Watch this space..............

monkeytamer
30th Apr 2009, 18:27
The new dotty-style flying boots also come in random sizing structure (304/118); unlike DMS/Field boots which come in standard British sizes such as 8M, etc

Yeoman_dai
30th Apr 2009, 19:58
So say you had a pair of Altbergs or Lowas, they would be fine to wear, basically, there is little to no difference at the end of the day beyond what is acceptable with uniform and comfortable?

akula
30th Apr 2009, 20:58
The random sizing structure is not that random, it merely states the length/width of the sole of the boots in millimetres.

Runaway Gun
1st May 2009, 10:52
So say you had a pair of Altbergs or Lowas, they would be fine to wear, basically, there is little to no difference at the end of the day beyond what is acceptable with uniform and comfortable?

Unless somebody with a morbid fascination with standards takes an interest.

"You can't have something better than what everyone else is wearing... Have you got an extra pair for me?"

Green Flash
1st May 2009, 11:12
Given that flying boots are designed to minimise FOD in the aircraft how does that sit with the AT/SH world? They regularly pick up loads of people with Dirty Great Boots which could quite easily carry in all sorts of grot? I've heard tell of horror stories about the lifting of floors in C-130's, Wokkas, etc and finding all sorts of alien life forms lurking in the bilges!

Wessex Boy
1st May 2009, 13:00
Had an ATCA stude on a jolly be so ill we set down in a field to let her out to be sick.
When she got back on and lifted we found that she had trodden in some nasty excrement, walked it in and was now sitting with her feet in front of the blower/heater.

We had to set down again to let the other 2 studes hurl:yuk:

My '88 boots are still going strong, I remember us testing their flame/heat proofing by standing in a bonfire whilst on CSRO training in Otterburn...the gloves worked quite well as well.

Ivan Rogov
1st May 2009, 20:48
Not sure about the latest flying boot, but the 65 pattern had a wooden strip in it which prevented hot metal slicing through the sole like it was butter and several layers of leather in the sole too. Also the polish was silicon based? And supposedly fire retardant, that was our excuse for not polishing them as it was always difficult to find some. The polish issue was solved by stopping the supply totally and providing normal Kiwi black, must have been a reason why they didn't use it before?
All the modern boots look and feel great but I am not convinced they would last 5 seconds if you had to stay and fight the fire or travel through it to escape, all very likely for multi types if the worst should happen. I vaguely remember a documentary where Simon Weston (I think) described escaping the fire on Sir Galahad; he fell over as his feet kept slipping due to the soles melting. What temperature do the laces, nylon sides, soles, linings, etc. of non aircrew boots melt at? We should be striving to improve AEA not dumb it down.

Oh no I'm a boot geek now :8

glad rag
1st May 2009, 22:26
Was there not a case where non standard (modded) footwear led to death by hypothermia viz a torn immersion suit bootee ?

wg13_dummy
2nd May 2009, 00:24
Why is it that the RAF flying boot comes in grey but the Army and Navy version comes in black?

SirToppamHat
2nd May 2009, 01:51
ISTR the 'price' on the box mine came in was £186.

Far softer and more comfortable than DMS, the latter because (I think) they come in a greater range of sizes for those with non-standard feet mine are size 272/107.

The laces are about 8-feet long, or at least that's what it feels like!

Yes they have a different tread pattern, but they aren't much good in snow and ice, and I note they are also wearing quite quickly. Mind you, the last DMS I had lasted less than 6 months before the soles rotted like the previous pair.

STH

clicker
2nd May 2009, 02:11
Oh no I'm a boot geek now

Don't let a Marine see that.

Could be the last?
2nd May 2009, 15:00
IR,

It is a balance of risk wrt the use of Gnd Pattern boots in an aviation role. As STH states, the MK1 boots are £186 and climbing, whereas lowa/Meindle etc are a 1/3 of the price. It will be economy of scale which will drive the procurement, unless a definitive requirement is laid down! Although, I am aware that the system is looking at alternative FR Bellville Booots to replace the MK1, again at a fraction of the price.

Ivan Rogov
2nd May 2009, 16:31
Good point Clicker :ooh:.

CBTL I agree, the important thing is to set the correct requirements and not change them to match the cheapest option. Economies of scale are one thing but they must be fit for purpose, otherwise we would all wear CS95 and T shirts (which works great until you have an incident and it gets hot!)

If you are interested in saving money just buy brown boots instead of black, that would allow you to wear them with desert or green uniform and we would only need half as many. How many of us wear the desert boots when flying just so that the colour matches the flying suit?

As for tread patterns, from what I have seen the Mk1 does sometimes pick up the odd small piece of gravel <5mm, but standard ground patterns are much worse and almost always have a stone or two in the sole.

Worf
3rd May 2009, 05:29
From reading the thread it seems that wearing the "official" flying boot and only the official flying boots is not mandatory for aircrew in the RAF.

However I remember reading (at pprune maybe) that the BAe Hawk had to "re-certify" with IAF flying boots and do extra test flights, because they had to check that the feet fit on the rudder and had full movement or were compatible with the ejection seat. So being "official" must be important.

Or am I missing something?

Backwards PLT
3rd May 2009, 06:04
Worf - yes you are missing the fact that RAF aircrew (inc me) make up their own rules or ignore existing rules far too often. Problem is sometimes you have to but knowing where to draw the line is difficult.

Monty77
3rd May 2009, 16:41
Massive. Right?

NickB
11th May 2009, 14:10
Sad I know but... I recall a friend of mine who served on board the Ark Royal in the 70's saying that a USN exchange (Phantom) pilot was given the nickname 'Boots' because of his desire to fly in Cowboy Boots...:eek:

But perhaps the 'Dark Blues' had a different set of rules???

There must be someone on here that remembers this person?

Wader2
11th May 2009, 14:54
Why wear your own footware when Betty's are free and can be exchanged as required?

On the Nimrod we were allowed to wear ordinary shoes; it was rare that people did and that went for the Sim too. The seat runners used to rip the leather heels of my flying boots to shreds.

There was a fashion at one time to buy spam zipped toungues that could be laced into the boots. The flying boot had 7 or 8 holes and the spam zip had 8 or 9. All it showed is you had been to Kef or some BX.

jonnyloove
11th May 2009, 15:57
I was told they use to issue flying boots with lace in zippers at one time???
I thought the fashion was to wear the gucci issue proboots or danner boots.

Regards:ok:

Mmmmnice
11th May 2009, 16:23
Wierdly enough it's the a/c release that specifies what the crew can wear these days. Personally I've found Hunters perfect if my steed was parked in a muddy field, good walking boots if it was somewhere snowy, desert boots for you-know-where, and flying boots for IF trips and Staneval rides (also perfect for the sim trips I do these days!)

Shackman
11th May 2009, 16:43
D**n! Must change my specs - I was expecting to read about Sunderlands and Catalinas and things.

calumwm
11th May 2009, 17:33
While we're on the topic of aircrew attire, what gets worn underneath flying suits? I've always wondered. :P

GPMG
11th May 2009, 18:43
Their lucky Winnie the Pooh jim-jams.

Pontius Navigator
11th May 2009, 19:32
While we're on the topic of aircrew attire, what gets worn underneath flying suits? I've always wondered. :P

Seriously Calumwn, it depends.

The base layer is usually cotton long johns and cotton T-shirt - although many people dispense with them - they are the final flameproof layer and also sweat absorber.

Then there is the long sleeved aircrew T-shirt. Bit of a dog this one. Early ones shrank and the back would come down to mid-spine.

In cold climes, on top of this is a one-piece thermal. Not sure what they use now but at one time it was a stiff one-piece acrylan pile. Good bit of kit and ideal for a thermal layer in the North Sea, not so good when evading on land.

An alternative was a one-piece chunky knit suit. More flexible than the acrylan.

Fast Jet crews then wear a waterproof dry suit with a flying overall on top and then G-pants.

Wearing that lot would be good for their fitness test :}