AAF Technical Report 5501 
HUMAN BODY SIZE IN MILITARY AIRCRAF1 
AND PERSONAL EQUIPMENT 
ARMY AIR FORCES 
AIR MATERIEL COMMAND 
Wright Field 
Dayton, Ohio NOTE 
When drawings, specifications, and other data prepared by the War De- 
partment are furnished to manufacturers and others for use in the manufacture 
or purchase of supplies, or for any other purpose, the Government assumes no 
responsibility nor obligation whatever; and the furnishing of said data by the 
War Department is not to be regarded by implication or otherwise, or in any 
manner licensing the holder, or conveying any rights or permission to manu- 
facture, use, or sell any patented inventions that may in any way be related 
thereto. 
The information furnished herewith is made available for study upon the 
understanding that the Government’s proprietary interests in and relating 
thereto shall not be impaired. It is desired that the Patent & Royalties Section, 
Office of the Judge Advocate, Air Materiel Command, Wright Field, Dayton, 
Ohio, be promptly notified of any apparent conflict between the Government’s 
proprietary interests and those of others. 
Espionage Act 
Notice: This document contains information .affecting the national defense 
of the United States within the meaning of the Espionage Act (U. S. C. 50:31, 
32). The transmission of this document or the revelation of its contents in 
any manner to an unauthorized person is prohibited by law. (AR 380-5, para- 
graph 17 b.) Report No. 3501 
Date 10 June I9U6 
WAR DEPARTMENT 
ARMY AIR FORCES 
AIR MATERIEL COMMAND 
DAYTON, OHIO 
ARMY AIR FORCES TECHNICAL REPORT 
NO, 5501 
HUMAN BODY SIZE IN MILITARY AIRCRAFT AND 
PERSONAL EQUIPMENT 
Title 
BY 
FRANCIS E. RANDALL, CAPTAIN, AIR CORPS 
ALBERT DAMON, CAPTAIN, AIR CORPS 
flUfJ. 
ROBERT S, BENTON, CAPTAIN, AIR CORPS 
DONALD I. PATT. 1ST LT., AIR CORPS 
/} V . 
Coordinated by / / 
A. P. GAGGE, LT. COLONEL, AIR CORPS 
Approved: 
LOYD ErWfcPFIS, COLONEL, M. C., 
Laboratory Chio^r 
For the Commanding General: 
Content and classification authenticated by: 
Engineering Division 
Laboratory No. TSEAA 
E. 0. No. 693-U3 
No. of Pages 333 
No. of Photos 125 
No. of Drawings None 
WF-(A)-O-30 SEP 46 250 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Chapter Page 
Summary 5 
I Introduction* • ••••••••• U 
II The Functional Man... 6 
III Personal Equipment (Male) 
Introduction * 11 
Helmets. 13 
Goggles 26 
Oxygen Masks * 27 
Coveralls * 33 
Two-piece Garments 
Gloves... * US 
Footgear ••••• 5U 
Clothing, Female 63 
Flak Clothing.. * 714- 
Parachutes 76 
IV Aircrew Positioning • * IS 
Cockpits (Conventional)•••• ••••• 79 
The Center of Gravity of the Seated Fighter Pilot..,. 116 
Body Size Consideration for Ejection Seats 119 
Prone Position 131 
Bombardier-Navigator Seating 136 
Anthropometry in the Design of Aircraft Gun Turrets., 157 
Manikins 193 
V Aircraft Clearances 
Emergency Exits ..••• 202 
Catwalks 206 
VI Crew Weights *••••••••• 2OB 
VII Movement of the Head and Eye in Sighting 211 
VIII Appendices 
1 * Anthropometric Instruments 221 
2* Head Dimensions •••••... 223 
3 • Male Body Dimensions 235 
h. Female Body Dimensions 291 
3. References 323 
DC List of Photographs••••••• 52B SUMMARY 
The functional aircraft must include its crew members. The flight 
potential of an aircraft can never exceed that of its crew members. 
The present report deals with the relation of human body size to 
military aircraft and equipment. It contains the necessary data and 
instructional material to guide the designers of aircraft and associated 
flying equipment in the proper use of anthropometry, as it applies to AAF 
flying personnel. The functional man is fully described and the spatial 
requirements of his personal equipment are evaluated. Finally, the com- 
plete functional man is considered in his air crew position and as an 
integral part of the functional aircraft. CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION 
From the time the 7.rright brothers constructed their first airplane and 
flew it in 1903, the problem of adapting aircraft design to all the high tech- 
nical requirements has met with unlimited attention. The requirements estab- 
lished by air flow characteristics, by air speeds, altitudes, temperatures, as 
well as the other mechanical problems which must be considered, such as the 
size of instruments, the stress of metals and other materials, have occupied 
almost to the fullest extent the attention of designers, With all due credit 
to the highly developed techniques which have been, and continue to be, applied 
to aircraft design, it is the purpose of the data presented on the following 
pages to try .to aid in some degree the consideration of the designers in so far 
as the problems presented by human body size are concerned. 
The concept of writing specifications on the man which are as definite and 
demanding as any of those written on any type of material or equipment otherwise 
used in an airplane has been attempted many times. It is certainly realized by 
any sincere designer that his potential airplane is not really complete until a 
man actually enters the plane and engages it in flight. It should he quite ap- 
parent that the operational behaviour of an airplane of unlimited potentialities 
is actually no better than the behaviour characteristics imposed upon it by the 
physiological capabilities of the human being involved. It has been the exper- 
ience of the Army Air Forces during the progress of V.orld Var II that many 
problems relating to inefficiencies on the part of the flight personnel could 
have been eliminated had the designers of the planes been fully cognizant of 
some of the implications of human biology. 
The data discussed later in this report are not presented in an effort to 
try to sell engineers on the idea that an airplane should be considered only from 
the standpoint of the human being, but rather that it should be considered as a 
functional unit combining both the aircraft and the human being under flight con- 
ditions. Therefore, it shall be constantly stated that these data are actually 
specifications and should receive as much attention as do those specifications re- 
lating to any other type of equipment. 
One of the most interesting historical facts which has been brought to our 
attention has been the one of the condition in which the original flights were 
made. It will be recalled that these occurred with the pilot flying in what is 
termed the "prone" position, and that our so-called conventional positions for 
the pilot now are actually the opposite, historically speaking, . It v/ould be 
interesting to speculate upon what progress aircraft would have made had the man 
been retained in his original prone status. Recent developments along this line, 
which are usually considered radical, are actually a continuation of studies 
which the Wright brothers initiated, and we shall gain much information from 
flight tests which will be conducted on this position, Aerodynamically it is probably the best possible position in which the pilot can be installed in the 
aircraft because it permits the mininum thickness to be designed into the plane. 
The first Army Air Forces attempt made to write a specification on the hu- 
man being for use in aircraft was made about 1926, at which time Fr. Hugh Lipp- 
man constructed from meager data available a profile scale manikin which was 
used up to the time Captain (now Colonel) Harry G. Armstrong prepared data de- 
rived from Randolph Field Aviation Cadets in such a manner as to illustrate that 
the Medical Corps and Air Corps physical size requirements were permitting accept- 
ance of unnecessarily large individuals. At that time 6*7" and 230 pounds were 
acceptable. It was Armstrong’s recommendation that these maximum limits be 
dropped to 6’1+W and 200 pounds, and that almost as large a population would be ob- 
tained inasmuch as only a very small per centage of individuals falls above that 
value. It was also Armstrong’s recommendation that fighter pilot sizes should be 
•limited to 70M and 180 pounds, in order to gain as much performance as possible 
from fighter aircrAft. This recommendation was accepted with certain reservations. 
For some period the fighter stature was held at 5,8M instead of the 5»10,, recom- 
mended by Armstrong. This acceptance limit was adequate so long as peacetime 
requirements remained. However, with the advent of stepped-up military require- 
ments in 191+2, such a large number of men was required for pilot training that 
a 5»8M limit actually prevented full use of the potentials available. The 
greatest defect which appeared in this regard was due to the fact that the 
fighter-type aircraft available for military use at that time had been designed 
around the 5*8" average and, without due regard to this fact, the limits were 
stepped up to 5*10tt again, irrespective of the abilities of the planes to ac- 
commodate these higher statures. 
This situation would not have been too disastrous had the original design 
requirements remained in use. That is to say, that these aircraft had been de- 
signed to fly not more than 3 and l/2 hours. However, it is easily recognizable 
that this situation did not remain, inasmuch as long range requirements entered 
in and wing tanks and belly tanks were added to these same aircraft to enable 
them to fly as much as seven to eleven hours. There could be no modifications 
of the cockpit to provide any comfortable conditions for the pilots of the large 
stature who would be trained to fly these planes. This situation subsequently 
developed into probably the mo£t difficult problem from the human operational 
standpoint encountered in Y/orld War II. The fact that high priorities were 
assigned by Army Air Force Headquarters to every aspect of problems relating 
to the alleviation of fatigue of pilots is alone sufficient proofv of its im- 
portance. Therefore, from the standpoint of operational requirements of the Army 
Air Forces, every preliminary design should incorporate to the fullest extent 
the consideration of the size of human beings, and, also, that every considera- 
tion should be made in a cockpit design to provide for every eventuality possi- 
ble regarding the possible ranges of this aircraft. It will, therefore, be the 
purpose of all the discussions to follow to try to instruct the designers in 
the best known way to provide adequate functional and comfort installations in 
cockpit designs in such a manner that the aircraft will not be limited in its 
performance by the poor functioning of the human beings involved. CHAPTER II 
THE FUNCTIONAL MAN 
The concept of the functional man is of such a nature as to complicate the 
entire picture in the design of aircraft. Historically, the man has been re- 
garded too frequently as a constant and a more or less static piece of equipment. 
This is probably the factor -which has contributed more than anything else to the 
failures in operational aircraft so far as the performance of the human being is 
concerned. It will be well to keep in mind the general problems presented in this 
concept. 
First, the "man" is not of a single size. See Figure II, 1. In fighter air- 
craft the stature is allowed to vary from 5*UM to at least 6f, and in some cases 
actually exceeds this value. The weight may vary from 120 to 180 pounds. In 
bombardment type aircraft commissioned officers may vary from 5* to 6'ii", and in 
weight from 120 to 200 pounds. Enlisted personnel may also vary in this degree. 
Inasmuch as the bombardment-type plane operationally may have to rely upon a 
high degree of interchangeability of personnel, it is advisable to design into 
every crew position adjustabilities which can accommodate this entire size range. 
In addition, functionally speaking, this "man" may vary in the amounts of 
equipment worn, from very light clothing, including a small quick-attachable 
parachute, to the large bulky total of the equipment consisting of heavy flying 
clothing, emergency survival vests, life rafts, flak suits, and heavy parachutes. 
Figure II, 2. This total amount of equipment nay in certain conditions add as 
much as 117 pounds of weight to the nude weight of the individual, (See Chapter 
\n). Therefore, in weights and balance calculations alone full consideration 
must be given to the extreme variabilities which may actually be encountered in 
operation of the aircraft. 
Next, and of no less importance, is the factor involved in the space re- 
quirements of the aircrew as they go through the motions of performing their 
duties. Minimum dimensions will avail us nothing if they must be greatly ex- 
ceeded in the operational requirements of the individual. Ideally, a man can 
pass upright through a cat-walk, but under design requirements the size of the 
plane is usually of such a nature as not to permit a very large per centage of 
individuals to stand upright in a oat-walk. Therefore, a great majority of the 
men must bend over to some degree and increase their cross-sectional dimensions 
considerably. Because of this, it will avail us little, if anything, to cut off 
the top of the cat-walk to fall within the allowable limits of the design and 
give no consideration to an increase in lateral dimensions. 
In addition, there are known requirements based upon (a) the length of the 
leg, and (b) the amount of travel which it can obtain in the operation of the 
rudder pedals, which should be given primary consideration in the location of 
rudder pedals in relation to the feet. It will merely cause us trouble in the V X I ft X 
7 Figure IJ, 2. 
8 in the long run if we ignore this basic requirement and install rudder pedals at 
a distance determined by other considerations of the aircraft designer. 
Finally, and this is one of the most important considerations that should 
be held constantly in mind by the designers, that from the standpoint of human 
efficiency, no airplane should ever be considered as a short-range aircraft so 
long as there is the remotest possibility that the addition of extra fuel tanks 
or the improvement of power plants will permit it to exceed the original design 
requirements. Because of this factor, every cockpit arrangement should utilize 
the full potentialities for providing the human being with efficiency and comfort 
measures. It has been a sad’ experience in the Air Forces that operational re- 
quirements have forced us to add extra fuel tanks to aircraft in order to obtain 
greater range from them after the aircraft have been produced and space limits 
have been such in the cockpit that the man has been forced to remain under short 
range spatial conditions whereas the aircraft itself has been permitted to en- 
gage in long range operations. 
Combat reports unanimously supoort this statement and are sufficiently strong 
in nature to warrant constant attention to this point. The outstanding examples 
to date have been encountered in fighter typo aircraft. However, there are strong 
indications that the problems will become increasingly great in bombardment type 
planes if adequate consideration is not givens The tail gun position, for ex- 
ample, in the B-29 proved this point. The amount of production and modification 
time required to achieve comfort and efficiercy under operational conditions in 
aircraft which have not originally had these requirements designed into them is 
enormous and ultimately cost more time than would originally have been required 
in modification of the mock-up or the very early production models. Over a 
given period, more aircraft of a type will be available operationally if some 
time is invested in the early stages in order to achieve this purpose. 
In addition to the engineering requirements -which are imposed by the human 
being and which can be adequately met if early consideration is given to them, 
there is a strong indication that the actual work of the flight surgeons and the 
Medical Corps in general would be reduced considerably if the man received a 
greater amount of attention. 
Let us then with the nude man in the more or less static sense of the 
word and develop him throughout the whole range of requirements which have been 
established for his use in aircraft. First, the use of the functional man as 
such. This is the man sent to the aircraft for installation from a training 
center. He already has certain inherent characteristics in him which can in no 
way whatsoever be modified. He is of a size which may vary, as noted earlier, and 
he may have certain potentialities so far as useful time is concerned upon which 
actual specifications oan and have been written. He must be taken as he stands 
upon "delivery” and installed effectively in an airplane. It is the responsibility 
of the designer and the manufacturer to have provided tolerances in the plane in 
order to insure efficient installation of the equipment. Y«e can well imagine the difficulties which are encountered in some sub- 
assemblies when one item has been delivered with certain fixtures which are 
over-sized compared to their original requirements. It takes little time in 
the ordinary processes to see that this matter is corrected, yet it has been 
common procedure to ignore equally glaring inadequacies and tolerances in con- 
ditions involving the man. First, let us begin with the sub-assembly of the 
piece of equipment which will be installed in the airplane. As was stated a- 
bove, this sub-assembly will consist of the nude man clothed with a great var- 
iety of the equipment and his ultimate efficient size v/ill be determined by the 
degree to which adequate consideration has been given to the design of the per- 
sonal equipment on him and the location of certain accessory items which are 
appended to him. For example, to take an absurd case, it would be very inad- 
visable to locate all the parachute in a square bundle on the man’s back, and 
in addition to locate all the emergency equipment in another square bundle on 
his chest because this would limit one of the most important dimensions involved 
in aircraft. Absurd as the example is, it has actually been encountered in some 
degree. Therefore, the first section of this report will be directed to instruc- 
tions to the designers of personal equipment in techniques by which they can ob- 
tain minimum size and, eventually, maximum efficiency of aircrew personnel. CHAPTER III 
PERSONAL EQUIPMENT 
Introduction 
Efficient operation of aircraft by Amy Air Force flyers is not alone the 
concern of the aircraft designer and engineer. The use of cramped spaces such 
as gun turrets, catwalks, etc., involves quite as much the design and sizing of 
the personal equipment which a crewman must wear to obtain insulation from a 
hostile environment. Clothing that is needlessly bulky and ill-fitting can make 
restricted quarters, which would otherwise be adequate, a straight jacket for 
the man expected to use them. Likewise, the lack of properly fitting clothing 
leads to the wearing of non-standard and make-shift assemblies which may endanger 
the crew members’ lives through the lack of familiarity with their use and func- 
tional dependability. 
At the out-break of World War II, the Amy Air Forces had no responsibility 
in the development and procurement of flying clothing, per se. However, it was 
realized at an early stage that such responsibility should be duly assigned to 
the matdriel agencies. Accordingly, an organization was established to accomp- 
lish this mission, but, since little experience was available upon which to base 
procurement, sizing of flying clothing was left to the individual manufacturer, 
who was reputed to grade sizes of his products according to standards known as 
"commercial practice". Since most such manufacturers had experience in the pro- 
duction of civilian clothing for a considerable period of time, it was assumed 
that standards of "commercial practice" would also be sufficient standardization 
for flying clothing. 
Of the items of personal equipment for which the Army Air Forces were re- 
sponsible, the standard equipment consisted of the A-9 and B-6 helmets, the B-7 
goggles, and the A-8 oxygen mask. These items were products of individual agencies 
responsible for the development of such items. The uses and needs for these items 
were diverse enough to warrant more or less restricted development on each indi- 
vidual item, and admittedly very little was known about heads of Army Air Force 
personnel who would use this equipment, as well as about the operational condi- 
tions which would determine what was needed. 
The only check on whether clothing was actually fitting those for whom it 
was designed was by means of the stock inventory. This indicated, in a general 
way, what sizes of garments were being used up most rapidly, but due to the com- 
mon practice of substituting when the proper size was not available, it could 
not consitute a very accurate check. However, even from these records it was 
indicated that sizing was inadequate. In many cases the range of sizes was ob- 
viously much greater than the demand, and complementary to this, certain other 
sizes were chronically low in stock or not available. Moreover, work on measure- 
ment of subjects clothed in various outfits indicated that flying clothing was bulky and that improper sizing contributed in large measure to this condition. 
Thus, one of the major problems was that of size control. If it could be 
solved, a long step forward would be taken, particularly toward? 
a) Adequately fitted men in the greatest possible number. 
b) Simplification of problems of procurement and supply by anticipation 
of requirements based upon a definite knowledge of size coverage. 
Nude anthropometric measurements, already available, were useful; but only 
to a limited extent since allowance must be made for clothing in calculating 
size coverage and some measurements must be interpolated by use of formulae to 
obtain required values. Accordingly, as a first step, tailors’ dimensions were 
taken on a large series of fighter pilots and medium, heavy, and very heavy 
bombardment crewmen. From the data thus obtained, distribution tables were made 
which give not only the ranges of critical dimensions but also the relative 
frequencies of occurrence of each measurement. These tables became the basis 
for judging the adequacy of size coverage as well as the compilation of predicted 
procurement schedulings for new types of clothing. 
The following procedure was developed for control of size in flying clothing: 
a) Design was made, patterns cut and samples of each size of the garment 
contemplated for standardization were made up under the direction of 
the procuring agency. 
b) These sample garments were then size-tested on individuals known to 
represent the body siees of Army Air Force flyers. 
o) If the samples proved to cover their respective size ranges adequate- 
ly, two further steps were taken: 
1) Standardization patterns were copied from the master patterns and 
one set was supplied to each manufacturer of that type of clothing. 
2) A tentative procurement scheduling was drawn up from the distri- 
bution tables based upon known size coverage of each size of the 
garment. 
d) During production, manufacturers were required to submit at prescribed 
intervals items from their production runs, chosen at random by the 
Army Air Forces* resident inspector. These items were subjected to 
measurement check and comparison with the standards of known size 
function. 
Thus a knowledge of the range of dimensions within the population to be 
fitted came into use. It required the addition of one smaller size in most types 
of clothing, but also made possible the elimination of from two to four larger 
sizes. 
This general method was applied to each item of flying clothing. Of course, 
modifications and changes of techniques were made incident to the oarticular 
problems presented by different types of equipment. 
The same general procedure was also utilized on all head equipment. However, there was one important difference in this respect. Integration of the equipment 
is extremely important. Accordingly, seven head types were developed to aid in 
the joint problem of sizing and integrating the various items. During the period 
of I9I42 through following the development of the head types, this project 
was carried on in conjunction with the agencies already responsible for the equip 
ment, and as of January, there was a complete new set of equipment in oper- 
ational use, consisting of the A-ll type helmet which incorporated earphone sock- 
ets to hold the earphones, the B-8 goggle, and the A-I14, demand type oxygen mask. 
All of these separate units, when worn properly, by an individual, added up into 
a fairly well integrated unit in such a manner as to cover the face completely. 
See Figure III, 1. This development has succeeded rather well in combating cer- 
tain operational situations which gave rise to extreme frostbite on faces which 
were not adequately covered. Figure III, 2 shows the same application of this 
procedure to the pressure-demand type of oxygen and head equipment. 
HELMET SIZING 
The first procurement of flying helmets by the Army Air Forces in World War 
II consisted of two types: the A-9 summer flying helmet (wool gabardine); and 
the B-6 winter flying helmet (shearling). These helmets were made according to 
specifications, samples were submitted for approval, and manufacturers were re- 
quired to do their own grading to produce the four sizes; small, medium, large, 
and extra-large* deemed necessary to cover the range of head size. At the time 
no actual information on the range or distribution of head size of Army Air 
Force flyers was available. 
In a relatively short time it became apparent that the sizing of these hel- 
mets was not adequate. Stocks of extra-large and large helmets were chronically 
low, and American flyers were using foreign helmets wherever and however they 
could be obtained. The reason for this was amply confirmed by a series of forty 
each A—9 and B-6 helmets submitted for study of possible modification for ear- 
phone receptacles. Of ten helmets labelled extra-large, none could be found 
that fitted the larger heads. Only three large helmets could be found in the 
ten so labelled. The majority of the helmets fitted small heads. Evidently the 
manufacturers in using their own size grading systems were constructing helmets 
too small to perform their function. 
Thus, when plans were laid for the construction of new types of helmets, the 
problem presented was two-fold* 
a) Determination of the range of head size of Army Air Force flyers and the 
distribution of sizes in various groups. 
b) So adjusting helmet sizes as to cover the range of head sizes and con- 
trolling this adjustment in manufacture to insure proper fit. 
At the time there was available a large series of head circumferences cal- 
culated from measurements taken upon the Cadet-Gunner anthropometric series. '■'•tfHh3*i,1g 4v*r' 
,, -- wwf* * r"» #• v A 
• * « 4 ■ '■- > 
1 March HbHHHHB rigmeer-ng .v.; 
t larch *QW. The range of head sizes derived therefrom (510 mm. to 620 mm.) could conven- 
iently be divided into four sections. These were: snail, 510 mm. to mm,; 
medium, mm. to mm.; large, 566'mm, to 590 mm,; extra-large, 591 mm. to 
620 mm. (Figure III, 3») This gave each helmet approximately the same amount 
of work to do, with the exception of the very small and very large extremes, 
which amount to only a very snail per centage of the entire group. 
Yihen designs had been drawn up and a proved, manufacturers were required, 
in the first instance, to submit he L ets graded as they considered necessary. 
These helmets were fitted on heads of known size corresoonding in general to the 
range of head sizes of Army Air Force flyers, and an analysis was then made to 
determine whether each size of the helmet was adequately covering the desired por- 
tion of the range. In every case several sets of helmets had to be manufactured 
before it became aoparent that this was what was being accomplished. 
Once the si$ds were established by fitting trials, measurements of certain 
dimensions of the helmets becaro standards by which future production of that 
type and size of helmet could be judged without resort to the prolonged methods 
of fitting in every case. These standard dimensions and a diagram illustrating 
how the measurer:ents are taken were printed and distributed for the use of the 
Army Air Forces’ resident inspectors in determining whether proper sizes wore 
being adhered to, B'igures III, !(.; Ill, 5; HI, 6; III, ?• As a further check 
upon proper sizing, once established, manufacturers were required to submit one 
of each size of helmet of a given number of helmets of each size produced for 
measurement and examination by the procuring agency. In this way, it was possi- 
ble to take immediate steps to correct faulty manufacturing practice as it af- 
fected size. 
To fulfill the need for some type of size standards, to facilitate inspec- 
tion by check measurements, and to provide references for future work in head- 
gear sizing, selection of dimensions for the construction of a set of standard 
head forms was undertaken. Head circumference was used as the basic measurement 
and was divided into the four ranges outlined above. In the oase of all head 
measurements, an attempt was made to draw values which represent average occur- 
rences in the four ranges. Figures III, 8; III, 9j HI, 10, Critical dimen- 
sions such as head length, breadth, height, etc., were held to tolerances of 
plus or minus one millimeter. The orientation values defining eye position, 
ear width, etc., were somewhat less rigidly controlled. 
With the determination of proper size for helmets and establishment of meth- 
ods of inspection, it was possible to provide a prediction for overall procure- 
ment. This was done on the basis of the Cadet-Gunner series with a result of 
10% small, l]0%> medium, I4.0% large, and 10% extra-large, for procurement to cover 
all groups of flying personnel in the Army Air Forces exclusive of Women s * Army 
Service Pilots and Flying Nurses. 
Further surveys were also made of specialized groups such, .as fighter and 
photo-reoonnaisance, heavy bombardment, etc. These groups found to vary DISTRIBUTION OF HEAD CIRCUMFERENCES FOR HEAD SIZES 
SMALL 
MEDIUM 
LARGE 
EXTRA LARGE 
42>75T AML 
II i, 5* KEASURaiEKTS TO BE TAKEN t 
F-F Across forehead stripcing from edge 
of earphone socket to edge of other. 
T-T Vertically over top of helmet from 
edge of one earphone socket to 
edge of other. 
R-P Tildth of right top panel, Measure I 
from center of right sear, to center 
of r.iddle seam where panel joins 
forehead stripping. 
L-P Same as for R-P. 
R-E Straight line from center of right 
panel seam where it joins forehead 
stripping to top mark of right ear- 
phone assembly. 
L-E Same as for R-E. (Measurements tell 
if earphone mountings arc Installed 
at proper angle, ) 
4420B AML 
Pifeuce If I, h. TYPE AN-H-16 PELMET 
DESIRED DIMENSIONS AND ACCEPTABLE RANGES OF VARIATION 
One Eighth (1/0) 
Inch pile Shearling DESIRED 
DIMENSIONS 
ACCEPTABLE RANGE 
OF VARIATION 
Inches 
rnn 
Inches 
mm 
F-F 
12-6/52 
511 
12-2/52 
- 12-14/32 
506-516 
T-T 
13-12/52 
340 
13-6/32 
- 15-9/52 
335-345 
OMS. J-J- 
R-P & L-P 
1-29/52 
L8 
1-26/52 
- 1-51/32 
I46- 5C 
R-E & L-E 
4-17/32 
115 
4-11/32 
- 4-17/32 
110-115 
F-F 
12-22/52 
522 
12-15/52 
- 12-28/52 
517-527 
fjedi um 
T-T 
15-21/52 
347 
15-15/32 
- 13-27/32 
562-552 
.R-P & L-P 
2-5/52 
55 
2-1/32 
- 2-6/52 
51- 55 
R-E & L-E 
4-17/32 
115 
4-11/32 
- 4-17/52 
110-115 
F-F 
15-5/32 
522 
12-28/52 
- 13-6/32 
527-557 
Large 
T-T 
13-21/52 
555 
13-25/52 
- 14-6/52 
550-56O 
R-P & L-P 
2-8/52 
57 
2-6/32 
- 2-11/52 
55- 59 
R-E fc L-E 
4-17/32 
115 
4-11/32 
- 4-17/32 
116-115 
F-F 
13-17/52 
343 
15-10/52 
- 15-25/52 
55S-34S 
Extra- 
T-T 
14-12/32 
565 
14-6/32 
- 14-19/32 
560-57C 
Large 
F-P 5. L-P 
2-15/52 
62 
2-12/52 
- 2-17/32 
60- 6ti 
R-E «; L-E 
4-17/52 
115 
4-11/32 
- 4-17/32 
110-115 
One Quarter (l/U) 
inch Pile Shea 
rling 
F-F 
12-15/52 
517 
12-9/32 
- 12-22/52 
312-322 
T-T 
15-20/52 
346 
13-14/32 
- 15-26/52 
5^1-551 
Small 
R-P & L-P 
i-31/32 
50 
1-29/52 
- 2-2/52 
43- 5S 
R-E & L-E 
4-17/32 
115 
4-11/32 
- 4-17/52 
110-115 
F-F 
13-5/52 
334 
12-3V32 
- 13-11/32 
529-559 
T-T 
14-1/32 
556 
13-26/52 
- 14-7/52 
551-561 
MwCUL Uili 
R-P 5c L-P 
2-6/52 
55 
2-3/52 
- 2-8/52 
53- 57 
R-E 5c L-E 
4-17/32 
115 
4-11/52 
- 4-17/32 
110-115 
F-F 
15-11/32 
559 
13-5/32 
- 15-18/52 
334-344 
T-T 
14-11/52 
56I; 
Ui-5/52 
- 14-17/32 
359-369 
Large 
R-P & L-P 
2-11/52 
59 
2-8/52 
- 2-15/52 
57- 61 
R-E & L-E 
4-17/32 
115 
4-11/32 
- 4-17/32 
110-115 
F-F 
13-19/52 
345 
13-13/32 
- 13/26/32 
340-350 
m m 
i-x 
14-19/32 
570 
14-12/32 
- 14/25/32 
565-575 
Extra- 
R-P & L-P 
2-17/32 
6U 
2-15/32 
- 2-20/52 
62- 66 
Large 
R-E & L-E 
4-17/52 
U5 
4-11/52 
- 4-17/32 
110-115 
Figure 111, 5. TYPE A-ll HELMET 
TYPE A-ll HELMET 
Desired dimensions and acceptable ranges of variation 
DESIRED 
DIMENSION 
ACCEPTABLE RANGE 
OF VARIATION 
I lichen 
mm 
Inches 
mm 
F-F 
12 
306 
11-27/32—12-7/32 
301—311 
T-T 
13-8/32 
337 
13-1/32 -13-14/32 
332—342 
Small 
R-P & L-P 
1-30/32 
49 
1-27/32— 2 
47— 51 
R-E & L-E 
Should not be permitted to exceed 115 mm., 4-17/32" 
F-F 
12-18/32 
320 
12-12/32—12-25/32 
315—325 
Medium 
T-T 
13-17/32 
345 
13-12/32—13-24/32 
340—350 
R-P & L-P 
2-5/32 
55 
2-3/32 — 2-8/32 
53— 57 
R-E & L-E 
Should not be permitted to exceed 115 mm.. 4-17/32" 
F-F 
12-31/32 
330 
12-25/32—13-5/32 
325 -335 
Large 
T-T 
13-29/32 
354 
13-23/32—14-3/32 
349—359 
R-P & L-P 
2-11/32 
59 
2-8/32 — 2-14/32 
57— 62 
R-E & L-E 
Should not be permitted to exceed 115 mm.. 4-17/32" 
F-F 
13-22/32 
348 
13-15/32—13-28/32 
343—353 
Extra- 
T-T 
14-10/32 
364 
14-3/32 -14-16/32 
359 369 
large 
R-P & L-P 
2-17/32 
64 
2-13/32— 2-19/32 
61 — r>6 
R-E & L-E 
Should not be permitted to exceed 115 mm 4-17'32" 
Figure III, 6. TYPE AN-H-15 HELMET 
TYPE AN-H-15 HELMET 
Desired dimensions and acceptable ranges of variation 
DESIRED 
DIMENSION 
acceptable range 
OF VARIATION 
Inches 
mm 
Inches 
mm 
F-F 
11-23/32 
298 
11-17/32—11-29/32 
293—303 
T-T 
i:i 
330 
12-25/32—13-0 32 
325—335 
omaii 
R-P & L-P 
1-14/32 
37 
1-12 32— 1-17/32 
35— 39 
R-E & L-E 
Should not exceed 4-1 
7/32 in.. 115 mm. 
F-F 
12-14 32 
310 
12-7/32 -12-20/32 
311—321 
Medium 
T-T 
13-12/32 
340 
13-0/32 -13-18/32 
335—345 
R-P & L-P 
1-23/32 
44 
1-21'32— 1-31/32 
42— 40 
R-E & L-E 
Should not exceed 4-1 
7/32 in.. 115 mm. 
F-F 
12-24/32 
324 
12-20/32—12-30/32 
321—329 
Large 
T-T 
13-25/32 
350 
13-18/32—13-31/32 
345—355 
R-P & L-P 
1-28/32 
48 
1-20/32— 1-31/32 
40— 50 
R-E & L-E 
Should not exceed 4-1 
7/32 in., 115 mm. 
F-F 
13-8/32 
337 
13-2 32 -13-15/32 
332—342 
Extra- 
T-T 
14-5 32 
300 
13-31/32—14-11 32 
355—305 
large 
R-P & L-P 
2-4/32 
54 
2-1 32 -- 2-0 32 
52 — 50 
R-E & L-E 
Should not exceed 4-1 
7/32 in.. 115 mm. 
Figure III, 7. Dimension 
SMALL 
Calculated 
Actual 
MEDIIM 
Calculated 
Actual 
LARGE 
Calculated 
Actual 
X-LARGS 
Calculated 
Actual 
Head Length 
18U 
18U 
193 
19U 
201 
201 
210 
210 
Hoad Broadth 
li+3 
ii*3 
lh9 
150 
156 
156 
162 
161 
Hoad Height 
125 
126 
129 
130 
133 
152 
138 
158 
Hoad Ciroumforonoo 
533 
533 
556 
557 
579 
578 
600 
599 
Minimus Frontal 
98 
99 
lOl; 
1024- 
108 
109 
112 
113 
Ear Implantation 
U5 
— 
50 
— 
55 
—— 
60 
Bar Maximum 
55 
57 
61 
62 
67 
71 
75 
72 
Faoo Length 
112 
112 
120 
120 
128 
127 
136 
138 1/2 
Tragion-Otobasion Inf. 
27 
28 
50 
33 
35 
36 
59 
38 
Horisontal-Nasion 
90 
90 
100 
102 
110 
112 
120 
117 
Horirontal-Canthus 
100 
ioU 
110 
112 
117 
120 
125 
12J4 
Wall-Canthus 
158 
157 
167 
I65 
176 
17U 
182 
I83 
Wall-Otobasion Inf. 
95 
97 
100 
102 
110 
110 
115 
113 
Wall-Monton 
179 
183 
187 
186 
196 
198 
20i+ 
213 
Wall-Tragion 
80 
89 
90 
93 
100 
100 
105 
109 
Nook Depth 
108 
nk 
115 
123 
12U 
126 
135 
D4O 
Neok Breadth 
110 
113 
117 
120 
126 
129 
135 
136 
Chin-Neok Projection 
35 
58 
h2 
h5 
52 
53 
60 
61 
DIMENSIONS OF AML HEAD SIZE STANDARDS 
Figure III, 8. nur- Y * Figure III, 10. considerably in their requirements for various sizes of helmets, but when 
pooled, presented totals that to all practical purposes were the lO-i4.O-i4.O-10 
ratio initially predicted. 
DISTRIBUTION OF HEAD CIRCUIFERETCES 
for 
HSU/.ET SIZES 
Circumference 
Aviation 
Fighter & 
Total 
Total 
Very Heavy 
WASP Flying 
Cadets 
Photo-Recon. 
Pi lots 
Bombardment 
Aircrew 
I ssue 
Bombardment 
Aircrew 
Nurses 
5IO-5UO mm. 
(Sma11) 
8.66 
1.31+ 
IO.9I1 
9.98 
1.25 
35.1+1+ 
U5.76 
mm. 
(Nediurn) 
1+3.95 
23.76 
Ul.Ui 
39.67 
$0.16 
1+7.73 
1+5-77 
566-590 mm. 
(Large) 
1,0.00 
51+. 70 
$8.86 
Uo.U* 
61.00 
15.1*6 
8.1+1+ 
591-620 mm. 
(Extra Large) 
7.1*1 
20.18 
8.7U 
9.88 
7.5^ 
1.35 
0.00 
Change in the relative proportion of types of aircraft operating at any 
given tire, of course, would change the picture of overall procurement. For 
example, note the shift in 'percentages of helmet sizes required for Very 
Heavy Bombardment at different fields. 
Size 
Salina 
Great Bend 
Pratt 
Total 
Small 
li+. 6 
11.2 
13.C 
12.8 
Medium 
32.1* 
ho.3 
38.0 
37.5 
Large 
3U.6 
hi.6 
31.1 
37.6 
Extra Large 
18.5 
6.8 
16.8 
12.7 
This distribution illustrates how issue size percentages vary from issue 
point to issue point among aircrew manning a particular type of aircraft and 
how total per centages for one type may vary from the picture for overall pro- 
curement. 
The problem of earphone receptacles in the helmet and their proper placing 
has also been investigated and the basic data regarding the location, size. And 
angulation of the ears necessary for any further study along this line are pre- 
sented in the following table. MEANS AND RANGES OF MEASUREMENTS 
FOR 
DESIGN OF EARPHONE MOUNTINGS 
Supra-auricular (head breadth just 
Moan (mm) 
Range 
152.14; 
139-161+ 
above oars.) 
Bi-zygomatic (face breadth just in 
11+0.90 
13U-152 
front of ears.) 
Bigonial (jaw breadth just below 
111;. 30 
101-126 
and in front of ears.) 
Minimum (breadth just below ears.) 
122.10 
102-11+5 
Bi-mastoid (breadth over mastoids.) 
136.50 
118-11+8 
Ear height (maximum length of ear.) 
66.70 
37-80 
Ear breadth 
36.90 
30-U5 
Ear angle (angle of ear projection from 
29.80° 
17-39° 
plane lying against zygomatic 
bones and the mastoid process 
.) 
GOGGLES 
The anthropometric aspects of the goggle problem are relatively simple. 
The most important dimension relating to the face is the bi-ocular, or breadth 
between the outside corners of the eyes. The goggle can be no smaller than 
the largest encountered, 103 ram., and should be no larger than this, because a 
high degree of unnecessary cramjbing between the goggle and the helmet will 
occur. 
The other aspect of the problem, which must follow the first, is that of 
obtaining proper size integration between the goggles, helmet, and the oxygen 
mask. Figures III, 1 and III, 2 illustrate how this was attained during the 
work conducted in World War II. 
A further discussion of the integration between the goggle and the mask 
will be found in the following section. OXYGEN MASKS 
To the casual observer, the human face, collectively speaking, is a con- 
glomeration of greatly variable features which amalgamate themselves into a 
set of topographic mounds and depressions which remain in our memory as the 
"face”. Because of the extreme complexity and variability of these features, 
there has been little effort made until recently to define the total in a 
metric manner so that objective approaches can be used in the development of 
items of equipment which come in contact with the face. The basic problem of 
the project first carried on in the Aero Medical Laboratory was to attain such 
an objective. Consequently, a basic series of li_i5U Air Force personnel was 
measured, and, subsequently, about 1500 were added to this series for check 
purposes. The final working data were resolved into seven head and face types 
which are shown in Figure III, 11. 
So far as the use of an oxygen mask is concerned, there are certain basic 
patterns which are quite constant regardless of the superficial aspects of the 
mask. These are due to the fundamental structural anatomy of the human face. 
Dimensions taken laterally on the face are most commonly on soft tissues, which 
are subject to a considerable degree of compressibility. Measurements taken 
vertically on the face encounter bony or cartilaginous structures, which are 
quite definite in their position. An oxygen mask must, therefore, either be 
made in sufficient sizes to accommodate the bony projections or shall be suf- 
ficiently pliable to do so. The great problem is to determine the proper com- 
promise. 
Inasmuch as the vertical dimension of the face from the root of the nose 
to the base of the chin is what might correspond to the length of the hand in 
gloves and the length of the foot in shoes, it has been taken as a primary ref- 
erence line in all the development and assessment of oxygen masks. It vd.ll vary 
in the white male from 101 to llj.6 mm.; in the faegro from 112 to 152 mm.; and in 
the vjhite female from 96 to I36 mm. Figure III, 12 shows how sub-groups of the 
male white and female white populations will be distributed on face lengths. 
Therefore, in order to obtain the small number of sizes which can be efficiently 
used, these basic length dimensions must be considered. 
Considering first this variation in length of face, which in the white male 
is about 1-7/8 inches, we can work with a possible total fit variation of only 
about l/2 inch of nasal bone on any one individual. Having only this l/2 inch 
available as an anatomical tolerance permitted us by nature, it is then our 
problem to determine first the pliability of a single oxygen mask in attaining 
the maximum degree of behaviour within the total range of 1-7/8 inches. If 
pliability is small, the mask must ride up and down on l/2 inch of nasal bone, 
and assuming this pliability to remain constant in any size of mask, it would 
require four sizes to cover adequately the 1-7/8 inches. Figure ITl, 11 Circumference 
Aviation 
Cadets 
Fighter & 
Photo-Reoon. 
Pilots 
Commissioned 
Bombardment 
Aircrew 
Enlisted 
Bombardment 
Aircrew 
Total 
Bombardment 
Aircrew 
Total 
Issue 
Very Heavy 
Bombardment 
Aircrew 
Flying 
WASP Nurses 
R0TC 
Negroes 
96-116 mm* 
(Small mask) 
11.02 
13.71 
10.07 
10.85 
10.52 
10.85 
13.63 
50.62 71.62 
5.30 
117-132 mm. 
(Medium mask) 
76.92 
81.25 
76.60 
76.59 
76.59 
76.96 
75.78 
U8.69 28.18 
71.97 
133*152 mm. 
(Largo mask) 
12.06 
5.06 
15.35 
12.66 
12.99 
12.21 
10.37 
0.69 0.00 
22.75 
DISTRIBUTION OF NASION-MENTON 
for 
OXYGEN MASK SIZES 
Figure III, 12. However, experience has taught us that four sizes offer almost in geo- 
metrical proportion an increase in the distribution and supply problem over 
one size. Ideally then, the best possible oxygen mask would consist of a 
single size which would 7/ork perfectly on lOO/o of the individuals. However, 
no oxygen mask developed to date has succeeded in attaining this degree of 
perfection and the best possible compromise which has as yet been arrived at 
has been a system of three sizes adapted in such a manner as to fit about 
of the personnel. 
Since, to date, three sizes of mask have been found to be most satisfact- 
ory for general use, the following discussion will be based upon this theory. 
Referring solely to the male white information, it will be seen from the 
graph. Figure III, 1J, that the extreme ranges are 101 mm. and lL|.6 mm., giving 
us a total of J4.6 mm. of variation in the face length. This entire range has 
been divided for practical purposes into three approximately equal thirds, a 
short 15 mm., a middle 15 mm., and a long 16 mm. It will be seen that each on© 
of these thirds represents slightly over l/2 inch, and, as seen above, no mask 
utilized to date will tolerate more than l/2 inch. Therefore, under the best 
possible conditions there cannot be more than a middle 12 mm. with a short and 
long group of 12 mm. each, giving us a total of 36 mm. available for three sizes 
of mask. Under the best conditions, a three size system of oxygen masks can 
then be expected to cover 56/l).6 of the entire range. In order., then, to get 
the best possible use out of the three sizes of masks, we must insure that the 
medium size of the mask fits first the middle 12 mm. in the entire range, and 
that the short or small size fits the next lower 12 ram., and the large size 
the next longer 12 mm. Even this approach requires that the small size mask 
shall fit everybody falling at its upper fange because if it does not the medium 
must take up this difference and fit faces which are smaller than it was de- 
signed to cover. Similarly, the sane fact holds for the relationship between 
the medium and large sizes. Therefore, it is quite often necessary to allow a 
certain degree of overlap between small and medium sizes in tolerance and be- 
tween medium and large sizes, which will further reduce the extreme range which 
can be accommodated. Even so, realizing these limitations, if the masks are 
properly designed to size requirements, it should still be possible to fit 
over of the population involved in these three sizes. Actually, experience 
with the A-lU mask has indicated that better than 9Q% can be fitted, allowing 
some discomfort on the very small and the very large faces. 
The only possible way seen at present to be able to gain more than the 
l/2 inch size tolerance from any one size mask is to design the mask in such a 
manner that it may be permitted to fluctuate to some extent vertically on the 
chin. This may be attained in two or more ways. One, by building a very low 
chin and allowing it to slide back and forth on the chin, or, two, by building 
a mask which sits on the frontal aspect of the chin rather than under it. The 
latter case was initially tried on the A-13 oxygen mask and it was found that a 
30 MIDDLE 15 MM. LONG 16 MM. 
NASION-MENTON FREQUENCY 
1450 CADETS 
SHORT 15 MM, 
m, 1$. wide range of tolerance oould be obtained. However, the necessity for adding 
chin and cheek protection against flash burn and frostbite out down this high 
degree of tolerance somewhat. The final answer to this problem is in the fu- 
ture of oxygen mask design. 
So far we have dealt only with the gross problem of size relationships in 
masks. There are many others of a more detailed nature which should be given 
in order that they may be considered in any future work along these lines. 
First is the very difficult problem of assaying a behaviour in terms of 
its relationship to the bony portion of the nose. The lower edge of the nasal 
bones usually lies at an angle of about 1+5 degrees to the horizontal and to 
some extent will limit the manner in which the nasal portion of the mask may 
bo designed. It is highly essential from the standpoint of comfort that an 
oxygen mask does not contact the nose below this lower margin of the nasal bones. 
If it does it will easily restrict the nares enough to restrict respiration. 
This appears on the surface to be a rather simple problem, but the fact that a 
constriction of only l/52 of an inch is sufficient to restrict breathing will 
indicate how difficult it is to stay away from this result. Therefore, geo- 
metrically speaking, we are working with a triangular area on the nose which is 
about 12 mm. long on the short side and 29 mm. long on the base. These two 
sides intersect at approximately right angles and the other side of the triangle 
would then be about J>1 mm. These dimensions, of course, are average and the 
variations involved, particularly on the longer of the two sides referred to, 
may go down to as low as 20 mm. on small or medium faces, and will, of course, 
be the determining factors in the nasal aspect of the mask itself. 
Tied up with this relationship to the nasal bones is the very real opera- 
tional problem of compromise with the fit of the goggles over the mask in order 
to obtain the maximum possible visual field, and also to retain the maximian'de- 
gree of comfort. Operationally speaking, it has been found that the determining 
factor on the use of an oxygen mask so far as its relationship with the goggles 
is concerned is that related to comfort. If the mask is not comfortable we can 
expect trouble. If it is comfortable, the man will tolerate some visual re- 
striction. This does not mean, however, that we should ignore the attempt to 
get as much visual field as possible from the combined pieces of equipment, and 
every effort should be made in the development of masks and goggles together 
to attain the fullest degree of integration between them. 
There are certain basic criteria which can be adhered to in getting first 
approximations to the minimum restriction of vision with the maximum degree 
of comfort. The first one is the factor involved in the relationships to the 
bony portion of the nose. The second is the minimum allowable clearance be- 
tween the mask itself and the nose. It certainly should not be below l/8 inch, 
because any tension on the mask will cause it to "mush" into the face and fur- 
ther reduce this difference. Direct contact between the fleshy nose and the 
nasal portion of the mask should not be perritted because it will immediately 
introduce the factors of nasal restriction again. Using this minimum dimension, 
the next factor which must be considered is the thickness of the mask, itself. over the nose, which must be as low as possible, and the angular relationship 
of the nasal portion of the mask, which should be as nearly parallel as possible 
to the most pronounced nose to be encountered and this can reach as high as 
UO ram. angular dimension at the broadest part of the nose. 
Next comes the consideration of the physical requirements of the mask as 
a piece of equipment. As noted above, the ideal number of sizes i$ one, but 
when it comes to the physical aspect of the mask in terms of weight the absurd 
ideal is that it vreigh nothing. It shall have no bulk. This, of course, is 
an impossibility, so the objective, then, is to hold the weight and the bulk 
to the lowest practicable minimum. The first factor to consider in attaining 
these objectives is to retain in the design the smallest possible internal vol- 
ume which can be tolerated by the face. This sounds easy enough to attain, but 
at the present time we must still consider the requirements introduced by the 
sizes of the best possible valves and microphone to be installed in the mask, 
and every atterr.pt to hold the internal volume down is thwarted to some extent by 
the addition of the necessary valve systems. Because of the limitations offered 
by the valve systems, it therefore becomes necessary to give further considera- 
tion to the possibilities of reducing the sizes even lower. 
Detailed data on the techniques of measuring the human head will be found 
in the appendices. (Appendix 2). 
FLYING CLOTHING 
COVERALL TYPE 
Coverall type flying suits are most usually produced in the summer or other 
light forms. 
At the time the program of size check of Army Air Forces* flying clothing 
was initiated, production of the AN-S-31& flying coverall was under way, Mater- 
ials, details of workmanship, and finished dimensions of these garments were 
specified. Manufacturers cut and graded their own patterns submitting one 
sample for approval before beginning production. It was the duty of the Army 
Air Force resident representative to check size by use of the dimensions given 
in the specification. 
A check of items drawn from production runs indicated that manufacturers 
had widely varying ideas of what constituted a particular size of garment. 
Suits of the same labelled size varied as much as 7 l/U inches in one dimension, 
a situation which further complicated problems of procurement and issue. Speci- 
fied finished dimensions to be checked by the resident inspectors obviously 
were not a satisfactory method of size control. As an expedient to reduce var- 
iability as much as possible, the make of coverall which showed the fewest dev- 
iations from specified tolerances was selected and tested on a range of body sizes to detorrrine adequacy of coverage. When these points were established, 
the patterns used by this manufacturer were copied and sent to all oth'er man- 
ufacturers* 
When the K-l and L-l flying suits were projected, the standard procedure 
outlined abow was followed. Later comparisons demonstrated that not only 
had variability been reduced considerably, but also the small variation present 
had been fairly v.rell stabilized in manufacture. 
Sizing procedures conducted on the K-l and L-l suits should be applicable 
to any other coverall garment designed in the future. Distribution charts, such 
as those shown in Figures III, li+j III, Ipj III* 16; III, 17; and III, 18 will 
do much to guide the observer. Care, however, must be taken to check these 
charts against any new types of flying populations before they can be utilized 
directly. If a check series shows much deviation from that shown in the charts, 
entirely new charts must be prepared. 
TWO-PIECE TYPE 
Two-piece garments are usually prepared for intermediate, heavy, and elec- 
trically-heated suits. 
Predecessors of the intermediate weight flying clothing were the A-3* B-3* 
and AN-J-U - AN-T-35 shearling suits. Certain developments of heavy clothing 
followed them, but these were never extensively used since the intermediate type 
worn over electrically heated clothing served the same purpose. 
An analysis was first made of this shearling clothing to determine how well 
it was filling its functional requirements and what changes could be foreseen 
as necessary in later clothing of that general type. The following shortcomings 
were noted: 
1) A need for one size (3U) smaller than was being manufactured, and the 
manufacture of two sizes (U6 and US) larger than needed. 
2) Design specifications not based on the actual group to be fitted, re- 
sulting in sleeves too long and waists too large for the basic measure- 
ment of chest girth, etc. 
3) A confusing system of size labelling, with the same label (applying 
only to chest girth) found on both the jackets and trousers, thus ig- 
noring the range of waist size found with each chest size. 
14) Constructional features which increased bulk unneoessarijfor and retarded 
functional efficiency. 
The first intermediate flying suit (B-10 jacket, A-9 trousers), already in 
production when routine size analysis was undertaken, partook of most of the 
faults outlined above, with the addition that issue experience indicated the 
jacket was running one size too small. For example, the first size specifications 
called for a trouser waist only two inches less than the chest girth of the individual. This meant that practically every man wearing a Jacket which fitted 
him would find the trousers entirely large since the average drop from chest 
to waist is six inches, with Jacket and trouser always being issued as a unit. 
In later specifications the differential was increased to four inches. 
With the standardization of the B-15 Jacket and A-ll trouser, the inadequa- 
cies apparent in earlier flying suits of this type were eliminated. Size con- 
trol was exercised from the design stage onward through the use of preliminary 
size tests and routine check measurements. Both this suit and its successor, 
the B-15a, A-lla combination, showed remarkable consistency in adherence to 
standards despite the large number of manufacturers making them. These two 
types of intermediate suit demonstrate the high degree of stability that can be 
obtained by proper supervision and control from design through production. 
ELECTRICALLY-HEATED SUITS 
The history of the application of sizing techniques and predicted procure- 
ment schedulings to electrically heated clothing is the most incomplete and un- 
rewarding of any of the projects undertaken on flying clothing. This was 
largely due to the fact that electrically heated clothing was a critical item 
throughout the war, and, as such, its designs and procurements were rushed in 
every case. As a result, size evaluation and testing were post facto. However, 
several lessons were learned as to what not to do. 
The F-l electrically heated flying suit, a covqrall type garment, did not 
come within the Jurisdiction of the sizing program since its production was 
completed by that time. Later examination indicated that sizing from the stand- 
point of the design specifications was faulty. 
The F-2 suit was already well in production when the first one was size 
tested. However, difficulties had been experienced and modifications made from 
the start of production. The first size analysis demonstrated serious faults, 
particularly in the trousers, but shortages apparent in supply reports show 
that these had not been satisfactorily dealt with by the time the F-2 was being 
replaced by the F-3* 
Estimates of size coverage and predicted procurement scheduling for the F-3 
suit were made on the basis of design specifications; no samples were available 
as it was felt that to manufacture them and conduct fitting trials would con- 
sume too much time. Later, when production had begun and sizing samples were 
available, testing revealed that three sizes of Jacket and one size of trouser 
could be eliminated. Meanwhile, all of the original sizes were being manu- 
factured. Further to speed up production, the initial orders placed had all 
been for one size. Thus the procurement scheduling provided after fitting 
trials never was followed or even approximated. 
Hot long after issue began, overseas reports indicated serious shortages. but, by then, analysis necessary to clarify the difficulty was blocked by a 
number of factors: 
1) The F-3 suit had never been produced according to the sizes and per- 
centages recommended so that there was no basis for starting such 
analysis. 
2) No breakdown of the percentages of sizes in individual shipments to 
overseas theaters was available. 
3) No data w*re available on how the suits were issued or how they were 
fittedj'and on a critical item knowledge of this is particularly im- 
pd'rtant since issue may well not follow desired size too closely. 
U) No data were available on what was wrorn under the suits. Work on 
sizing had indicated that a relatively minor increase in the bulk of 
underclothing beyond that recommended for wear could shift percentages 
required considerably. 
Thus, although the recommended procurement scheduling was supported by an 
issue and service test conducted in the zone of the interior, it must remain a 
moot question for overseas issue. This history of electrically heated clothing 
raises the question of whether any article is ever so critical as to warrant 
the disregard of adequate design and size analysis. The speed of initial pro- 
duction must be balanced against later delays incident to design changes, shifts 
in production, flights lost due to lack of equipment, etc. 
Garments made in two pieces should be tested for size on charts shown in 
Figures III, 19; III, 20; III, 21; III, 22; III, 25; III, 2h. Again it should 
be emphasized that these charts are typical, and should not be construed as 
representative of any population until after a check series has been measured 
and proved. 
36, STATURE AND CHEST TOTAL BOMBARDMENT 
RATIOS ENLISTED MEN5 4 OFFICERS 
CHEST 
STATURE 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
60 
.5 
0.096 
0.096 
0.192 
6 1 
0.096 
0 096 
.5 
62 
0.096 
0.192 
0096 
0.192 
0,576 
.5 
0096 
009€ 
0.096 
0.288 
63 
0.096 
0.096 
0.192 
0.096 
0.096 
0.096 
0 672 
.5 
0.096 
0.096 
0.192 
64 
0.192 
0.280 
0.096 
0.096 
0.192 
0 288 
0096 
1.248 
.5 
0096 
0.096 
0866 
0.678 
0.096 
1.832 
65 
0 096 
0.192 
0294 
0390 
0.192 
0096 
0096 
1.356 
.5 
0476 
0 582 
0774 
1.160 
0 582 
0.096 
0.096 
3.766 
66 
0.486 
0.480 
0.770 
0.774 
0.288 
0096 
2.894 
5 
1.058 
0962 
1.068 
0.670 
0.192 
0.192 
4.150 
67 
0.774 
1.068 
1.362 
0.294 
0.486 
0 1.92 
0.192 
4.36 8 
.5 
0096 
0972 
1.266 
1.934 
1.646 
1.458 
Q582 
0.870 
0 192 
9.016 
68 
0.480 
0972 
1646 
1.544 
1058 
0.866 
0192 
0096 
6.854 
5 
0.486 
1.154 
1.346 
1.840 
1.346 
0.582 
0096 
0.390 
0.096 
7.344 
69 
0.192 
0 288 
0582 
1058 
1.742 
1,058 
0.384 
0.288 
0.192 
0096 
5.880 
.5 
0384 
0688 
1544 
3.676 
2900 
1.934 
2.024 
0.876| 
0.572 
14.578 
70 
0.096 
0.774 
0.572 
1.160 
1.448 
0.866 
0.582 
0.192 
0.288 
0096 
6.074 
.5 
0288 
0.466 
1448 
1.448 
1.068 
0780 
0384 
0192 
0.192 
6.286 
71 
0.096 
0.870 
0.572 
1.448 
1068 
1.352 
0.288 
0.096 
0.288 
6.078 
.5 
0.288 
0.972 
1.726 
1.844 
1160 
0.674 
0.288 
0.096 
7.048 
72 
0.096 
0.286 
0.582 
0.384 
0.096 
0.096 
0.096 
0.096 
1.734 
.5 
0.096 
0.192 
0.480 
0.678 
0.582 
0.096 
0.096 
0.096 
2.316 
73 
0.288 
0.486 
0386 
0476 
0582 
0096 
0.288 
0.192 
2.794 
5 
0.096 
0-096 
0.192 
0.096 
0.096 
0.096 
0.672 
74 
0 096 
0.192 
0 096 
0.288 
0.672 
.5 
0 096 
0192 
0 096 
0096 
0.480 
75 
0.096 
0096 
5 
0.096 
0.096 
0 192 
76 
.5 
0.096 
0.096 
038 
1.25 
5.88 
12.75 
19.51 
2349 
16.24 
10.53 
5.20 
3.17 
1.15 
0.29 
99.841 
PERCENTAGES 
4-37S-P A Aft 
Figure III, 3i*. STATURE AND CHEST TOTAL ISSUE 
RATIO I FIGHTER PI LOT •• 9.2 TOTAL BOMBARDMENT 
PERCENTAGES 
CHEST 
STATURE 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
60 
.5 
0.09 
0.08 
0.17 
61 
0.09 
0.09 
.5 
.62 
0.09 
0.14 
0.09 
0.17 
0.49 
.5 
0.08 
0.09 
009 
0.26 
.63 
0.09 
0.08 
0.17 
0.08 
0.11 
0.08 
0.61 
.5 
0.08 
0.03 
, 
0.08 
0.19 
64 
0.17 
0,26 
0.15 
0.12 
023 
0.26 
0.08 
1.27 
.5 
0.08 
0.11 
0.82 
0.03 
0 60 
0.09 
1.73 
65 
0.09 
0.06 
0.18 
0.38 
093 
020 
0.15 
0.08 
2.07 
.5 
047 
060 
0.72 
1 20 
0.55 
0.12 
0.08 
3.74 
66 
0.52 
056 
0.77 
0.71 
0.26 
0 09 
006 
2.97 
.5 
0.06 
0 06 
1.08 
1.00 
1.09 
0.67 
0.20 
024 
4.40 
67 
0,09 
0.88 
110 
1 39 
035 
0.45 
0.17 
0.17 
4.60 
5 
0.15 
089 
137 
1.90 
1 66 
1.57 
0.58 
087 
0 18 
9.17 
68 
0.47 
099 
1.54 
1.48 
1.11 
0.85 
0.21 
0.03 
009 
677 
.5 
0.03 
0 56 
123 
135 
1 74 
1.28 
055 
0.08 
035 
008 
7.25 
69 
0.20 
0.26 
058 
1.21 
1.69 
0.99 
0.35 
0.30 
0.17 
0.85 
6.60 
.5 
036 
0.66 
1.40 
3.49 
3.01 
1.08 
2.03 
0.87 
056 
14.20 
70 
0.08 
0 70 
0 66 
123 
153 
081 
058 
021 
029 
009 
6.18 
.5 
026 
0.46 
141 
1.62 
1.22 
0.75 
038 
0.20 
0.17 
647 
71 
0.03 
0.09 
0.78 
065 
144 
095 
1.29 
029 
012 
0 26 
5 90 
5 
026 
092 
1 81 
182 
114 
068 
032 
009 
032 
736 
72 
003 
009 
036 
065 
042 
0.09 
012 
009 
0.09 
1.94 
.5 
008 
021 
044 
060 
055 
0.12 
008 
0.12 
2.20 
73 
0,27 
044 
036 
0.47 
058 
009 
026 
018 
2.65 
5 
0.09 
0.08 
018 
009 
009 
009 
0.62 
74 
008 
018 
009 
027 
062 
.5 
0 12 
0.18 
0 09 
009 
0 48 
75 
009 
003 
0.12 
.5 
0 09 
0 09 
018 
76 
.5 
009 
009 
033 
1.37 
590 
12.87 
I960 
2411 
1608 
29 31 
5,28 
3.12 
184 
0.26 
0.32 
101.29 
AftU- 
. igm'e in, if-. STATURE AND CHEST 
VERY HEAVY BOMBARDMENT 
STATURE 
CHEST 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
TOTAL 
60.5 
61 
.173 
.173 
61.5 
62 
.173 
.173 
.346 
62.5 
.173 
.173 
63 
.173 
.173 
63.5 
.1 73 
.17 3 
.3 47 
.603 
64 
.173 
.173 
.346 
64.5 
.347 
.347 
.1 73 
.867 
65 
.173 
J 73 
.347 
.520 
.520 
.173 
1.906 
65 5 
.173 
.347 
.694 
.520 
.347 
.173 
2.254 
66 
.173 
1.215 
.520 
.347 
.694 
.347 
520 
.173 
.173 
4.162 
66 5 
J73 
520 
.173 
520 
888 
.694 
.173 
3.1 21 
67 
520 
694 
.868 
1.041 
.520 
.5 20 
.173 
.347 
.173 
4.856 
67.5 
.173 
.173 
1.041 
1.041 
1.041 
1.909 
.694 
.868 
6.9 4 0 
68 
.347 
.347 
1388 
1.041 
1.562 
1.562 
.694 
868 
.347 
8.156 
68.5 
.347 
.868 
2.951 
1.736 
1.388 
1.388 
.6 9 4 
.173 
.173 
9.718 
69 
.173 
1.909 
86C 
2.951 
2.256| 
.868 
1.041 
.694 
.173 
10.933 
69.5 
.347 
.694 
.868 
1.041 
1.041 
1.215 
L388 
.173 
.347 
.173 
.3 4 7 
7.634 
70 
.173 
.520 
.520 
1.388 
1.562 
.868 
1.562 
.868 
.173 
7.634 
70.5 
.347 
.520 
1.041 
1.909 
2.082 
1.215 
.694 
.173 
.173 
8. 155 
71 
.173 
1.562 
.173 
1.388 
.347 
1.041 
.520 
.520 
.173 
5.897 
71.5 
.173 
.694 
.520 
.868 
1.388 
1388 
.347 
.347 
.347 
.3 4 7 
6.4 19 
72 
.173 
.347 
.694 
1.562 
.520 
.347 
3.643 
72.5 
.173 
.520 
.347 
.347 
.173 
.173 
1.733 
73 
.347 
.347 
.173 
.173 
.1 73 
12 13 
73.5 
.173 
.347 
.173 
.693 
74 
.52 0 
.347 
867 
74.5 
.173 
.173 
.346 
75 
.1 73 
.173 
. 346 
75.5 
76 
7 6t5 
.346 
2.252 
5.375 
13.186 
14.22! 
19.262 
17.178 
12.837 
5.897 
5.029 
2.251 
.867 
.69 2 
99.39 7 
4-3)91 G AML 
Figure III. 16, STATURE AND TORSO 
BOMBARDMENT 
RATIO 4 OFFICERS: 6 ENLISTED MEN 
PERCENTAGES 
TORSO CIRCUMFERENCE 
STATURE 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
60 
.5 
0.10 
Oil 
0.21 
61 
0.10 
0.10 
.5 
62 
0.11 
0.10 
0.10 
0.10 
0.10 
0.11 
0.62 
.5 
0.11 
0.10 
0.11 
032 
63 
0.10 
0.11 
0.21 
0.11 
0.53 
.5 
0.11 
0.21 
0.32 
64 
0.10 
0.20 
0.21 
0.63 
Oil 
0.11 
1. 36 
.5 
0.11 
0.31 
061 
0.20 
0.19 
0.11 
0.11 
1.64 
65 
0.20 
0.2C 
0.40 
043 
0.11 
134 
.5 
0.10 
0.5C 
0.63 
0.52 
1.02 
082 
3.59 
66 
0.10 
0 62 
1.01 
0.31 
061 
0 11 
2.76 
.5 
0.1 1 
0.21 
0.71 
III 
0.51 
103 
021 
010 
3.99 
67 
032 
0.21 
084 
1.06 
082 
062 
0.21 
0.21 
4.29 
.5 
0.10 
0.31 
041 
125 
237 
1.55 
2.17 
073 
0.19 
0.10 
0.10 
9.28 
68 
020 
0.73 
0.71 
172 
159 
0.94 
0.71 
0.10 
0.11 
6 81 
.5 
0.31 
1 27 
144 
134 
1.73 
081 
0.40 
on 
741 
.69 
0.11 
0.41 
163 
091 
137 
1.23 
0.10 
0.21 
OH 
6.08 
.5 
0.11 
019 
1.22 
3.25 
255 
254 
265 
142 
070 
0.10 
14.73 
70 
0.10 
0.20 
050 
140 
172 
163 
021 
020 
019 
6.15 
.5 
0,11 
Oil 
062 
1 01 
1.35 
133 
089 
032 
032 
6.06 
7 1 
0 30 
1.23 
130 
154 
079 
0.81 
597 
.5 
0.19 
0.10 
0.31 
2.05 
173 
1.63 
0.70 
0.10 
031 
0.11 
723 
72 
020 
040 
059 
0.30 
0.11 
0.19 
179 
.5 
0.11 
041 
049 
074 
040 
0.11 
2.26 
73 
01 1 
Oil 
0 10 
040 
0 68 
079 
040 
0.10 
Oil 
0.10 
2 90 
.5 
019 
030 
0.10 
010 
069 
74 
0.10 
010 
0.10 
0.11 
0.19 
0.10 
0.70 
.5 
010 
029 
0.10 
0.49 
75 
0.10 
0.10 
.5 
0.10 
0 10 
0.20 
76 
.5 
0.10 
010 
052 
062 
2.36 
517 
11.32 
15.68 
16.01 
1723 
1455 
845 
5.15 
133 
0.83 
070 
010 
10002 
AMI- 
Figure III, 17. TOTAL ISSUE 
RATIO I FIGHTER PILOT: 9.2 TOTAL BOMBARDMENT 
STATURE ANDTORSO CIRCUMFERENCE 
PERCENTAGES 
TORSO CIRCUMFERENCE 
STATURE 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
60 
.5 
009 
010 
0.19 
61 
0.09 
0.09 
.5 
62 
0.10 
0.09 
0.09 
009 
0.09 
0.10 
0.56 
.5 
0.10 
0.09 
0.10 
0.29 
63 
007 
0.04 
0.10 
0.21 
0.10 
0.52 
.5 
0.03 
0.10 
0 18 
031 
64 
009 
0.03 
0.24 
024 
056 
0,10 
0.10 
136 
.5 
0 10 
006 
031 
055 
0.18 
0.18 
0.10 
0.10 
1.58 
65 
024 
0.42 
0.38 
0,13 
0.03 
1.20 
.5 
009 
062 
055 
III 
0.74 
0.03 
3.14 
66 
061 
104 
044 
0.55 
0.10 
0.03 
2.77 
.5 
0.10 
021 
086 
0.1 3 
058 
1.01 
0.24 
0.09 
4.22 
67 
0.03' 
0.34 
024 
0.96 
109 
090 
064 
0.18 
0.18 
4.56 
.5 
0.03 
0.09 
0.42 
040 
1.36 
237 
1 69 
2.03 
0.68 
0.21 
0.09 
0D9 
9.46 
68 
018 
073 
0.73 
159 
159 
102 
0.67 
0.12 
0.10 
6.73 
.5 
0 31 
1.27 
148 
1.39 
169 
073 
036 
0.10 
7.33 
69 
0.13 
0.40 
1.65 
095 
1.33 
1.13 
0.09 
0.21 
0.10 
5.99 
.5 
0.13 
025 
1.16 
3.18 
252 
2 38 2.58 
1.34 
0.67 
0.15 
14.36 
70 
— 
009 
018 
058 
1.47 
1.65 
1.59 
027 
0.21 
0.18 
6.22 
.5 
0.10 
0.10 
0.61 
1.08 
1.36 
153 
085 
0.34 
0.31 
6.28 
71 
0.34 
1.16 
1.31 
1.41 
0.78 
0.73 
0.03 
5.76 
.5 
0.18 
0.12 
044 
1.96 
1.69 
1.52 
0.76 
0.15 
0.28 
0.10 
0.03 
7.23 
72 
— 
— 
0.03 
006 
0.27 
043 
0.60 
0 28 
010 
0.21 
1.98 
.5 
0.10 
0.37 
046 
0.71 
036 
003 
0.13 
2.16 
73 
0.10 
0.10 
0.09 
0.35 
0.66 072 
0.40 
0.12 
0.10 
0.09 
2.73 
5 
0.18 
0.28 
0.09 
0.09 
0.64 
74 
0.09 
0.09 
0.09 
0.10 
0.18 
0.09 
0.64 
.5 
0.12 
0.27 
0.09 
0.48 
75 
0.12 
0.12 
.5 
0.09 
0.09 
0.18 
76 
.5 
0.09 
0.09 
0.50 
063 
1.81 
542 
1139 
I59C 
1635 
1686 
14.17 
8.11 
4.98 
1.44 
086 
064 
0.03 
0.09 
99.17 
/)ML- 
Figure XU, IB. CHEST AND SLEEVE 
HEAVY BOMBARDMENT 
RATIO 6 ENLISTED MEN > 4 OFFICERS 
PERCENTAGES 
SLEEVE 
CHEST 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
32 
0.21. 
0.10 
0.10 
0.41 
33 
0.19 
0.19 
0.41 
0.20 
0.31 
1.30 
34 
0.31 
0.40 
1.66 
1.82 
1.39 
0.19 
5.77 
35 
030 
092 
2.86 
3.38 
386 
1.18 
0.32 
12.82 
36 
0.20 
1.14 
2.90 
6.92 
6.04 
2.18 
0.20 
19.58 
37 
0.11 
1.25 
3.23 
7.10 
6.72 
3.55 
0.98 
0.10 
23.04 
38 
Oil 
0.52 
2.08 
4.82 
4.92 
3.08 
0.82 
0.10 
16.45 
39 
0.11 
0.81 
2.76 
3.80 
2.75 
0.69 
0.10 
11.02 
40 
0.21 
0.63 
1.12 
145 
1.28 
0.30 
0.10 
5.09 
41 
0.32 
0.50 
0.83 
1-01 
038 
3.04 
42 
0.20 
0.20 
041 
0.10 
030 
1.21 
43 
0.11 
0.10 
0.10 
.31 
1.43 
4.84 
15.10 
28.93 
29.73 
15.52 
4.09 
0.30 
0.10 
100.04 
4333 -F- AML 
Figure III, 19. CHEST AND SLEEVE 
TOTAL ISSUE 
RATIO I FIGHTER PILOT :9.2T0TAL BOMBARDMENT PERCENTAGES 
SLEEVE 
CHEST 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
32 
0.18 
0.09 
0.09 
0.36 
33 
0.18 
0.21 
0.43 
0.27 
0.34 
1.43 
34 
0.28 
0.43 
1.79 
1.78 
1.40 
0.18 
5.86 
35 
0.28 
0.95 
2.85 
3.56 
3.87 
1.15 
0.28 
12.94 
36 
0.21 
l.ll 
2.84 
697 
5.94 
2.29 
0.21 
19.57 
37 
0.10 
1.13 
3.26 
6.86 
7.04 
3.81 
1.10 
0.03 
23.33 
38 
0.10 
0.52 
1.94 
4.70 
4.82 
3.11 
0.83 
0.12 
16.14 
39 
0.13 
0.79 
2.65 
3.78 
264 
0.67 
0.09 
10.75 
40 
0.18 
0.62 
1.10 
1.57 
1.25 
0.31 
0.15 
5.18 
41 
0.28 
0.49 
0.77 
0.98 
0.39 
0.06 
0.09 
3.06 
42 
0.18 
0.18 
0.36 
0.09 
0.31 
1.12 
43 
0.10 
0.09 
0.09 
0.28 
44 
0.03 
0.03 
1.33 
4.75 
14.98 
28.66 
29.89 
15.68 
4.22 
0.45 
0.09 
100.05 
4303-B - AML 
Figure III, 20. SLEEVE AND CHEST 
VERY HEAVY BOMBARDMENT 
SLEEVE 
CHEST 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
32 
.352 
.352 
33 
.352 
.528 
.704 
.176 
•528 
.176 
2.464 
34 
.176 
.176 
.704 
1.584 
1232 
1.056 
176 
5.104 
35 
.176 
.176 
.704 
1.056 
5.105 
3.697 
1.936 
528 
.176 
13.554 
36 
.176 
2.112 
3.345 
4.577 
2.464 
1.056 
13.730 
37 
.704 
1.584 
4577 
5.80S 
3.697 
1.936 
.528 
18.835 
38 
.352 
1.584 
1.408 
5.633 
4.929 
2.288 
.704 
352 
17.250 
39 
.176 
880 
680 
4.577 
3697 
1.936 
1.232 
.352 
13.730 
40 
528 
1.408 
1.760 
1.408 
528 
.352 
5.984 
4 1 
.1 76 
528 
1.056 
1.408 
.880 
.704 
.176 
4.928 
42 
.528 
.176 
1.056 
1.176 
•352 
.176 
2 .464 
43 
.176 
.352 
352 
.880 
44 
.3.52 
.176 
.176 
.704 
.176 
.352 
2.816 
8.976 
20595 
29.045 
22707 
10208 
4.048 
•352 
.528 
.176 
99.979 
4391 F AML 
Figure III, 21. WAIST AND INSEAM 
HEAVY BOMBARDMENT 
RATIO 6 ENLISTED MEN :4 OFFICERS 
PERCENTAGES 
INSEAM 
WAIST 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
26 
0.10 
0.10 
0.20 
27 
0.20 
0.11 
0.10 
0.4 1 
28 
0.10 
0.21 
0.51 
0.51 
1.49 
l.ll 
0.21 
0.17 
4.31 
29 
0.10 
0.40 
1.02 
1.52 
3.05 
2.54 
2.11 
0.67 
0.29 
11.70 
30 
0.19 
0.31 
1.34 
1.95 
4.29 
5.99 
4.72 
1.62 
0.61 
0.10 
21.12 
31 
031 
1.23 
3.39 
4.99 
6.26 
448 
1.84 
1.13 
0.11 
23.74 
32 
0.11 
0.11 
0.82 
2.69 
3.26 
3.88 
4.89 
2.81 
1.01 
on 
0.10 
19.79 
33 
0.11 
052 
1.31 
2.26 
1.51 
1.85 
1.52 
0.10 
0.10 
9.28 
34 
0.11 
0.40 
0.60 
1.03 
1.44 
1.02 
0.10 
0.17 
4.87 
35 
0.19 
0.11 
042 
0.81 
0.28 
0.58 
0.28 
2.67 
36 
0.30 
0.30 
0.20 
0.10 
0.90 
37 
0.11 
0.11 
0.42 
0.11 
0.75 
38 
0.11 
0.11 
39 
0.11 
0.10 
0.21 
0.50 
1.56 
6.05 
12.08 
20.31 
24.96 
20.77 
9.55 
3.76 
0.32 
0.10 
0.10 
100.06 
083 aa (vi (_ 
Figure HI, 22* WAIST AND INSEAM 
TOTAL ISSUE 
RATIO I FIGHTER PILOT 9,2 TOTAL BOMBARDMENT 
PERCENTAGES 
INSEAM 
WAIST 
27 
28 
29 
30 
3 1 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
26 
0.09 
0.09 
0.03 
0.21 
27 
0.24 
0.13 
0.15 
0.52 
28 
0.09 
0.21 
0.58 
0.71 
1.71 
1.23 
0.27 
0.19 
4.99 
29 
0.09 
0.36 
0.98 
1.71 
3.16 
2.85 
2.22 
0.79 
0.27 
12.43 
30 
0.18 
0.28 
1.26 
2.03 
4.35 
5.97 
4.74 
1.75 
0.61 
0.03 
0.09 
21.29 
31 
0.28 
1.13 
3.12 
5.05 
5.98 
4.37 
1.90 
1.10 
0.10 
23.03 
32 
0.10 
0.13 
0.77 
2.62 
3.22 
3.74 
4.60 
2.80 
0.95 
0.10 
0.09 
19.12 
33 
0.13 
0.46 
1.38 
2.11 
1.56 
188 
1.43 
0.09 
0.09 
9.13 
34 
0.36 
0.58 
0.92 
1.38 
1.01 
0.25 
0.19 
4.69 
35 
0.18 
0.10 
0.40 
0.76 
0.26 
0.57 
026 
0.03 
2.59 
36 
0.28 
0.31 
0.18 
0.09 
0.86 
37 
0.10 
0.10 
0.37 
0.10 
0.67 
38 
0.10 
0.10 
39 
0.10 
0.09 
0.10 
046 
1.37 
5.64 
12.12 
20.44 
24.98 
20.62 
10.00 
3.66 
0.35 
0.09 
0.09 
99.82 
4383 -D - AML 
Figure HI, ?3. INSEAM AND WAIST 
VERY HEAVY BOMBARDMENT 
INSEAM 
WAIST 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
26 
.521 
.1 73 
.694 
2 7 
.173 
.347 
.347 
.347 
.173 
1.387 
28 
.347 
.695 
.52 1 
1.565 
.869 
.347 
.173 
.173 
4JB90 
29 
.173 
.3 47 
.869 
L043 
2.782 
3.130 
.869 
2260 
321 
.173 
12.167 
30 
.521 
1.565 
3478 
330A 
5043 
3.30' 
JB69 
.173 
18.2 57 
31 
.347 
.695 
1.391 
4.000 
5.217 
5.217 
2.782 
1217 
.173 
21.039 
32 
.173 
.173 
1.217 
2434 
4521 
2956 
2.434 
.521 
.521 
347 
15.297 
33 
.347 
.521 
.869 
.869 
3304 
2.434 
2.086 
.521 
.173 
11.124 
34 
.173 
.173 
.347 
1.391 
1.913 
1565 
1.043 
.521 
7.126 
35 
.347 
.521 
.521 
1.043 
.869 
.173 
3.474 
36 
.521 
.521 
1.042 
.173 
*.3 47 
2.605 
37 
.173 
.173 
.347 
.173 
.173 
1.039 
38 
.173 
.173 
173 
.519 
39 
.173 
.173 
.346 
40 
.173 
.173 
.173 
1.387 
3992 
8.689 
17.037 
2660 
2068? 
15.122 
4343 
1.386 
.347 
99.76 4 
4391 D AML 
Figure r T, 2h. GLOVES 
The sizing program as it related to gloves was not completed by the con- 
clusion of World War II. Progress is evidenced by the fact that all types of 
gloves had been size tested and procurement schedules drawn up. Likewise, the 
mechanical means of adequate inspection of the stretched v.ridth of gloves in 
the form of an inside caliper, known as a glove-size gauge was developed. By 
this device the amount of pressure applied is uniform, assuring a constant 
stretch tension in the measurenent of the glove, thus eliminating the variable 
factors of strength and skill of the inspector. Figures III, 25 and III, 26. 
But the glove manufacture, itself, is complicated by alternatives which apply 
to measurement and cutting: 
1) Two types of measurement scale may be used involving the English 
inch and the Paris inch. 
2) Two types of hand measurement may be used, circumference with the 
hand flexed and circumference with the hand extended. 
3) Two types of gloves, one in which measurement is taken with the 
leather fully stretched and the other in which stretch measurement 
cannot be used (block or clicker cut gloves). 
Combinations of these might also occur; specified finished dimensions in 
English rule, leather dimensions in French rule, etc. Add to this a large 
number of manufacturers working on relatively small, short time contracts, plus 
serious shortage of well trained inspectors and the outlook for efficient size 
control is dark. 
Hand measurements taken on Army Air Force flyers consisted of a length and 
a breadth dimension. Hand circumference, which is assumed to be the most im- 
portant measurement for glove size in a scheme of general issue, was found to 
be highly correlated with hand breadth (',9U±«02) making possible the direct 
use of the latter measurement for size scheduling. In size testing both hand 
circumference and hand breadth were taken on all subjects, the former used to 
assess glove size in relation to hand size, and the latter as an index of how 
closely the test series wras approximating the range of hand size found in the 
large series. Figure III, 2?. 
The earliest work on size testing of gloves indicated serious difficulties 
which shall be discussed as they apply to particular types. 
F-2 and F-2A Gloves: Like other electrically heated clothing, these items 
were critical throughout production and the usual difficulty was experienced 
in obtaining samples for use in size analysis. The first size test, performed 
on two gloves (sizes 9 and 10), the only ones which could be spared, clearly 
demonstrated that the finger circumference dimensions in the size 9 were much 
too small even for some size 8 hands. This size anomaly was brought to the 
attention of the agencies concerned, and, with the assurance that it would be 
corrected immediately, a scheduling wras provided. irur:, I I, 25* 
APPENDIX I 
GloV* ?lze Gau<?« (Aero Medical Laboratory) 
Working Parts Figure r TI, 26. HAND BREADTH /HAND CIRCUMFERENCE 
44 20A AML 
Figure III, 27. Some five months later, no production samples having been received on 
this "critical” item in the meantime, information from issue points proved 
that the required change never had been made. It was explained that this 
change was to be incorporated in another revision which would result in a new 
type of pattern and that production of the new pattern had been delayed. This 
experience pointed up the difficulties of inadequate follow-up to insure prompt 
remedial action. 
At the same time it was learned that the F-2 scheduling had been applied 
to procurement of every type of glove being manufactured for the Army Air 
Forces, apparently on the naive assumption that a schedule for one glove could 
equally well be applied to any other. A new scheduling was provided with the 
hope of balancing off with the original production scheduling, and recommenda- 
tions were made for revision of the stretched width of the leather shell. How- 
ever, within a few months of the end of hostilities in Europe, production re- 
ports were far out of line with the recommended schedule. 
B-3 and B-3A Gloves: Si?e test of the B-3 glove on ninety-three male sub- 
ject took a labelled glove size corresponding 
to their hand size, fifty-five chose a glove from one to two labelled sizes 
larger than their hand size. With this in mind, as a preliminary to siz® test 
and procurement scheduling of B-3A gloves, an extensive examination was con- 
ducted on production size samples to determine the degree of adherence to spec- 
ified dimensions. Of forty gloves, representing eight manufacturers, twenty- 
two were found whose leather measurements were not within the tolerance for 
their labelled size. 
On the basis of this examination six pairs of gloves of each size were 
drawn from the production run of every manufacturer and similarly examined. 
This procedure verified the results of the previous examination, namely, that 
the gloves were more frequently outside than within the acceptable tolerance. 
Additional check was made at a specialized depot and steps we re taken to tighten 
up on inspection requirements. 
During the inspection one set of each type of B-3A glove (PK, Guage, and 
Deerskin) was selected for conformance to minimum size in leather measurements. 
These were used in a size test which formed the basis for recommended procure- 
ment scheduling, keanwhile specification change for finished stretched width 
of the gloves was initiated. 
A-llA Gloves: Investigation of this type of glove followed the same lines 
as than of the B-'jA. The first inspection showed that twenty-eight out of forty- 
four gloves, representing six manufacturers, were outside specified tolerances. 
Similar production draws were made for further inspection and a size test was 
conducted on minimum size gloves. 
A-9A Gloves: The first size test performed revealed that (1) the gloves 
did not conform to specified measurements, and (2) in the set examined, the 
thumb of the medium size gloves was much too small. Further werk at a later date on a series of gloves indicated that the specified measurements still were 
not being approximated. The inadequate thumb size was also found in other 
gloves of this type and action was initiated to correct it. 
D-3 and D-3A Gloves: The first size test which employed D-3 gloves gave 
a curious distribution of glove size over a range of hand size; Small-0, fed- 
ium-7, 1 odium or Large (no choice)-6, Large-7. At the time this could be at- 
tributed to (1) inadequate size grading or (2) a wrool insert that was too heavy. 
A later test on D-5A gloves with lighter wool inserts placed the blame on the 
size grading abetted by the fact that, being a cold weather glove, individuals 
preferred a relatively loose fit. This was further supported by the shortages 
which had developed in stock as evidenced by the fact that only the large size 
glove was being procured for some time before the end of hostilities. An extra- 
large size glove was also being considered for procurement. 
A review of what has been done about glove size in relation to hand size 
and its ramifications into glove design and function during the war leaves a 
feeling that little of basic value has been accomplished. The problem was dealt 
with as one of covering hands with gloves already standardized and in production 
rather than that of first determining what the functional and size requirements 
of hands were and then setting out to satisfy them. Certainly a serious recon- 
sideration of the entire problem is needed before any sizeable glove procure- 
ment is made again. Such an evaluation should take into account the following 
problems: 
1) Functional requirements — what is the glove intended for, what oper- 
ations must be performed with it? Considerations such as these should 
vitally influence design, 
2) Size requirements — is hand circumference the only measurement that 
need be taken into account in a scheme for general issue; are hand and 
finger length equally important for an efficient glove? 
3) Issue requirements — granted a functionally efficient and we 11-si zed 
glove, what steps can be taken to insure that every man is properly 
fitted at issue? 
U) Inspection requirements — the development of methods of inspection 
that can be rapidly and effectively employed by relatively unskilled 
individuals to insure correct manufacturing practise. The glove-size 
gauge is an answer but only one answer to this problem. FOOTGEAR 
I.,:ost Army Air Force footgear have not required individual fittings in 
length and width. Fit was generally specified by a range of foot or shoe 
size to be covered. This reduced the work in this field to manageable pro- 
portions requiring only a collection of information on sizes of shoes worn 
for an adquate sample of flying oersonnel, Figures III, 28; III, 29; III, 30; 
III, 31* Foot length and breadth were taken on the Cadet-Gunner anthropo- 
metric series and, later, on those groups measured for analysis of clothing 
size distribution, but plots of these dimensions against shoe lengths and 
widths worn indicated poor predictability of shoe size from foot dimensions. 
As an example, it was found that feet varying 1,U inches in length wore the 
same labelled length size of shoe, v.hile this could form the basis for an 
interesting study of shoe size in relation to foot size, it had little prac- 
tical value for the problem of scheduling sizes of boots and inserts. 
Electrically Heated Footgear: The work, of size testing and scheduling 
unfortunately repeats the pattern outlined above for electrically heated 
clothing. The F-2 insert was scheduled on the basis of design specifications 
for size coverage alone since, at the time, production was being expedited. 
Several months later two independently conducted size tests proved that the 
inserts were fitting larger feet than the design specifications call for, and 
a rescheduling was necessary. Toward the end of production, routine size 
check of manufacturers which had just been initiated picked up a design con- 
struction fault which caused the toe of the insert to buckle inward effectively 
reducing the size of foot comfortably accommodated. This is again a case in 
which early haste in production caused later delay in procurements and, con- 
sequently, issue. 
Q-l Electrically Heated Insert: The primary scheduling of this overshoe 
was made on the basis of experimental samples without wiring installed. These 
samples were assured to be exact models of the production inserts. However, 
the first size test of actual production inserts revealed that the experimental 
samples were a good half size larger. Change in procurement scheduling was 
necessary. This taught a further lesson of procedure in size analysis* never 
permit any item to be used in size test as a basis for procurement scheduling 
unless it is a production model or the equivalent. The use of design specifi- 
cations and experimental samples for analysis of size coverage both have oroved 
to be misleading. 
A-9 Flying Boot: Items of clothing already out of production can also be 
of importance for sizing work and should be carefully checked for adequacy be- 
fore re-issue as evidenced by the A-9 overshoe. This boot was discontinued be- 
fore the program of size analysis was initiated. However, surpluses of all 
sizes were available in stock, and it was thought that these could be issued 
for wear over the high top GI shoe as a lighter weight substitute for the A-6 
and a-6a shearling boot. A light ■weight boot was desired in the Pacific 
-theater. SHOE SIZE DISTRIBUTION —FIGHTER PILOTS 
IN PERCENTAGES 
BREADTH 
SIZE 
AAA 
AA 
A 
B 
C 
D 
E 
EE 
EEE 
FIGHTER 
5 
5 1/2 
0.32 
0.32 
0.64 
6 
1.28 
0.32 
1.60 
6 1/2 
0.32 
1.92 
1.60 
0.32 
0.64 
4.80 
7 
0.96 
1.29 
2.89 
0.64 
5.78 
7 1/2 
0.32 
0.32 
1.92 
7.07 
9.63 
8 
0.64 
3.21 
5.14 
1.92 
0.32 
11.23 
8 1/2 
2.25 
7.40 
6.75 
0.96 
17.36 
9 
0.96 
064 
5.79 
5.14 
0.96 
13.49 
9 1/2 
0.64 
0.64 
2S9 
5.49 
8.03 
0.32 
18.01 
10 
0.32 
1.61 
3.53 
1.61 
7.07 
10 1/2 
1.61 
1.28 
2.56 
0.32 
5.77 
II 
0.96 
0.64 
0.32 
0.64 
2.56 
II 1/2 
0.32 
0.32 
0.64 
1.28 
12 
0.32 
0.32 
0.64 
12 1/2 
13 
13 1/2 
14 
14 1/2 
0.64 
3.84 
11.88 
3247 
43.99 
5.76 
1.28 
99.86 
4383-C - AML 
Figure III, ?.o SHOE SIZE DISTRIBUTION-BOMBARDMENT 
RATIO 4HEAVY• I MEDIUM 
IN PERCENTAGES 
breadth 
SIZE 
AAA 
AA 
A 
B 
C 
D 
E 
EE 
EEE 
BOMBARD- 
MENT 
5 
0.10 
0.10 
5 1/2 
O.ll 
0.10 
0.10 
0.31 
6 
0.20 
0.72 
0.31 
1.23 
6 1/2 
O.ll 
0.10 
1.13 
0.41 
O.ll 
1.86 
7 
0.31 
1.03 
2.20 
1.26 
0.52 
5.32 
7 1/2 
0.52 
1.56 
3.05 
041 
041 
5.95 
8 
0.20 
0.72 
3.32 
4.58 
148 
0.72 
11.02 
8 1/2 
0.31 
1.99 
4.16 
7.38 
1.13 
0.93 
O.ll 
16.01 
9 
1.16 
1.89 
5.19 
5.51 
1.67 
0.31 
15.73 
9 1/2 
0.10 
O.ll 
1.78 
530 
6.21 
1.34 
O.ll 
14.95 
10 
0.61 
261 
3.34 
4.67 
0.62 
0.20 
12.05 
10 1/2 
0.10 
0.83 
1.03 
2.43 
2.38 
0.72 
0.20 
7.69 
II 
0.10 
0.31 
0.72 
1.65 
1.03 
0.40 
4.21 
II. 1/2 
0.42 
051 
0.82 
0.41 
2.16 
12 
0.11 
0.30 
0.40 
0.10 
0.91 
12 1/2 
0.11 
0.10 
0.21 
13 
13 1/2 
14 
14 1/2 
0.10 
0.10 
0.31 
0.31 
4.06 
12.48 
29.71 
39.47 
9.85 
3.51 
6.ii 
99.81 
d383-E-aml 
Figure III, 29. SHOE SIZE DISTRIBUTION-TOTAL ISSUE 
RATIO I FIGHTER PILOT •*9.2 TOTAL BOMBARDMENT 
IN PERCENTAGES 
BREADTH 
SIZE 
AAA 
AA 
A 
B 
C 
D 
E 
EE 
EEE 
5 
0.05 
0.05 
5 1/2 
0.06 
0.21 
0.05 
0.16 
0.48 
6 
0.10 
1.00 
0.32 
1.42 
6 1/2 
' 
0.06 
0.16 
1.01 
1.36 
0.36 
0.38 
3.33 
7 
064 
1.16 
2.54 
0.95 
0.26 
5.55 
7 1/2 
0.16 
0.42 
1.74 
5.06 
0.20 
0.20 
7.78 
8 
0.10 
0.6 8 
3.26 
4.86 
1.70 
0.52 
11.12 
8 1/2 
0.16 
2.12 
5.78 
7.06 
1.04 
0.46 
006 
16.68 
9 
1.06 
1.26' 
5.49 
5.32 
1.32 
0.16 
14.61 
9 1/2 
0.37 
0.38 
2.34 
5.40 
7.12 
0.83 
0.06 
16.50 
10 
0.46 
2.11 
3.44 
3.14 
0.31 
0.10 
9.56 
10 1/2 
0.05 
0.42 
1.32 
1.86 
247 
0.52 
0.10 
6.74 
1 1 
0.05 
0.64 
068 
0.98 
0.84 
0.20 
3.39 
II 1/2 
0.37 
0.26 
0.57 
0.52 
1.72 
12 
0.06 
0.16 
0.15 
0.20 
0.21 
0.78 
12 1/2 
0.06 
0.05 
0.11 
13 
13 1/2 
14 
14 1/2 
0.05 
0.05 
0.16 
0.48 
3.97 
12.19 
31.10 
41.71 
7.80 
2.40 
0.06 
99.87 
4383- aml 
Figure HI, 30* SHOE LENGTH AND WIDTH 
VERY HEAVY BOMBARDMENT 
WIDTH 
LENGTH 
AA 
A 
B 
C 
D 
E 
EE 
EEE 
5 
.176 
.176 
5 1/2 
.176 
.176 
.352 
6 
.528 
.528 
6 1/2 
1.408 
.704 
.176 
2.288 
7 
1.584 
1.408 
1.408 
.176 
4.576 
7 1/2 
.352 
.176 
2.112 
4.577 
.528 
.176 
7.921 
8 
.176 
.176 
1.408 
3.345 
4.577 
.528 
.352 
10.562 
8 1/2 
.352 
352 
2.288 
3.873 
6.514 
1.408 
.704 
15.491 
9 
.352 
2.816 
5.809 
5.281 
1.232 
15.490 
9 1/2 
.528 
3.1 69 
4.753 
6.161 
.704 
.704 
16.019 
10 
.704 
1.760 
4.049 
2.992 
.704 
10.209 
10 1/2 
.176 
1.584 
3.345 
2.288 
.528 
.176 
8.097 
II 
.352 
• 528 
.704 
.880 
1.056 
.528 
4.048 
II 1/2 
.704 
.352 
1.056 
.352 
2.464 
12 
.176 
.352 
.880 
.176 
1.584 
12 1/2 
.176 
.176 
13 
13 1/2 
14 
14 1/2 
1.0 56 
3.168 
14.961 
31.15 6 
37.670 
9.152 
2.640 
.176 
99.981 
4-3 9'IB AML 
Figure III, ;i. The four sizes of A-9 overshoe were examined with a view to adaptation 
for this purpose, and it was found that approximately QJ>% of men could be 
accommodated wearing the GI shoe under it. If the Q-l electrically heated 
overshoe were worn also, the percent accommodated was reduced to 50* But 
this was not all of the story. A serious difficulty arose from the fact that 
the A-9 overshoe was never meant to be worn with conventional type foot gear. 
Since it was originally built for use with the F-l, and F-2 types of insert, 
the sole was constructed with an arch support and raised heel to supply the 
features of conventional foot support. When the GI shoe was superimposed upon 
this formed sole, the heel of the foot was raised as much as 2 1/I4 inches above 
the floor. In addition, the built-in arch support caused the foot to roll out- 
ward to the side. I'ost subjects objected strenuously to this feeling and said 
that they would not want to wear the boot if anything else were available. In 
the light of these facts, recommendation was made that the overshoe not be used, 
but that if there were a requirement for a lighter boot, it should be developed 
for specific size coverages and functional conditions. 
A-6 Shearling Boot; Following the lead of the A-9 overshoe, the A-6 boot 
was initially procured in four sizes with no check to determine what ranges of 
shoe size these accommodated. Thus when wearing of the high top GI shoe for 
flights became a requirement in most theaters of operations and Jater still, 
when the Q-l insert was designed to cover this shoe, additional sizes, (XX-L, 
XXX-L) had to be procured. Routine size checking of samples drawn from manu- 
facturers’ production was done with GI shoes representing top size for accommo- 
dation as indicated on the label. Due to the start on an inadequate number 
of sizes, the larger sizes of the boot remained a critical production item. 
SllitARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
It cannot be stated definitely how successful the size control program 
was from the standpoint of issue, for the means of checking it through on 
every item with which it was concerned were not available. In those few cases 
where circumstances were favorable and some check was possible (e, g, helmets), 
the results were very encouraging. 
At its inception the program was faced with the task of bringing some uni- 
formity into a number of types of clothing badly needed for issue, made accord- 
ing to no standard patterns and therefore not standardized as to size, with the 
addition that little was known about the actual size of the men to be fitted. 
As a result, the first attempts were of a stop-gap nature, minor changes and 
compromises designed to hold to a minimum interference with production. In 
some cases this primary obstacle was never successfully hurdled, witness elec- 
trically heated clothing and its recurring difficulties. 
As new types of clothing were developed and opoortunity was offered for 
the application of size techniques from the design stage onward, there was 
evidence of sharply decreasing variability both within a single manufacturer's 
production and between manufacturers. This holds out a prospect for more con- 
59 trolled issue procedure, hence more reliable issue reports which can be re- 
applied to procurement schedules. 
In the final analysis, it is felt that whatever happened in the size con- 
trol program during the war is of little moment unless mistakes that have been 
made and difficulties encountered add up to a body of experience which can and 
will be applied in the future. The outline of a method culled from this exper- 
ience is presented below. Some of it has already been organized and is func- 
tioning, other phases are suggestive of organization for the more efficient 
handling of the problem. 
1. Design Control. The function of design is now and should be in the 
future an Army Air ?orce responsibility. The present organization has handled 
the problem well and might well carry it on in the postwar period whatever the 
demands on clothing. 
2. Size Control* This falls into four major divisions: 
a") Knowledge of the population to be fitted: This changes from time 
to time, and the samples drawn from it at one period, such as the present with 
its greatly expanded organization, cannot be applied uncritically to a later 
organization perhaps selected on a different basis. The personnel required for 
surveys of this type need not be great in number or extensively trained. Any 
man capable of being trained to take tailors1 measurements and of accurately 
recording them can do the work. 
But only half of the job is done when the survey is completed, for the in- 
formation must be put into a useful form. The most effective way of doing this 
is the percentage chart which defines the population in terms of frequencies in 
any two dimensions (e. g. chest and sleeve, waist and inseam). These charts 
are so constructed that the percentages represent occurrences up to and includ- 
ing the number Represented. Thus, thirty-six inches in chest equals the per- 
centage of individuals with a measurement ranging from 55* 1 up to and including 
36 inches, not a distribution ranging from 55*5 to 36.5 inches. This is dic- 
tated by the functional design of clothing. A size 36 jacket is made to fit a 
man with a chest circumference of 36 inches as a top, not 35*3 to 36,5 inches. 
b) Fitting trials are necessary in this procedure and must be carried 
out with a knowledge of the size of the population already available. This can 
be supplied by the percentage charts which inform the tester both what range 
of body size he must expect to cover and how he can most effectively spot his 
test subjects to cover the range. 
Analysis of the fit of a garment can be accomplished by any individual who 
is reasonably observant-and knows what the garment was designed for. This lat- 
ter aspect is very important, for unless the tester is cognizant of such mat- 
ters as what is to be worn under an article of clothing, under what conditions 
of activity will it be worn, with what other clothing must it be integrated, 
etc., he is not competent to conduct a valid size test. Fitting trials should always be accomplished upon clothing which represents 
the final design stage so that later modifications causing an alteration of fit 
are ruled out. If a change is contemplated while a garment is in production, 
fitting trials should be conducted immediately. Experience has amply demonstra- 
ted that mere assurances that the change will not affect size are not to be de- 
pended upon and that speed of production at any price does not pay in terms of 
items available for issue. 
c) Standardization control is essential and may be attained by cutting 
standard patterns from, a tested master pattern. The system now functioning op- 
erates according to this plan, and the Army Air Forces should never again put 
itself in the position of depending upon individual manufacturers’ ideas of what 
constitutes a size whether specified check measurements for the finished product 
are available or not. This old system is complicated, sloppy, and expensive. 
d) Size checks are the final test of the developmental process leading 
from design to issue. Its functions are best maintained if they are centralized 
at the point where steps can be taken most effectively for corrective action. 
It has become obvious during the war that resident inspectors, if they are hand- 
ling a procurement of any size, have more than enough to do if they properly 
inspect details of construction and workmanship. To burden them additionally 
with the duty of check measurements reduces overall efficiency. 
■What is needed to maintain an effective size check with respect to personnel 
required and their functions? This, of course, will vary with the size of the 
procurements but will be discussed here frooh the standpoint of the immediate 
past. 
1. At least two individuals should be continually available for the routine 
process of check measurements, analyzing those, reporting, contacting proper 
agencies when corrective action is needed, and, equally important, following up 
to be sure that such action is taken expeditiously, Many difficulties encoun- 
tered in the past can be directly attributed to a lack in this last field of 
activity. 
2. At least one person should be available to maintain liaison with other 
agencies involved in the entire process from design to issue. 
3* At least one person should be available on a part time basis to check 
Purchase Orders, Production Reports, etc., to determine the relation of procure- 
ment and production to schedules. He would also serve as an observer on all 
field tests of personal equipment where size function is involved. RECOMMENDED. percentages FOR cud thing pro cure lent and issue 
The following recommended procurement and issue schedulings, an excerpt 
from the Personal Equipment Officers1 Handbook, are presented as an overall 
picture of the distribution of sizes of Army Air Force clothing as predicted 
from the surveys of body size of flying personnel. These percentages represent 
a sampling of the population concerned during World War II, and they should not 
be projected into postwar use unless a careful check survey is done to determine 
their validity. They can afford a basis of comparison with future issues when 
such data are available. 
Listed below are the types of flying clothing now in production, and being 
issued. The ranges of dimensions to be accommodated are suggestive, not manda- 
tory. In general, better fits will result if these ranges of measurements are 
followed, but individual oases will demand some deviation. 
The predicted percentages for procurement and issue are based on the per- 
formance of the items with respect to the range of body dimensions and clothing 
worn. No other consideration enters into their calculation; therefore, they 
are inevitably modified by such factors as stock overages and shortages, the type 
of population to be fitted, issue experience, etc. 
MEASUREMENTS 
Sleeve: Subject raises arm to the side until hori7ontal and bends elbow until 
upper arm and forearm form an angle of about 60°. Measurement is taken 
from the middle of the back, over the point of the elbow to the writet, 
(styloid process of the ulna). 
Chest: A circumference taken as high as possible under the arms. 
Waist: A circumference taken at the belt line just above the hip bones. 
Inseam: Subject stands erect with feet slightly parted, Measurement taken with 
end of tape snug in crotch to sole of shoe where it joins the heel. 
A cloth tape which has been checked for accuracy may be used for measuring. 
The tape must not be pulled tight in any of the measurements. 
PERCENTAGE TABLES 
The percentage tables presented below are derived from the general percentage 
distribution charts which have been discussed earlier. By testing a garments 
tolerance over a variety of the population, its fit over carefully defined groups 
may be defined by the test, and the tables are then merely the added percentages 
which have fallen into one size-fit category. K-l and L-l Light Flying Coverall 
Size 
Stature 
Chest Predicted Percentages 
Small Short 
6o.5tt-65.5H 
52M-35" 
3.82 
♦ Medium Short 
60.5n-65.5” 
36"-39" 
6.1+0 
Small Regular 
66.0t,-70.5n 
32tt-35” 
1+.58 
Medium Regular 
66.0"-70.5" 
56"-59" 
1+7.1*1 
Large Regular 
66.0"-70.5" 
I4.0 "-W 
6.62 
♦ Medium Long 
71.0"-76.5” 
}6”-39" 
18.32 
Large Long 
7l.O"-76.5" 
£ 
3 
1 
£ 
3 
3.80 
* Mon who have a chest circumference greater than 39” tut 
stature loss 
than 66” may take 
Medium Short, Medium Regular 
, or Large Regular 
, depending 
upon fit. Mon who have a chest circumference 
loss that 36" hut 
stature in excess 
of 70.3" may take 
Medium Long, Small Regular, 
or Medium Regular. 
B-15, A-ll, and B-15A»<iA411A Intermediate 
Jackets 
Siz« 
Ghost 
Sleeve Prodictod Percentages 
3k 
32"-jU" 
(Ideal Accomnodation) 
32.5” 
8.0 
36 
35"-56" 
52.5" 
32.0 
38 
37"-38" 
32.5" 
39.0 
ko 
.59 "4+0" 
35.0" 
16.0 
k2 
3U.0- 
U.0 
kk 
3U.0" 
1.0 
Trousers 
Size 
Waist 
Inseam 
Predicted Percentages 
28 
26"-28" 
Entire Range 
5.0 
30 
29"-30* 
Aooommodated 
35.0 
32 
3lf,-52" 
in Eaoh Size 
i*2.0 
$u 
33'»-3U" 
1U.0 
56 
35"-56" 
3.0 
38 
57”—58** 
1.0 
Jacket: 
F-3 and F-5A Electric Suit 
Size 
Chest 
Sleeve 
Predicted Percentages 
Small Regular 
52"-55" 
Entire Range 
20.0 
Medium Regular 
36"-39" 
Sleeve Length 
66.0 
Large Regular 
l4.0"-W 
Accommodated 
ll+.O F-5 and F-3A Electric Suit Continued 
Trouser* 
Size 
Waist 
Inseam 
Predicted Percentages 
Small Regular 
g6"-30" 
27"-31n 
16*0 
Medium Regular 
31"-}!+" 
27”-51'* 
55-0 
Large Regular 
35"-38" 
Entire Range 
5.0 
Small Long 
26"-30M 
52"-36n 
25.0 
Medium Long 
31"-3V 
32"-36" 
21.0 
Gloves 
»y\ 
»»» 
1A1A1A 
c\j t*- 
PQ 
• • • • 
O LTMTNO 
OJ ro>KM-i 
fe 
• • f • 
00 LTMTv OJ 
3 
■ , i 
r—i 
< 
CO in LTvOJ 
-d- rc\*H 
e 
to 
u 
& 
i R 
© 
•H 
CO 
8 - Smalj 
9 - M©dii 
10- Large 
11- Extre 
A-6 Heavy Boot 
Size 
Shoe Size 
Predicted Percentages 
Small 
k 1/2 - 5 1/2 
1.0 
Medium 
6 - r 
10.0 
Large 
71/2-8 1/2 
35.0 
Extra lArge 
9-10 
1+1.0 
XX- Largo 
10 1/2 - 11 l/2 
12.0 
XXX- Large 
12 - 13 
1.0 
Q-l Oversock Insert 
Size 
Shoe Size 
Predicted Percentages 
Small 
51/2-7 , 
8.82 
Medium 
7 l/2 - 8 l/2 
32.98 
Large 
9-10 
142.73 
X- Large 
10 1/2 - 11 1/2 
lU.06 
XX- Large 
12 - 15 
1,22 WOKEN'S FLYING CLOTHING 
At the time that the Women Army Service Pilot (WASP) organization was acti- 
vated and the number of Flight Nurses trained by the School of Air Evacuation 
was increasing rapidly, it was decided to obtain basic body size data on samples 
drawn from these groups. Standards for selection had already been established 
along the lines of height, weight, and age, but the frequencies and distributions 
within the groups were not known. Many problems connected with use of female 
personnel in the Army Air Forces could be anticipated and clothing requirements 
were not the least of these. 
It was not known to what extent these female specialists would be employed, 
and, rather than wait until that time when the lack of such data had become an 
obstacle to the accomplishment of these programs, surveys were undertaken immed- 
iately. Head, face, hand, and body measurements were taken on I4I4.7 women pilot 
trainees and on 152 flying nurses. Helmet and oxygen mask sizes ware calculated 
from the head and face measurements and made available; see page 25, and Figure 
III, 12, page 29. Size test of gloves was carried out, using subjects in the 
same manner as that outlined for the male population, and percentage charts. 
Figures III, 52; III, 5I+; HI, 35; HI, 36; HI, 37; HI, 38; and III, 39, were 
compiled for clothing size testing. Details of clothing size to cover the range 
of body size were worked out and communicated to the responsible agencies. Also 
for a period of time two WASP’s were assigned to the testing of various clothing 
outfits under flight conditions. 
Later the Y;ASP program was discontinued and the sizes permitted for Flight 
Nurses increased almost to the limits previously permitted for WASP’s, This 
fact made the Y/ASP data still applicable. Work was carried on in the sizing of 
nurses1 uniforms and other clothing, but procurements were small and this never 
became a major activity. 
RECOMMENDED PERCENTAGES FOR WOMEN’S FLYING CLOTHING 
Restrictions regarding size requirements for nurses in this category have 
been changed to permit sizes up to six feet tall and one hundred and sixty-five 
pounds in weight. For this reason two schedules, "light" nurses (up to 135 lbs,) 
and "heavy" nurses (up to 165 lbs," have been determined,) 
SUITS: L-l and K-l 
Size 
JACKET 
"LighFT '' 
"Heavy"$ 
Size 
SLACKS 
"Light'%~ 
"Heavy" 
12 
30.0 
13.0 
2l| 
22.0 
12.0 
Hi 
hh-o 
I4.I.O 
26 
U3.0 
31.0 
16 
17.0 
28.0 
28 
28.0 
U1.0 
18 
7.0 
II4..O 
30 
5.0 
13.0 
ko 
2.0 
3.0 
32 
2.0 
2.0 
h2 
1.0 
ik 
1.0 CAPS 
"Light" 
"Heavy" 
Size 
l/2 Sizes % 
l/2 Sizes % 
20 
2.0 
1.0 
20 l/2 
8.0 
7.0 
21 
32.0 
25.0 
21 l/2 
U1.0 
31.0 
22 
12.0 
26.0 
22 l/2 
U.0 
8.0 
23 
1.0 
2.0 
B-5A 
A-11A 
Size 
"Light” ? 
i "{feavy" % 
"Light" % 
"Heavy" /£ 
6 l/2 
22.0 
29.0 
7 
55.0 
37.0 
29.0 
22.0 
71/2 
30.0 
25.0 
1+7.0 
142.0 
8 
15.0 
11.0 
18,0 
25.0 
8 l/2 
6.0 
11.0 
GLOVES ARM LENGTH AND CHEST CIRCUMFERENCE WASP 
PERCENTAGES 
ARM 
LENGTH 
(CM.) 
CHEST (IN.) 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
ca 
43 
65.5 
045 
0.45 
66.3 
0.45 
0.22 
0.22 
022 
1.1 1 
67.1 
0.22 
0.45 
0.22 
0.89 
67.9 
0.22 
022 
0.22 
0.90 
0.22 
0.22 
0.22 
2.22 
68.7 
0.22 
0.22 
1.12 
0.22 
0.22 
022 
0.45 
022 
2.89 
69.5 
0.90 
045 
1.12 
1.57 
1.12 
1.79 
067 
7.62 
70.3 
022 
0.22 
1.12 
1.57 
1.35 
247 
0.67 
1.12 
045 
022 
9.41 
71.1 
0.67 
0.67 
1.79 
2.02 
2.02 
0.22 
0.22 
0.90 
8-51 
71.9 
045 
0.22 
1.35 
1.35 
2.69 
1.35 
1.12 
0.45 
0.22 
022 
9.42 
72.7 
0.22 
0.45 
157 
1.12 
1.79 
2.02 
1.57 
045 
067 
Q22 
022 
10.30 
73.5 
0.45 
1.35 
1.57 
Z9\ 
1.35 
0.45 
0.45 
0.67 
0.22 
9.42 
74.3 
0.67 
067 
2.24 
1.35 
1.57 
224 
0.90 
0.45 
0.22 
1031 
75.1 
0.22 
1.12 
2.02 
1.12 
1.35 
1.35 
1.12 
0.67 
045 
022 
964 
7 5.9 
045 
0.90 
0.90 
1.35 
1.35 
0.22 
0.67 
5.84 
76.7 
0.22 
0.45 
0.45 
1.12 
0.67 
0.90 
0.45 
4.26 
77.5 
0.22 
045 
0.22 
0.22 
0.90 
0.45 
0.90 
0.22 
3.58 
78.3 
0.45 
0.67 
0.22 
0.22 
1 .56 
79.1 
0.22 
0.67 
022 
1.11 
79.9 
0.45 
0.22 
022 
0.22 
l.ll 
80.7 
0.22 
0.22 
0.44 
81.5 
0.22 
0.22 
0.44 
2.23 
4.69 
12.10 
1660 
19.50 
17.70 
12.09 
7.16 
4.25 
2.23 
1.10 
0.22 
100.31 
42)9 IC AML 
,’igure III, 32. ARM LENGTH AND CHEST FLYING NURSES 
PERCENTAGES 
ARM 
CHEST (in.) 
LENGTH 
(CM.) 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
65.5 
— 
f '' 
= 
0.66 
{■ 
0.66 
..j 
66.3 
1.97 
1 
; 
0.66 
2.63 
67.1 
0.66 
1.32 
1.98 
67.9 
— 
0.66 
1.32 
0.66 
j 264 
68.7 
i 
i 
0.66 
2.63 0.66 1.32 
1.32 
066 
L. 
; 7.25 
69.5 
1.32 
1.97 
1.3 2 0.66 
066 
| 5.93 
| 70.3 
r 
0.66 
1.32 
1.97 
3.951.97 
1.32 066 
066 
1.32 
| 12.51 
| 
71.1 
3.29 2 63 
066 
0 66 
• 
8.56 
71 .9 
1.97 
1.32 
2.63 1.32 
0.66 
1.32 
0.66 
... 
9.88 
72.7 
066 
1.32 
1.97 
2 63 3.29 
1.97 
1.97 
{ 
13.81 
73.5 
L 
1.32 3.95 3.29 263 0.66 
II 85 
74.3 
1.97 1.97 
0.661.32 
0 66 
. 
| 
4.60 
75.1 
1.32 
1.32 
1.32 
5 94 
75.9 
0.66 066 
1 .32 
76.7 
1.97 
0.66 
1.32 
0.66 
4.61 
77.5 
0.66 
J 
0.66 
78.3 
0.66 0.66 
0.66|0.66 
: : 
i J 
2.64 
79. 1 
79. 9 
I 
80.7 
- 
I 
. 
0.66 
| 
1 
i 
| 
00.66 
.—j 
81.5 
066 
1 
i 
0 0.66 
1.32 
9.88 
17.10 
25JB8l8.44j 
I4.5C 
7.25 
2.64 
1.98 
98.79 
42)91 J AML 
Figure III, 35. WAIST HEIGHT AND WAIST WASP 
PERCENTAGES 
WAIST 
HEIGHT 
(CM.) 
WAIST (IN.) 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
91.9 
92.9 
93.9 
94.9 
0.23 
0.23 
0.45 
0.68 
0.23 
1.82 
95.9 
0.90 
0.45 
0.23 
1.58 
96.9 
0.23 
0.90 
045 
023 
0.23 
204 
97. 9 
0.68 
0.23 
0.90 
1.80 
090 
0 23 
4.74 
98.9 
1.35 
1.13 
0.90 
0.90 
0.4 5 
0.23 
4.96 
99.9 
0.90 
068 
1.35 
068 
0.68 
0.68 
0.23 
5.20 
100.9 
0.23 
0.90 
2.03 
2.93 
0.68 
0.68 
7.45 
101 .9 
045 
1.35 
2.48 
2.4 8 
2.2 5 
1.80 
0.23 
045 
0.23 
Q2 3 
11.95 
102.9 
0.23 
04 5 
248 
240 
1.13 
090 
0 68 
023 
0.23 
8.81 
103.9 
1.35 
1.80 
1.58 
2.93 
0.45 
1.13 
0.6 8 
023 
0.23 
10.38 
104 9 
1.35 
0.68 
2 25 
1.58 
1.35 
090 
0.45 
0.45 
9.01 
105.9 
0.23 
0.45 
203 
1,35 
2.93 
Q23 
0.23 
0.23 
7.68 
106.9 
0.23 
0.23 
1.58 
1.80 
2.03 
1.13 
068 
0.23 
023 
8.14 
107.9 
023 
1.13 
023 
0.90 
045 
0.23 
0.23 
3.40 
108.9 
090 
1.80 
0.68 
1.35 
068 
0.45 
0.45 
6.31 
109.9 
0.23 
0.23 
1.58 
068 
0.23 
2.95 
110.9 
0.45 
0.23 
0.45 
0.68 
0.23 
2.04 
III .9 
0.23 
0.23 
0.46 
112.9 
0.23 
0.23 
113.9 
114.9 
115.9 
0.23 
0.23 
0.46 
116.9 
0.23 
0.23 
117.9 
0.23 
023 
1.82 
9.03 
16.92 
24.58 
18.29 
14.66 
7.2 5 
4.09 
1.83 
1.6 0 
100.07 
4391 AML 
Figure III, JL WAISTHEIGHT AND WAIST FLYING NURSES 
PERCENTAGES 
WAIST 
HEIGHT 
(CM.) 
WAIST (IN.) 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
91.9 
066 
0.66 
92S 
0.66 
0.66 
93.9 
0.66 
0.66 
94.9 
1.32 
0.66 
0.66 
0.66 
3.30 
95.9 
0.66 
1.32 
0.66 
2.64 
96.9 
0.66 
1.99 
0.66 
0.66 
3.97 
97.9 
0.66 
2.65 
1.32 
3.31 
0.66 
0.66 
9.26 
98.9 
066 
0.66 
3.97 
1.32 
1.32 
7.93 
99.9 
0.66 
0.66 
3.97 
1.99 
1.99 
9.27 
100.9 
066 
0.66 
0.66 
0.66 
1.99 
2.65 
0.66 
7.94 
101.9 
1.32 
1.99 
1.32 
1.32 
0.66 
0.66 
7.27 
102.9 
1.32 
1.32 
3.97 
2.65 
1.99 
0.66 
11.91 
103.9 
1.99 
2.65 
3.31 
1.99 
1.99 
11.93 
1049 
0.66 
0.66 
3.31 
2.65 
0.66 
7.94 
105.9 
1.32 
1.32 
1.32 
3.96 
1.06.9 
0.66 
066 
0.66 
1.98 
107.9 
066 
066 
0 66 
1.98 
108.9 
066 
0.66 
1.32 
109.9 
1.32 
066 
1.99 
0.66 
4.63 
110.9 
II 1.9 
112.9 
113.9 
066 
0.66 
114.9 
115.9 
116.9 
117.9 
1.32 
9.25 
1852 
2909 
22.51 
13.90 
1.98 
2.64 
0.66 
99.87 
439 f H AML 
F5-gure III, ?5. 
70 WAIST HEIGHT AND HIP CIRCUMFERENCE WASP 
PERCENTAGES 
WAIST 
HEIGHT 
(CMJ 
HIP CIRCUMFERENCE (in.) 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
92.9 
93.9 
94.9 
044 
0.22 
0.44 
022 
0.22 
1.54 
95.9 
0.44 
0.22 
022 
044 
0.22 
1.54 
96.9 
0.44 
0.22 
0.22 
067 
044 
197 
97.9 
0.44 
0.44 
1.55 
1.33 
0.67 
0.22 
0.22 
4.87 
98.9 
044 
0.22 
0.67 
022 
1.77 
1.33 
0.22 
4.87 
99.9 
0.22 
0.67 
0.67 
0.89 
0.89 
0.89 
044 
0.22 
022 
5.11 
100.9 
022 
0.44 
1.11 
1.55 
1.77 
1.33 
1.33 
775 
101.9 
0.22 
0.44 
0.44 
1.55 
1.77 
2.44 
1.7 7 
1.33 
089 
0.22 
0.22 
0.22 
0.22 
11.73 
102.9 
0.22 
0.22 
0.22 
1.33 
0.89 
067 
200 
2.00 
0.22 
0.22 
0.44 
8.43 
103.9 
067 
1.33 
2.00 
1.33 
1.55 
1.55 
1.11 
044 
044 
10.42 
104.9 
0.22 
044 
2 22 
1.33 
2 00 
Ml 
044 
0.67 
0.44 
8.87 
105.9 
0.22 
0.89 
1.77 
0.89 
2.66 
0.89 
0.44 
7.76 
106.9 
0.44 
0.44 
1.55 
1.77 
1.33 
l.l 1 
0.22 
067 
7.53 
107.9 
0.22 
l.l 1 
067 
0.67 
0.22 
0.4 4 
0.44 
3.77 
108.9 
0.22 
0.22 
U 1 
0.89 
0.89 
0.89 
0.89 
0.67 
022 
6.00 
109.9 
0.89 
l.l 1 
0.44 
0.22 
0.22 
0.22 
3.10 
110.9 
0.22 
067 
044 
044 
022 
0.22 
0.22 
2.43 
III.9 
022 
0.22 
044 
112.9 
0.22 
022 
044 
113.9 
M4.9 
115.9 
0.22 
0.22 
0.22 
066 
1169 
0.22 
0.22 
11,7.9 
022 
0.22 
1.98 
5.08 
10.19 
15.74 
19.52 
16.41 
14.63 
7.09 
2.65 
4.20 
0.66 
088 
99 47 
4391E AML 
Figure ill, 56. WAIST HEIGHT AND HIP CIRCUMFERENCE FLYING NURSES 
PERCENTAGES 
WAIST 
HEIGHT 
(C M.) 
HIP CIRCUMFERENCE Cm.) 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
91.9 
0.66 
066 
92.9 
0.66 
0 66 
93.9 
0.66 
0.66 
94.9 
066 
0.66 
0.66 
0.66 
0.66 
3.30 
95.9 
1.97 
1.97 
96.9 
1.32 
066 
132 
066 
3.96 
979 
2.63 
329 
1.97 
066 
8.55 
98.9 
132 
0.66 
395 
1.97 
7.90 
99.9 
066 
0.66 
1.97 
1.97 
3.97 
1.32 
9.87 
100.9 
0.66 
395 
1.97 
1.32 
7.90 
101.9 
197 
1.97 
1.32 
1.32 
6.58 
102.9 
1.97 
066 
2.63 
263 
066 
329 
11.84 
1039 
066 
329 
395 
3.29 
066 
11.85 
104,9 
066 
1.32 
1.97 
0.66 
263 
0.66 
7.90 
1059 
066 
1.97 
0 66 
066 
0.66 
4.61 
1069 
1.32 
1.32 
107.9 
066 
066 
1.32 
2.64 
1089 
066 
0.66 
1.32 
109.9 
0.66 
1.97 
1.32 
0.66 
4.61 
110.9 
III.9 
112.9 
113.9 
0.66 
066 
1149 
1159 
116.9 
1179 
• 
0.66 
132 
5.93 
I4.4S 
296C 
2435 
13.18 
5.27 
3.96 
98.76 
439'IA AML 
Figure III, 37. The data and percentages presented represent only tentative data. Any 
new female clothing will necessarily entail much more complete data. Data 
collected on WAG and Nurse Corps will probably be more valuable for initial 
design, inasmuch as they will offer much more detailed information concern- 
ing the shoulders and bust. FLAK CLOTHING 
Flak-protective clothing, designed to protect vital regions of the flyer*s 
body against small, low-velocity missiles, consists of helmets and body armor 
(flak suits). Anthropometric participation in the design and development of 
flak helmets originated in connection with the integration of personal equipment 
and turrets, and is therefore outlined in the section on turrets. 
The chief problems posed by body armor have been those of integration with 
other items of personal equipment, rather than with airplane or turret design, 
probably because flak suits combine simplicity of design with a minimum of bulk. 
They add weight to the flyer — a weight which, in the face of adverse flak con- 
ditions, he has been more than willing to tolerate, but aggravate problems of 
cramping and constriction to a relatively small degree. The first anthropometric 
project on flak suits was to secure adoption of a tab on the front of the vest, 
to serve as an attachment for the oxygen mask hose clip, for which no provision 
had previously existed. A second project began early in 191*1; with a verbal re- 
quest from the Air Surgeon to investigate possibilities of improving coverage in 
the armpit region, where flak wounds had resulted in a number of casualties. 
Trials of flak suits over the flyer’s complete set of personal equipment — 
heavy clothing, life vest, emergency kit, and parachute — showed that not only 
the armpit region, but considerable areas along the sides, varying in extent 
with the flyer’s size, were left unprotected when front and back portions of the 
suit failed to meet. 
In cooperation with Brig. Gen. F. C. Grow, originator of Army Air Force 
body armor, and with British manufacturers, experimental side pieces were de- 
vised, combat tested in the 8th Air Force, and proved successful. However, 
Headquarters, Army Air Forces, decided that no more weight could be added to ex- 
isting armor,: and. the side extensions were therefore not standardized. 
Toward the end of the Viar, a new nodel of flak suit, substituting aluminum 
for Hadfield steel plates and providing a greater area of protection for less 
weight, was developed by the Ordnance Department. The necessity for considering 
all the flyer's personal equipment in its design was pointed out by the Aero 
Iv'edical and Personal Equipment Laboratories, and the version finally standard- 
ized furnished adequate coverage for a large man in full gear. Although the 
possibility of producing different sizes of body armor, to provide for differ- 
ences in flyer's body sizes, seemed attractive from time to time, it was never 
seriously contemplated, for two main reasons: (l) the inordinate complications 
in production and distribution that different sizes would entail; and (2) as 
shown by the T-i+6 flak suit, enough coverage could be designed into the suit to 
accommodate large flyers and not inconvenience small ones. 
Administratively, the Ordnance Department was responsible for the design 
and manufacture of flak-protective equipment for the entire war, while the in- 
formal advisory role of the Air Technical Service Command as far as design and 
integration with other flying equipment were concerned ultimately evolved into an official board, with a representative of the Personal Equipment Laboratory 
(as the responsible agency of the Engineering, Division) as chairman, and rep- 
resentatives of the Aero ledical Laboratory, Armament Laboratory, and the Ord- 
nance Office, Air Technical Service Command, as rerbers. This Board processed 
Unsatisfactory Reports on body armor design, new ideas, and experimental out- 
fits, and forwarded recommendations to the Ordnance Department* PARACHUTES 
The part played by Anthropometry in design, development, and suoply of para- 
chutes is two-fold* (1) distribution of body sizes, and (2) distribution of 
body weights. 
The harness can be greatly improved if provision can be made for adequate ad- 
justments to accommodate the various flyer's body sizes, and could be further im- 
proved if actual sizing could be introduced into harnesses. During World War II, 
small steps were taken in this regard and appeared promising. A table. Figure ITT, 
39* to show the distribution of statures and waists, could serve well to predict, 
with the clothing factors known, the sizing system for harness, just as the tables 
mentioned earlier served for clothing size distributions. 
Since various size parachutes act in proportion to the weights of the men 
which they must support, a proportion distribution of the weights selected for 
best behaviour of the sizes of parachutes could easily be prepared and provided. 
The final -role of the anthropologist in the consideration of the parachute, 
as in all other items of equipment, is one of insuring proper integration of all 
the equipment, and should be constantly the same for every developmental engineer. STATURE AND WAIST 
TOTAL ISSUE 
STATURE 
WAIST 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
39 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
60 
5 
008 
0.08 
61 
008 
0.16 
0.24 
.5 
62 
008 
016 
0.24 
.5 
0.16 
0.16 
0.32 
63 
0.08 
0 08 
0.16 
0 16 
0.16 
0.16 
0.03 
0.83 
.5 
0.0 8 
003 
0 32 
008 
0.19 
64 
003 
0.11 
0.18 
003 
0 32 
0.96 
.... - 
0.74 
0.32 
0.34 
016 
0.33 
.9 
0.08 
0.16 
1.06 
69 
003 
0.31 
068 
0 16 
0.16 
2.96 
.9 
008 
0 03 
003 
0 24 
0 36 
0 32 
044 
047 
0.39 
0.16 
2.28 
66 
0.23 ! 0 32 
1.93 
0 23 049 
1 K K . *2 1 • 
£ • 
- O o o 
192 | 104 
063 | 042 
121 
068 
0.74 
0 36 
0.28 
0.11 
0.16 
008 
7.17 
67 
0.03 | 032 
008 
3.27 
.9 
0.26 0.61 
1 
1.29 1 107 
0.28 
0.24 
5.12 
68 
003 063 
* 1 
126 
038 
071 
0.92 
064 
4.79 
.9 
003 
021 1.42 
269) 3.41 
-j 
103 1.49 
263 
1.81 
0.60 
0.32 
0.16 
0.16 
13.44 
69 
0 19 0.42 
1 90 
0.92 
0.66 
008 
008 
0.0 8 
6.05 
A ' 
0.36 | 0.68 j 0.66 
2.66 
1.42 
1.38 
0.92 
06 3 
008 
7.97 
70 i 
1 1 
0 10 0.69 , 1.42 
2 22 
2.08 
0.8 7 
0.91 
0.24 
0 16 
8.6 5 
a : 
032 074 I 179 
2.3 4 
242 
249 
133 
0.31 
0.11 
0.16 
11.93 
71 
j 0.28 
0.99 
1.40 
LSO 
1.13 
0.28 
024 
0.16 
008 
0.08 
5.94 
9 
i 003 
i 
048 
067 
1.49 
0.99 
0.16 
0.28 
0.08 
0.16 
4.0 6 
72 
0 19 
04 2 
0 78 
169 
0.94 
0.16 
0.90 
0 19 
016 
5.23 
.9 
Oil 
049 
039 
0.69 
0 11 
003 
Oil 
0.16 
2.21 
' ' | 
73 I 
008 
008 
076 
0 16 
016 
016 
0.03 
1.43 
A 
0.16 
016 
0.16 
0.32 
0.19 
0.16 
1.15 
74 
008 
008 
0.16 
032 
024 
0.16 
0.08 
1.12 
.9 
0.2 4 
0 19 
043 
79 
5 
0.06 
0.08 
76 
0 08 
0.08 
0.16 
.9 
0.08 
0.08 
0 19 
1.87 
7 67 
16.21 
2499 
2 064 
19 39 
6.7 6 
3.69 
1 37 
0.96 
064 
008 
008 
100.30 
4420 AML 
ri-guro III, 38- CHAPTER IV 
jgRCREff POSITIONING PRINCIPLES OP COCKPIT SEATING 
Stiok Typo Control 
Seating in aircraft has novor boon given tho serious consideration it 
deserves because human adaptability has always been taken for granted. This 
is understandable, in view of the fact that, until very recently, human 
beings have never been required to fly for long periods of time, A fighter 
type aircraft, aaoording to tho definition contained in the Handbook of 
Instructions for Aircraft Designers, is a single-place aircraft with a- range 
of approximately two hours. The demands of global warfare imposed upon us 
are such that fighter airplanes must have a range far in excess of two hours, 
and as long as war- embraces the great distances that it does, and until tho 
speed of all aircraft increases to the extent where time intervals decrease, 
this condition will remain. 
It is reasonable to assume that, before a pilot or any individual can be 
made comfortable and efficient over a long period of time, certain mechanical 
provisions must be made. 
Some effort has been made to develop seats which are to function in a 
comfortable manner through the means of,contouring, but individual variations 
in the respective posteriors of human beings are sufficient in degree as to 
render this method unsuccessful for any extended period of time. Very likely, 
it will turn out that in addition to a range of contours, it will be necessary 
to cover the seat with some sort of resilient material which will compensate 
for any slight variations from that particular size. 
In order to study the fundamentals of comfortable cockpit seating, there 
was made available to the Air Technical Service Command, through the courtesy 
of the Murray Corporation of America, the so-called Universal Test Seat, which 
is a piece of laboratory apparatus designed by a group of automotive engineers 
at the University of Michigan for studying seating requirements in automobiles. 
The original was loaned this Command by the Murray Corporation, and a copy was 
made of it, incorporating certain modifications which were adapted to the study 
of seating in aircraft. 
The device consists of an adjustable chair. Figure IV, 1, mounted on a 
screw jack so that it may be adjusted vertically. Included in its construction 
are five adjustments: first, an adjustment for varying the seat depth, that 
is the distance from the front edge of the seat to a point of intersection be- 
tween the seat and the back; second, one for varying the angle between the 
seat portion and the horizontal; third, one for varying the angle between the 
back of the seat and the vertical; fourth, one for varying the fore and aft 
position of the chair; and fifth, an adjustment for varying the height of the 
back with relation to the seat portion. There are appropriate scales which 
indicate the amount and degree of each adjustment. The seating surface con- 
sists of a light fabric, a thin cushioning pad, and a series of cylindrical 
coil springs. In the seat portion there are U2 of these springs, each one of 
which is acted upon by 9 square inches of seating area. In the back there are I4.9 springs, each similarly representing 9 square inches of seating area. From 
the center point of attachment of each spring to the seating area there is at- 
tached a nylon cord which is let down through guides to a chart. This chart 
is calibrated in inches and serves as a means of recording the amount of com- 
pression of any individual spring. This is done by means of a whiite mark 
placed on each string at a point calibrated as zero on the chart when no one 
is sitting on the seat. Also incorporated in the seat are adjustments for vary- 
ing the amount of spring compression in any tier of 7 springs. 
For the purposes of studying seating in aircraft, it was found to bo ad- 
visable to establish some sort of relationship between this chair and an air- 
plane cockpit. This was done by moans of constructing a set of aircraft con- 
trols which were mounted in front of the test seat. A considerable adjustment 
was incorporated in the controls to the extent that there were inches fore 
and aft in the rudder pedals and there were 13 inches fore and aft and I), inches 
vertically in the control column. In addition, fore and aft adjustment was 
added through the seat adjustment. 
Still another piece of equipment was used in conjunction with the above 
apparatus. This was a stationary pre-flight trainer do-signated as the Bein- 
dorf Trainer, Model B, which is a device for visually simulating flight on the 
ground. It consists, essentially, of a sphere on which is painted landscape, 
horizon, and sky. 
A battery of lights whose rays reflect over the top of the sphere and 
transmit by a magnifying lens the reflection pf the surface to a translucent 
screen facing the operator is utilized. A system of pulleys and cables is con- 
nected to the control column and rudder pedals of the cockpit on one end, and 
to three small electric motors on the other. Each of these motors rides freely 
on a universal, its orientation being controlled by the afore-mentioned cables. 
There is a flat disc of plastic on the shaft of each motor on which the sphere 
rests. Y/hen the controls are in a neutral position, the sphere rests on the 
center point of rotation of each of these bearing discs and thus does not re- 
volve to shift their point of contact on the sphere from the control axis, and 
thus causes the freely floating sphere to rotate in a direction determined by 
the coordinated movement of the controls. 
In this particular experiment, the Beindorf Trainer served the purpose 
of maintaining the subject in a working attitude; that is to say, a state 
wherein he was going through essentially the same movements as a pilot is when 
flying ah airplane. It is important to maintain such a state during investi- 
gations of this sort, since the purpose involved is to study pilot seating with 
the end of determining a basic design of adjustment for aircraft seats. Piloi 
seats are working seats, and should bo designed for the specific job. A seat 
should promote both pilot comfort and efficiency. That the two are intimately 
correlated there is little doubt. 
It must be realized and appreciated what a difficult problem it is, in the absence of reliable objective means of measuring efficiency, to determine what 
form of seat and what angle of seat, also what arrangement of controls, are 
the most conducive to comfort and efficiency. In view of this, experienced 
pilots should always be used as subjects. 
The general conception in the past of the structural arrangement of a 
cockpit has been of such a nature as to permit the use of certain items of 
standard equipment located according to the desires of the manufacturer and/or 
the responsible Amy Air Forces personnel without due regard to the fact that 
structures in cockpits have certain functions which they should perform, and 
which they will not perform if they are removed from certain relationships with 
other portions of the equipment. For example, there has been in use for some 
time a standard specified bucket-type seat -which manufacturers have been asked 
to install in the various fighter type aircraft. This seat is very specifically 
defined, and a point in space is also defined so as to lie in a raid-line posi- 
tion 2M in front of the back and above the bottom of the seat. Manufacturers 
have been required to define the cockpit from this point. This is easily done, 
and it so appears on all inboard profile drawings of the cockpit. 
If used as defined, and if properly installed in the aircraft cockpit, this 
reference point is a valuable instrument. However, there has been little regard 
paid to the construction and use of items of personal equipment with which the 
pilot must operationally be concerned, and the functional end product is a great 
variety of levels at which the pilot is held seated on his personal equipment, 
all of which, except for the simple seat-type parachute and £ack pad, will con- 
tribute more or less to a mal-function of the pilot and his cockpit in flight. 
For example, the 5 and 2 inch distances are based upon the use of the seat type 
parachute and back pad. If for some reason or other the pilot is forced to use 
the seat type parachute, the one-man life raft, and a cushion, he may be raised 
as much as 5rt above the original reference point. If then, a cockpit has been 
defined in such a manner as to locate the horizontal lino of vision a vertical 
distance of J0~l/2n above the reference point, as originally defined, and the 
canopy has been designed and installed with the required 6" arc above the hori- 
zontal line of vision, the pilot has been permitted to be raised not more than 
2n above the vision line, because he must maintain at least 6” for his head. 
Ho has, therefore, been forced to sit 5” higher than designed, but has available 
only 2M upward in which ho may move and, as a result, is forced to crouoh or 
slump in such a manner as to shorten himself effectively a total of 5?l in the 
vertical dimension, which amounts to a required 10% decrease from his normal 
sitting position# Add to this an insufficient amount of vortical adjustment in 
the seat originally, and another l-l/2" may bo added to those 3n» amounting to 
U-l/2" required slump, in a tall man. 
Another aspect of the seat installation has been to require the back angle 
to lie 13-1/2 degrees from the vertical intersecting the reference point# This 
angle is added to a seat angle to provide an included angle of 101 degrees, 
which then permits the seat itself to lie 2-J/2 degrees from the horizontal. 
If then, the rudder pedals are located in such a manner as to bring them closer 
to 'the reference point in the fore and aft dimension than the pilot normally requires, the knees, of course, are lifted higher and the thighs attempt to 
rest upon the seat level at a greater angle, which will permit a vector of 
weight forces to result on a very small area of the gluteal muscles lying over 
the ischial tuberosities. The pilot in a very short while becomes unduly 
cramped in his legs and sore over the area upon which ho is forced to sit, and 
attempts to slide the buttock area backward on the seat in an effort to gain a 
greater area of weight support over the thighs or at worst to obtain a different 
area of weight support. Since he has already been forced to crouch to fore shorter 
his sitting height and since he attempts to move backwards in the seat to allev- 
iate his leg cramping, his sitting position then results in an accentuated 
crouched attitude. This is felt to be the deciding factor in the so-called fight- 
ing attitude of the fighter pilot. 
Combat pilots interviewed on this matter will support these observations. 
One man was able, in the A-36, to fly in his cruise condition with his chin rest- 
ing on his hand which held the control column, peering over the top of the cow- 
ling. 
Another factor which has boon important in the mal-funotion of cockpits has 
been the indiscriminate deviation from the 13-1/2 degree angle of the back of 
the seat. Although the Handbook of Instructions for Aircraft Designers states 
specifically that the control column at neutral shall be 19-l/S inches in front 
of the reference point, the deviation in the angle of the back in some oases 
has been sufficient to move the shoulders far enough back to require a man to 
reach forward to hold the column at neutral. In addition, this shifting-back 
of the angle forces a greater strain upon the neck muscles in holding the head 
in a normal horizontal position looking forward. Further complications of this 
arrangement have been poor considerations of the throttle handle. By design, 
the throttle is installed in such a way that the mid-point of the quadrant is 
held at the same 19-1/8 inches distance as the control column, but the normal 
cruise position of the throttle handle may bo enough forward of the mid-quad- 
rant position to require* again, a reaching of the pilot. It therefore becomes 
important that a consideration be given to cockpits as functional assemblies 
of equipment, including the man. 
Finally, before embarking upon the variable requirements of the cockpit, 
there should bo some discussion of the method of installation of the seat itself. 
It has been the common practise in fighter type aircraft to install the seat 
on slide tubes which lie at or about the 13-l/2 degrees from the vortical. It 
has been found geometrically that a seat mounted in this manner and being raised 
from its neutral position J>-l/2" will be moved posteriorly .9 inch, and also 
will be moved anteriorly if lowered the same amount. This is completely con- 
trary to the proper utilization of the variables in the sizes of men. A seat 
is raised to permit a shorter man to maintain visual requirements and certainly 
he should not be moved aft from the rudder pedals; the same holds for the ac- 
commodation of the taller man in the reverse direction. Should the seat be in- 
stalled in such a manner as to be adjustable directly vertical, there would cer- 
tainly be an improvement over the present condition. But-,- theoretically speak- 
ing, it would still be necessary to design the entire cockpit upon this basis 
83 in suoh a manner that the shortest man, permitted to use the cockpit, 
could reach all the necessary controls, and the situation would bo increasing- 
ly difficult for any statures above the 5lUn as wo get nearer the 6*1" to 6*2” 
presently encountered among fighter personnel. 
One of the primary considerations of a cockpit appears to bo, from experi- 
mental evidence, a vertical dimension from the horizontal lino of vision to the 
lower level upon which the heels rest in flight attitudes. A deviation t>v a 
variation in this dimension of no more than one inch is sufficient to change the 
entire functional behaviour of the cockpit assembly. An indiscriminate design 
application of this distance will, if sufficient, be drastic enough in many 
cases to limit the performance of the aircraft far more than a minor modification, 
such as raising or lowering the canopy or some other deviation, because of the 
fact that the structural relationships will introduce fatigueeand strain factors 
as well as ”g” tolerance factors upon the pilot which will drastically cut down 
his potential performance. It is felt that this analysis has explained to a 
greater degree than any other the failure of contemporary fighter aircraft to 
perform fully their design functions. 
There are certain limits to the dimension from the horizontal line of vi- 
sion to the floor beyond which it is in practical to go. A value of less than 
35" appears to bo completely out of the picture because of the depth required 
below the man for personal equipment, and any values above I4.3” become increas- 
ingly bad because the man is becoming more and more vertically erect until he 
may reach the absurd condition of standing in the cockpit. It is for us to con- 
sider, then, the functional relationships applicable to cockpits whose distances 
from the horizontal line of vision to the floor vary between 55 and U3 inches. 
There are certain experimental limitations which have not as yet been duly 
investigated and will lie in the future before the picture can be complete. 
The relationship of the height of the rudder bar from the floor, of the 
brake pedal from the floor, and the angular relationships of their movements 
to the aircraft and to the human body have not been fully explained. Another 
factor is the mechanical efficiency which is at present involved in the length 
of the control column and its pivot point in relation to the control surfaces. 
Would it be possible, for example, to reduce the length of the control column 
and its motion and still obtain, by human forces or by boost, enough mechanical 
advantage to control the surfaces in high performance aircraft? Is it advisable, 
and certainly it is indicated, from the standpoint of its relationship to the 
man to reduce the fore and aft motion of the control column below the recommended 
16”? As presently done at 18”, if the neutral position of the control col\tmn 
is held at 19n, an average man sitting in the standard cockpit and restrained by 
shoulder harness finds it impossible to reach full forward on the column. A 
distance of 19” forward of the reference point has been found experimentally to 
be the most comfortable one, and at the same time, it has been established that 
the column cannot be moved farther than 9n aft of this position in its full aft 
position because of the size of the man interfering with it. Inasmuch as the 
man cannot reach full forward, the column cannot be moved from its neutral posi- 
tion and we can use no more than 9" aft travel, it then becomes necessary to limit the forward travel of the column to no more than 6" which will reduce 
the total travel of the column to 13" at the maximum. There has been a 
tendency in some designs to try to maintain the full 18” with a differential 
fore and aft distance and yet to maintain the aft column position in relation 
to the man which results in placing the neutral position of the column some 
distance forward of the 19" required, and service reoorts have indicated that 
this has failed because of undue strain being placed upon the arms and nock 
in reaching for neutral. 
In view of the above, since there is no fore and aft adjustability incor- 
porated in the control column, its neutral position must be carefully defined, 
Vvith this reference established, the seat should then be installed in such a 
manner as to incorporate a vertical adjustment which would permit it to go 
forward as it goes upward, and to go aft as it comes downward, to provide for 
the variations in arm lengths. If we permit the rudder pedals to stay as they 
are at present with 11” of adjustment, it would then become necessary to design 
into the seat a 3" fore and aft adjustment in conjunction with the vertical 
adjustment. In effect then, the seat would bo permitted to move along the dia- 
gonal of a rectangle 7" on the vertical side and $" on the horizontal side, the 
diagonal of which would lie at 67 degrees from the horizontal, Fven this would 
not permit full accommodation for the extreme disharmonies in sitting heights and 
statures, but would do far better than the standard condition. In order to get 
full accommodation, the seat should be free to move anywhere within the 7 by 3 
inch rectangle, rather than just along its diagonal. 
In analyzing some of the German Luftwaffe data, it was found that German 
designers wore asked to incorporate 6.3" vortical adjustment in the seat with a 
diagonal adjustment at 75 degrees. (Figure IV, 2.) A rudder adjustment of 6.5 
inches was also requested which would follow a line at hfr degrees from the hori- 
zontal. This was possible because pedal stirrups wore expected (Figure IV, 5«) 
which would hold the foot independent of floor heel rests. However, there is a 
basic fallacy in the use of heel rests in rudder controls; namely, that such an 
arrangement forces fine rudder control to be obtained by movement of the entire 
leg, and thus becomes extremely tiresome after a relatively short period of time. 
Cockpit discussions to follow are based on experimental tests which were 
conducted on a series with vertical distances between the horizontal lines of 
vision and the heel rests of 35 through U5" at 2 inch intervals. (A distance of 
39 l/U" was selected in place of $9" in the study on cockpits with stick type 
control because that value is standard for pursuit aircraft.) For the moment, 
disregarding the function of seating as such, wo may look at the dimensional 
requirements established for the various types of cockpits with the stick type 
control, which is most commonly used in fighters. 
At the 35” stage. Figures IV, I4., and IV, 5# the pilot's eye is lying 35" 
vertically from his heel. The foot rests on the standard aircraft are 5" from 
the rudder pedal, and are thus used. The control column and the throttle in 
cruise positions lie 19” forward of a seat reference point. The reference point 
referred to will be defined below. The pilot actually sits Ig-7/8” from Arrangement of Pilot'* Seat, Control*, and 
Instrunent Panel In the Cockpit 
OERWAN AIR FORCE 
All dimension* given In Inoh**, tolerance about if not stated. 
Body *lt**t 63"| £9"j »5 • 
Abdominal fraadorn for 
dlatanalon 2" 
Book fraadorn from 
praaauraa 2* 
Sitting braadth a 
lataral moramant of 
oontrol ooluan 13.8* 
Padal adjuatmant 7*1” 
Maaauramanta a, b, 0, and 
othara ara for tha alngla 
aaat. 
It is sufficient, when the adjustments are provided, for the seat and 
rudder pedal to be determined by the else of the pilot before flight. 
Homsver, there must usually be a basis of variable adjustability during 
flight. If It Is possible without difficulty, both adjustoaents can be 
about 7«9"» whereby the adjustment of the seat Is 5/} coarse on the 
ground, and 2/5 fine during flight, 
1) A 0. F. E, oontrol column is available. 
2) Drawing tolerance ±1°, 
3) Don't Increase, because that will materially Increase the burden 
under high acceleration. 
h) Avoid working part* on the Instrvawnt panel. In order to allow maxi- 
mum accommodation of vision, and protect the man against Injury. 
4404C AML 
Figure IV, 2. NORMAL MEASUREMENTS FOR THE PILOT'S 
SEAT IN FIGHTER AIRCRAFT 
MEASUREMENTS SHOWN FOR SITTING IN MEAN POSITION 
4404 AML 
Figure fV. NOTES' 
© EMIT OF SPACE REQUIRED WHEN 
PILOT WEARS LIFE VEST a C - I 
EMERGENCY VEST. 
© HATCHED AREAS INDICATE CUSH- 
IONING REOUBEMENTS. 
AVERAGE POSITION OF SEAT IN 35" FIGHTER COCKPIT 
A. M. L. TEST SEAT 
4516 AML 
Fif;:r<2 IV, if. Figure XV, 5. 
CHOICE COCKPIT AT 35 INCH LEVEL. MIDLINE SECTION OF SEAT CONTOURING M) 
SHOWING PROFILES ATTHREE INCH INTERVALS LATER ALLY. (B.C, and D) 
436 5 - AM L the heel rest level, which is l/8,f less than the level of the rudder pedal. The 
rudder pedal, itself, is 36-3/8'* forward of the reference point. 
The reference point is not exactly the same as that defined previously, but 
is a point defined in relation to the actual position of the man and a functional 
cushion and back pillow supporting him. It is derived by the intersections of 
two lines, one tangent to the buttock at an angle from the horizontal determined 
by the position of the cushion, and second, the line tangent to the back in the 
thoracic region and determined in angle by the position of the back pillow. It 
will in effect mostly duplicate the presently defined reference point used by 
designers but has a different function inasmuch as it is defined with respect to 
the position of the man, rather than with respect to a position in reference to 
a seat. It is then a dynamic point which will vary in position with any varia- 
tion in equipment back of and below the man, and is considered to be more useable 
from the functional standpoint of the man than the other point is from the static 
concept of the seat in the present discussion. However, if a dynamic concept of 
the other point were introduced rather than its present static one, it is felt 
that the points would be nearly identical. 
The reference point, as used in this discussion, lies U" above the heel rest 
level in the 35” cockpit. An arm rest, if installed, would lie 10-l/8M from the 
surface upon which the man is seated, and a true distance from this surface to a 
line drawn through the eye and perpendicular to the posterior line tangent to 
the back will measure 3°"5/8”» The length of the line from the eye perpendicular 
to the back line measures lO-l/S"; a vertical distance from the eye to the sur- 
face upon which the man is seated is 31”» The main considerations which should 
be given to the 35” cockpit are those to be determined from the required or ex- 
pected performance of the contemplated aircraft. It is known, for example, that 
a man in this seni-reclining position will have a higher tolerance to accelera- 
tion forces than ho would in a more nearly upright position. Therefore, a rel- 
atively higher performance of the man and the airplane combination could be ex- 
pected, On the other hand, in high performance aircraft, requirements at pre- 
sent state that a down-vision angle of 11 and 12 degrees at 500 and 600 m. p, h, 
respectively is required, and it is at this 35" stage that the manfs knees will 
be nearest to the horizontal line of vision. Therefore, the distance between 
the knee and the down-vision angle line will be at a minimum and careful consid- 
eration must be given to the size of the instruments installed directly in front 
of the pilot or else the instrument panel will interfere with the knee action. 
Further, any gunsights installed at this cockpit level should require a bare 
minimum of crouching-forward by the pilot for his use because it will be extreme- 
ly difficult for such crouching to occur due to the fact that the pilot is in 
the semi-reclining position. 
Further consideration should bo given to the fact that the pilot is seated 
at a mean position only from the floor. At present, the personal equip- 
ment, including the one-man life raft and cushion will measure at least 3”# and 
may go to 10”, and thus a well should be provided beneath the seat to permit 
down adjustment. In other words, the seat at full-down adjustment will permit 
the man to bo only 1-3/8” above the floor. The well would then have to bo 9” deep below tho heel rest, in order to permit full accommodation of pilot statures. 
By full accommodation wo mean the ability of a cockpit’s functional struc- 
ture to permit the pilot's eye, regardless of his stature, to be maintained at 
the horizontal line of vision. It is well enough to say that this is an unim- 
portant requirement inasmuch as the man may well ride the aircraft with his eye 
above tho desired line of vision. However, a start must be made somewhere in 
setting requirements for the dimensions of aircraft cockpits, and if such a prac- 
tise is' maintained as to define a canopy 8” above the horizontal line of vision 
in tho design, and if such a practise also incorporates gunsights on the hori- 
zontal line of vision and in calculating down-vision angles, it is not unreason- 
able to expect the cockpit to provide for the pilot's eye on this line of vision. 
It should also be pleasing to the aerodynamics engineers to be able to depend 
upon a fixed position of a pilot's head in an aircraft in such a manner that 
unsatisfactory reports will not be following up production stages of an aircraft 
which will require that canopies be raised in order to permit a higher degree of 
head movement. There is no fighter at the present time which has incorporated 
in its cockpit a method of adjustment by which the pilot's eye stays no higher 
than tho design lino of vision. 
It will also be noticed in referring to the drawings that tho boots worn 
by the manikin extend below the heel rest level, and beyond the rudder position. 
This will indicate that cockpits which require heavy clothing will also have to 
be slightly larger to accommodate it. 
In the 37” stage. Figures IV, 6; IV, 7# the pilot sits 8” from the floor, 
with the reference point 7-l/U” from the heel rest level. At 3-1/2” down ad- 
justment tho pilot sits I+-l/2” from the heel level, with the reference point 
at 3-3/V1* Considering again tho fact that at least 5” of personal equipment 
may be under the man, wo must again consider the provision of a well under the 
seat at least 2” deep. The rudder pedals are 35”3/V’ in front of the reference 
point; the arm rest is 9”W* above the surface upon which the man is sitting; 
the distance from the surface of the seat to the eye perpendicular to the back 
line is 29-3/8”; the eye-back line distance is 9-5/U”; and the vertical distance 
from the aye to the reference point is 29-3/V* The reasons for the variations 
in these dimensions will be discussed later. 
The 39-1/1+" cockpit. Figures IV, 8; IV, 9* has raised the man to 9-3/8” from 
the'.heel level with a reference point of 8-3/1+”* and with a 3-l/2” down adjust-- 
ment the reference point will be 5-l/U” from the heel rest level. Therefore, 
we have finally reached a cockpit level which will permit 5”* tut no more, of 
personal equipment under the man without requiring some welling of the floor. 
Rudder pedals are 35-l/2” from the reference point; arm rest is at 8-3/8”; 
seat-to-eyo distance is 30-l/S”; eye-to-baok line 9”3/8”; and the vertical dis- 
tance from the eye to the seat 30-l/2”« 
The 1+1” cockpit. Figures IV, 10; 17, 11, holds the man 10-l/3” from the heel 
rest, and the reference point 9“l/2n* permitting 6” of space between the point 
arid the floor at seat full down. The reference point-pedal distance is 35“l/8”* NOTES- 
Q LIMIT OF SPACE REQUIRED WHEN PILOT 
WEARS LIFE VEST a c-l EMERGENCY VEST 
® HATCHED AREAS INDICATE CUSHIONING 
REQUIREMENTS. 
AVERAGE POSITION OF SEAT IN 37" FIGHTER COCKPIT 
A. M. L. TEST SEAT 
4S16A-A H L 
Figure 17, 6, Figure IV, ?. 
CHOICE COCKPIT AT 37 INCH LEVEL. MIDLINE SECTION OF SEAT CONTOURING (4 ) 
SHOWING PROFILES AT THREE INCH INTERVALS LATERALLY (B, C, and# ) 
d 3 6 5 - A - A M L NOTES 
© LIMIT OF SPACE REQUIRED WHEN 
pilot wears life vest a c -1 
EMERGENCY VEST. 
@ HATCHED AREAS INDICATE CUSHION- 
ING REQUIREMENTS 
AVERAGE POSITION OF SEAT IN 39f FIGHTER COCKPIT 
A. ML. TEST SEAT 
Figure IV, g* Figure IV, 9. 
CHOICE COCKPIT AT 39'/4 INCH LEVEL M I DLI N E SECTION 0 F SEAT CONTOURING (4), 
SHOWING PROFILES AT THREE INCH INTERVALS LATERALLY [B.C, ANDfl) 
d 3 c 5 - C - a ivi L nu IC3' 
0 LIMIT OF SPACE REQUIRED WHEN PILOT 
WEARS LIFE VEST 8 C-1 EMERGENCY VEST 
® HATCHED AREAS INDICATE CUSHIONING 
REQUIREMENTS. 
L$I6C~i K I 
AVERAGE POSITION OF SEAT IN 41" FIGHTER COCKPIT 
A. M. L. TEST SEAT 
Figure TVf 10. Figure IV, 11. 
CHOICE COCKPITAT 41 INCH LEVEL. MIDLINE SECTION OF SEAT CONTOURI NG (4) 
SHOWING PROFILES AT THREE INCH INTERVALS LATERALLY ( B,C.and d ) 
dj?6 5 - B- AML arm rest height is 9-3/8n; soat-to-eye, 31-1/V’; and eye-to-back lino 9~3/hn» 
with tho vortical eye-to-seat. 
Tho i|3rt cockpit. Figures IV, 12; IV, 13, at first may appear to be in an 
extreme position, inasmuch as it has raised the man ll-7/o" from the heel level, 
with the reference point H-l/2" high, giving us a full 8" to work with after 
the seat is at full-down adjustment. Reference point-pedal distance has dropped 
to 3U“5/U,!? arm rest height to 9”; seat-to-oyo distance to 31-3/Uw; eye-to-baok 
to 9-5/8"; and "the vertical soat-to-eyo to 31“l/2M* Contrary to the statement 
made on the 35” cockpit, the ii3,! level now gives the maximum distance between 
the horizontal lino of vision and the knees. It has been found in experimental 
designs of cockpits utilizing the A-l gunsight that this level is required for 
proper utilization of the gunsight, the 11 degrees down-vision angle, and some 
instrument panel above the knees. This example serves well to illustrate the 
fact that one instrument may bo the deciding factor of what cockpit can bo se- 
lected for a design, and in this particular case it must be realized that the 
A-l sight is a high performance sight, and the 11 degrees a high performance 
condition, whereas tho I4.3” cockpit from the standpoint of the man is a low per- 
formance position. 
Certain other dimensions are valuable for consideration. One in particu- 
lar should bo mentioned, and that is tho distance between the most aft position 
of tho control column and the back surface upon which the man rests. At tho 
35" level there is available a distance of 15-l/8n, whereas in progressing up- 
wards in the levels, this distance t decreases exactly 2H to 13-l/8tf. 
Before proceeding to a discussion of the relative merits of the different 
levels of the cockpits there should be some consideration given to the man and 
the structure which we term a seat and which provides the function which we 
term seating. 
Involved in the dimensional relationships of tho cockpits discussed above 
are two very important factors which should be clearly understood in order to 
give a full consideration to the general principles of cockpit seating. The 
most important factor is the function of the anatomy of the man as he is being 
placed into what is called a seated position. It is easy enough to understand 
the method by which a knee joint, for example, moves as it occurs only through 
a given plane. It is much more difficult, however, to understand the highly 
involved mechanism through which the vertebral column may bo comfortably placed 
adjacent to a supporting surface and be supported in a seated manner. 
There are twenty-five separate and distinct bones in the huaan vertebral 
column. A common conception of the function of the twenty-four individual 
joints is that they may operate independently of each other. If this were so, 
it would be much easier to obtain a variety of seating postures. However, 
this is not so. The main areas in which the vertebral column may be flexed or 
extended are the lumbar or lower back areas and the cervical or neck areas. 
The vertebrae supporting the ribs move only a slight amount relative to the 
entire movement of the vertebral column. This may be tested for informational 
purposes simply by standing erect and then bending over as if to touch the toes. MOTES: 
© LIMIT of space required when pilot 
WEARS LIFE VEST a c-l EMERGENCT VEST 
(D MATCHED AREAS INDICATE CUSHIONING 
REQUIREMENTS 
4516B-* M L 
AVERAGE POSITION OF SEAT IN 4 3" FIGHTER COCKPIT 
A. M. L TEST SEAT 
Figure IV, 1?. Figure IV* 13• 
CHOICE COCKPIT AT 43 INCH LEVEL.MIDLINE SECTION OF SEAT CONTOURING (4 ) 
SHOWING PROFILES AT THREE INCH INTERVALS LATERALLY (B,C AND D) 
d 36 5 -0 -AML It will bo noted that some flexing occurs at the hip joint, a great deal of 
flexing occurs in the lower back region, and practically no flexing occurs in 
the thoracic region. Normally, in an erect posture, the column viewed from 
the side is in what is called a sigmoid shape, with the cervical vertebrae 
curved forward, the thoracic vertebrae curved backward, and the lumbar verte- 
brae curved forward. This posture, the normal one, will change in a seated 
or flexed position only in the lumbar region so far as comfort conditions are 
concerned. Inasmuch as the thoracic vertebrae do not change their positions, 
they must be held in such a manner that the cervical vertebrae above them will 
still retain the head in its normal horizontal position in order to maintain 
a comfortable position. Therefore, the fundamental factor in maintaining a com- 
fortable seated position, so far as the back is concerned, is to flex the lum- 
bar region within its allowable limits in such a'manner as to retain the thorac- 
ic and cervical regions in their normal vertical allignment. So far as the 
gluteal and thigh regions are concerned, the angular deflection is relatively 
simple, and comfort appears to be entire-ly dependent upon the maintenance of 
the largest possible surface area for the support of the weight concerned. 
Therefore, the fundamental requirement for comfortable seating is the 
proper application of mechanical forces to the bony body structures in such a 
manner as not to displace them beyond their normal comfortable angular limits* 
The second fundamental requirement is dependent upon the first, and is, in 
effect, the proper determination and use of the mechanical forces which are ap- 
plied by means of pillows, cushions, etc*, to the human body. The following 
discussion of seating will be based on the assumption, through experimental 
test data, that seating mechanics have been properly applied to the human body, 
and that the dimensional relationships of the cockpit are those which will best 
fit the human body itself in the variety of seating which will be within the 
tolerable comfort limits of the skeletal system. 
In the 33" cockpit the lower leg is flexed on the thigh at an angle of 
about 110 degrees. The thigh has been flexed on the trunk at an angle of 
about 80 degrees* Because of this degree of flexion, the cushion support sys- 
tem must be maintained at an angle of approximately 9 degrees from the hori- 
zontal, This 9 degrees from the horizontal is not readily interpreted as a 
surface contact to the thigh and buttock region but rather as a base line angle 
which supports the resilient system which provides a differential weight sup- 
port with the highest value lying over the ischial tuberosities and decreasing 
values in all directions from these two points. The vertebral column itself 
will show the greatest amount of curvature in the lumbar region, and this is 
demonstrated by the fact that the seat-to-eye distance at this levelhis rela- 
tively low. Even though the lumbar region itself has probably been forced into 
the greatest amount of flexure possible, the thoracic region is still main- 
tained in such a position that the upper thoracic vertebrae will provide proper 
allignment for the cervical or neck vertebrae to maintain the head in its nor- 
mal horizontal, and comfortable, position. In every case on the experimental 
tests, the upper thoracic curvature has been determined to continue upward in 
such a manner if extended as to intersect the horizontal line of vision at 
very nearly 90 degrees, which proves that the head must bo maintained in its 
normal position if comfort is to be maintained. As the cockpit levels are increased the degree of flexion of the lower 
leg from the thigh increases little, and in the I43*1 cockpit the angle of the 
thigh and the lower leg has reduced to 10S degrees, but this decrease is 
related to the angular relationship of the thigh and the trunk which has 
increased to C)S degrees. In other words, there has been described an arc at 
the knee joint which has started from the level and has preceded upward 
and forward in such a manner as to retain the required amount of leg motion 
for the feet upon the pedals, and the trunk has been lifted vertically and has 
been supported more erectly on the thigh. In going through this process, the 
angle necessary for the support cushion under the thighs has decreased from 9 
degrees at the 55” level to such an extent that the seat-to-eye distance has 
now reached the greatest value encountered. 
Heference to the profile drawings will show that the distance from the 
knee to the horizontal line of vision will indicate the arc movement through 
which the knee has progressed. It appears further that the greatest flexion of the 
trunk occurs at the 57” level, with some straightening occuring below at the 
55” level, apparentI7 due to the rise of the thighs and a resulting reduction 
of compression in the abdominal region. 
Further analyses of the cockpits have indicated that the 57” to l\ln levels 
require the least change in accommodation of the pilot, whereas below and above 
these values the changes required are increased in value. PILOT SEATING IN COCKPITS WITH 7/HEEL-TYPE CONTROL: 
The problems encountered in pilot seating in cockpits where the wheel 
type control is used, which is predominantly in bombers, are essentially the 
same as those in stick-type control airplanes (predominantly fighters) / inso- 
far as the same type of work, generally, is performed in each case and thus the 
pilot requires virtually the same positioning. The differences which do exist, 
however, are all in favor of the bomber pilot, for they are differences in 
degree of restriction in position to which the respective pilots are held. 
Bomber cockpits are usually larger than fighter cockpits, thus permitting more 
arm and leg freedom and the incorporation of some back angle adjustment in 
the seat. Since scanning is not so constant an occupation for the bomber pilot 
as it is for the fighter pilot, the design Horizontal Line of Vision fails to 
be as restrictive a dimension for the formier, i.e., the bomber pilot is 
relatively more free to s elect vertical seat adjustment within the prescribed 
range of adjustability which will meet his comfort requirements without any 
detrimental sacrifice of visibility, with the exception of down-vision require- 
ment over the nose. 
Studies on bomber pilot seating, for which returnee bomber pilots exclusively 
were used as subjects, have not only substantiated the above premises but have 
gone a step further and have revealed certain other differences in seating require- 
ments between fighter and bomber pilots. The bomber pilot prefers a seat with a 
greater back angle, for example, dee, perhaps, to the fact that in the absence of 
the almost constant alertness for enemy action and positioning to the gunsight 
to which the fighter pilot is necessarily subjected, he can fly in a more relaxed 
sitting attitude. Bomber pilots tend to be taller and heavier than fighter 
pilots, a difference which is reflected ini the seat angle which they require for 
comfort and in the seat and back contours which they establish. The latter is 
strikingly apparent when direct comparisons are made (Cp. Fig’s IV, 6 and LV, Ms 
IV, g and IV, 16; IV, 10 and IV, 10; and IV, 12 and IV 20). 
Despite the fact that the bomber pilot is not tied down too severely to the 
design horizontal line of vision, it w;as felt to be advisable to use the distance 
between the cockpit floor level (point of heel rest) and the horizontal line of 
vision as the fundamental dimension for cockpit design in order to have some one 
independent variable from which to work. First of all, this dimension is the 
most easily controlled; s ccondly, it is so fundamentally a determining factor in 
aircraft design; and, thirdly, it has definite limits which depend upon the normal 
range of stature of flying personnel. Since the comfort requirements as stated 
above for aircraft with the stick-type control show that a value of 55 inches for 
the heel-to-horizontal line of vision dimension represents nearly the absolute 
minimum at which the average AAF pilot can be accommodated in comfort, and a 
value of 1:3 inches represents nearly the maximum, a range of values at two-inch 
intervals from 57 inches to U5 inches was chosen for the study on wheel control 
aircraft. The shift in range by a two inch increase was made for two reasons, - 
first because of the generally larger of bomber pilots, and secondly because 
these aircraft may require higher eye levels for down-vision. NOTES' 
® limit of space required when pilot 
WEARS LIFE VEST, C-l EMERGENCY VEST 
8 FLAK - SUIT. 
(D HATCHED AREAS INDICATE CUSHIONING 
REQUIREMENTS. 
AVERAGE POSITION OF SEAT IN 37" BOMBER COCKPIT 
A. M. L. TEST SEAT 
g X * | ili SEAT SECTION FOR 37" BOMBER COCKPIT, SHOWING PROFILES AT t (4) AND AT THREE 
INCH INTERVALS LATERALLY (?) - (?) a (?) . 
**77-0. AML. 
Figure V7* 15 HOTES« 
© limit of space required when pilot 
WEARS LIFE VEST, C-l EMERGENCY VEST 
a FLAK-SUIT. 
@ HATCHED AREAS INDICATE CUSHIONING 
REQUIREMENTS. 
L509 A AKL 
AVERAGE POSITION OF SEAT IN 39" BOMBER COCKPIT 
A. M. L- TEST SEAT 
Figure IV, 16 
106 SEAT SECTION FOR 39" BOMBER COCKPIT, SHOWING PROFILES AT ( Q AND AT 
£ V- 7 7~C. A.Ml 
THREE INCH INTERVALS LATERALLY (V) - (7) & (T) . 
figure IV, 7 NOTES '■ 
© LIMIT OF SPACE REQUIRED WHEN PILOT 
WEARS LIFE VEST, C-l EMERGENCY VEST 
8 FLAK-SUIT. 
@ HATCHED AREAS INDICATE CUSHIONING 
REQUIREMENTS. 
4509 B AML 
AVERAGE POSITION OF SEAT IN 41" BOMBER COCKPIT 
A. M. L. TEST SEAT 
Fifcura IV% .1$ SEAT SECTION FOR 41" BOMBER COCKPIT, SHOWING PROFILES AT £ Q AND 
AT THREE INCH INTERVALS LATE RALLY (T) - (2) a (T) . 
Figure 19 
W7 7-6. AW/.. NOTES- 
© LIMIT OF SPACE REQUIRED WHEN PILOT 
WEARS LIFE VEST, C-l EMERGENCY VEST 
ft FLAK-SUIT. 
© HATCHED AREAS INDICATE CUSHIONING 
Requirements . 
AVERAGE POSITION OF SEAT IN 43" BOMBER COCKPIT 
A. M. L. TEST SEAT 
Figure IV, 20 SEAT SECTION FOR 43" BOMBER COCKPIT, SHOWING PROFILES AT £ (T) AND AT 
THREE INCH INTERVALS LATERALLY (T) - (T) a (T) . 
Figurs I?, 21 
4-4 7 7-4. AMX. MOTES’ 
® LIMIT OF SPACE REQUIRED WHEN PI- 
LOT WEARS LIFE VEST, C-l EMERGENCY 
VEST « FLAK-SUIT. 
® HATCHED AREAS INDICATE CUSHIONING 
REQUIREMENTS. 
A509 D AML 
AVERAGE POSITION OF SEAT IN 45" BOMBER COCKPIT 
A. M. L. TEST SEAT 
Figure IV. 22 SEAT SECTION FOR 45" BOMBER COCKPIT, SHOWING PROFILES AT t (J) AND AT 
THREE INCH INTERVALS LATERALLY (T)-(7) S (T). 
W 77 Avx. 
I'i'urc IV, ?'5 The results of studies on pilot seating in bombardment type aircraft are 
in theory practically identical to those demonstrated and discussed in the 
preceding cnapuer on fighter pilot seating (stick-type control), each dimen- 
sion being dependent upon the cockpit level and varying in the same direction 
in both cases. There is one factor which enters into the latter study, however, 
which was of relatively minor importance in the fighter series, and that is the 
height of the control column. The wheel type control found currently in 
bombers introduces the problem here. It has been found to be the case in many 
bombers that the pilot either can not pull the wheel full back without practi- 
cally forcing it into his lap or abdomen or, once back, does not have suffic- 
ient clearance between himself and the wheel to obtain full aileron control. 
This is indeed a difficult problem to solve to the complete satisfaction of all 
individuals because of the impracticability of incorporating any adjustability 
in the wheel to compensate for the fore-aft and vertical adjustability which 
is so practicable and desirable in the seat. It is believed that considerable 
improvement could be obtained through the use of a wheel which moves fore and 
aft in a straight line, rather than describing an arc, the straight line being 
perhaps pitched at approximately a five degree angle to the horizontal so that 
as the wheel moves back, it moves up. The cockpit drawings included herein 
show the most desirable position for the wheel which moves through an arc, has 
a chord of nine inches between its neutral and aftermost positions, has a 
chord of six inches between its neutral and forewardmost positions and has a 
wheel radius of 7-l/U inches. 
Seating and position requirements which have been determined for aircraft 
with the wheel-type control, when compared with the position requirements for 
aircraft witn the stick-type control show essentially no difference in require- 
ments for the basic dimensions beyond the realm of experimental error, except 
for those dimensions which are determined in part or in whole by the type of 
aileron-elevator control used, i.e., stick or wheel. It has been deemed feas- 
ible, therefore, to combine the values for both into a set of requirements which 
are common to both types of aircraft, except for those dimensions determined 
by the elevator-aileron control (Cf. Fig. IV, 2b). Hence, the two types of 
aircraft are not differentiated according to function as fighter or bomber, but 
according to the control doluran, since it is the latter and not the former which 
determines the pilot position requirements. 
In summary, it should be stated that the results of experiments indicate 
that a cockpit should not be a random assortment of controls, seats, and di- 
mensions, but, rather, should be considered as a highly detailed functional 
system which, in order to work properly, must be carefully considered by the 
designer in any approaches he may make to an aircraft performance problem. 
Experimental data also indicate that with proper application of the data ob- 
tained it should be possible to maintain the pilot in an efficient and comfort- 
able condition for a period of not less than eight hours, and possibly for a 
period as great as twelve to sixteen hours. HUMAN DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN AIRCRAFT COCKPITS 
TABLE I - WHEEL TYPE CONTROL 
(ALL VALUES IN INCHES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED I 
TABLE n - STICK TYPE CONTROL 
(ALL VALUES IN INCHES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) 
A 
R 
C 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1 
J 
M 
N 
0 
P 
0 
R 
37 
30* 
5 
21° 
101° 
29| 
10 
l6| 
19 
6 
9 
10 
36 
5 
15 
7 
25 
39 
30| 
5 
19s 
101° 
30 i 
9*4 
15 | 
19 
6 
9 
io 4f 
35 
5 
9* 
15 
7 
25 
4 1 
31 p 
5 
16° 
io r 
31 
9I 
15 "S 
19 
6 
9 
101 
34 g 
5 
93 
15 
7 
25 
43 
3'3 
5 
16° 
101° 
3* 4 
10 
19 « 
19 
6 
9 
II 
34^ 
5 
9? 
15 
7 
25 
A i B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
J 
K 
L 
M 
N 
0 
P 
Q 
R 
37 
30 jj 
5 
21° 
101° 
29| 
10 
'4 
19 
6 
» 
M 1 
36 
5 
*k 
15 
7 
25 
39 
3o| 
19° 
101" 
30 3 
9| 
13 | 
19 
6 
9 
13^ 
35 
5 
4 
15 
7 
25 
41 
31 
5 
16° 
101* 
31 
•i 
13 7T 
19 
6 
9 
15 *2 34 
5 
4 
15 
7 
l?L 
s 
3'||5 
16° 
31 
10 
13 
19 
6 
9 
17 5 i34^ 
Li 
9Z|I5 
lL 
25 
Figure IV» 2h THE CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE SEATED FIGHTER PILOT 
As the performance of aircraft reaches higher and higher levels, and as the 
consideration of the safety of the crew merits more and more attention, it be- 
comes highly important that some consideration be given to the definition of the 
location of the center of gravity of the pilot* This is particularly true in 
high-performance fighters* If the structure of the seat is to bo properly fabri- 
cated so as to gain the maximum strength to protect the man,•it must incorporate 
the engineering features associated with the location of the man’s CG* 
By placing a scries of individuals into the seated attitude which is main- 
tained by fighter pilots in their craft. Figures IV, 25; IV, 26, and then by the 
simple method of balancing the body in two different positions, with the verticals 
through the points of balance intersecting, this center of gravity may be at- 
tained. It may be done photographically as shown in the figures, with the two 
negatives superimposed so as to produce a permanent record of the man’s position. 
Inasmuch as a mock-up is required to hold the man in position, a correction 
formula is used to eliminate the mock-up factor itself. 
(A) Distance SeatCg to Seat-plus-Fan0g 
Weight of Fan (W) 
(B) Distance Seat-plus-FanCg to FanCg 
Weight of Seat(ws) 
b ■ m 
Ms x A 
The final location of the center of gravity of the man is then A + B distance 
from the center of gravity of the seat-plus-man. 
The average position of the CG is 11.60 inches vertically from the back of 
the seat and 10,1+6 inches vertically from the seat itself. The range in position 
from the back of the seat was found to be from 11.05 to 12.7U inches, and the 
range from the seat itself, 8»90 to 12.142 inches, showing a fairly constant po- 
sition in the relative horizontal, but a variation vertically tied in with stat- 
ure variation. The lower values vertically Correspond to lower statures. The 
average position is based on a stature of 6$,h inches and a body weight of 163 
pounds with light clothing. 
No consideration has been given to the effects on the center of gravity due 
to personal equipment, since the respective CG’s of items of equipment can be de- 
termined indipendently and the final position of the center of gravity of the 
entire system calculated.  for Determining the Center of Gravity 
4404B AML 
Figure TV, ?5• ■ V IV, 26. BODY SIZE CONSIDERATIONS FOR EJECTION SEATS 
In fighter-type aircraft, and possibly in certain type of heavier planes, 
it rrust be kept in mind that speeds in excess of three hundred and fifty miles 
per hour render emergency escape very dangerous, and consideration must bo given 
to the provision of ejection of the man under some form of power other than his 
ovm. The Germans attained- this by providing a charge of powder which would e- 
ject both the seat and the nan, following which the man could release the seat 
and proceed through the ordinary parachute maneuvers. 
Attempts have been made to modify existing aircraft in such a manner as to 
incorporate installation of an ejection-type seat, but it has been found extreme- 
ly difficult to gain fully satisfactory means. Therefore, the designer should 
make every effort to incorporate the full installation for his aircraft before the 
mock-up stage is reached. 
The primary requisite for the consideration of the human body as it relates 
to the cockpit is the degree of assurance which can be guaranteed for the posi- 
tioning of the body in the seat. A definite example will serve to demonstrate 
this point. 
In the type of seat figured, it will be seen that the toes of the feet servo 
to define the maximum requirement. The position of the instep in relation to the 
hip will also define the extent of radius through which the thigh must go to at- 
tain a fixed position. It may be that lower dimensional requirements might be 
attained if pans rather than stirrups could be provided, perhaps holding the toes 
down and back from their present position. However, the degree to which this 
could be attained will be determined by the clearances offered when the seat is 
at full-down adjustment. In addition, if there is a possibility that the feet 
might slip off the stirrups, the thighs might very well be describing a radius as 
the knees pass the windshield, and thereby present a maximum dimensional require- 
ment of about 28 inches, even v/ith the feet falling farther back. 
There are certain aerodynamic requirements which must be considered if devia- 
tions from the 13° angle used by the Germans on this particular seat are indi- 
cated, They went to grciat length to design the head rest in such a manner as to 
protect the face ,in the slip-stream, and ttowill be seen from the figures that the 
relative position of this head rest will change from a position somewhat in line 
with the top of the head of a tall man, down to a position about level with his 
ears if the angle of ejection is dropped back to 30° from the vertical. If the 
ejection angle should be this great, the head rest must be elongated and this e- 
longation may require such an increase in the sitting position of the seat struc- 
ture, at 13°, that it will be too long to fit under the canopy of the aircraft. 
If ejection at angles in excess of 15° is considered, the man must be moved 
from the 13° back to the ejection angle, requiring time. If he is not moved back, 
but stays at the 13° while ejection is occurring, then the difference in angles 
may bo sufficient to apply transverse ”gf! to the man’s head and produce instability in amounts great enough to break the neck. A small difference may be inconse- 
quential, but extreme care should be taken to insure this before full installa- 
tion is considered. 
Frontal areas must also be considered in relation to the angles of ejection 
and the trajectories which must be maintained to clear the rudder. Figure IV, 27. 
The total frontal area drops from 5*0 sq, ft. at 13° down to i|,3 sq. ft. at 300, 
so may offer some advantage to compensate for the lower trajectory inherent in e- 
jection at the 300 angle. 
Finally, in consideration of frontal areas, it is absolutely imperative that 
no less than 25 inches be provided laterally for clearances at the shoulders and 
e Ibows. 4-3 75C AML 
Figure IV, :v7. SCALE : «/8 
HUMAN DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CATAPULT EJECTION 
(AERO MED. LABORATORY) 
ELBOW BREADTH-22" 
Figure 17, 25, HUMAN DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 
FOR CATAPULT EJECTION INGERMAN TYPE CATAPULT SEAT 
(AERO MED. LABORATORY) 
ELBOW BREADTH-22* 
SCALE « 1/8 
Figure IV, 2^. HUMAN DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CATAPULT EJECTION 
IN GERMAN TYPE EJECTION SEAT 
(AERO MED.LABORATORY) 
103* 
BODY 4.4SQ.FT 
BODY AND SEAT 50 
SCALE s 1/8 
' T 7, 50. SCALE • 1/8 
HUMAN DIMENa.ONAL REQUIREMENTS 
FOR CATAPULT EJECTION IN GERMAN TYPE EJECTION SEAT 
(AERO MED. LABORATORY) 
ELBOW BREADTH-22 
Fi-;uro TV, 51. HUMAN DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 
FOR CATAPULT EJECTION IN GERMAN TYPE CATAPULT SEAT 
100° 
BODY 446 SQ.FT./ 
BODY AND SEAT 5.01 
SCALE : 1/0 
Figures T 7, 52. SCALE : 1/8 
HUMAN DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CATAPULT EJECTION 
IN GERMAN TYPE EJECTION SEAT 
(AERO MED. LABORATORY) 
rH‘ 
% 
C* 
\ 
* 
\>1 
« HUMAN DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CATAPULT EJECTION 
IN GERMAN TYPE EJECTION SEAT 
(AERO MED. LABORATORY) 
SCALE : 1/8 
iirurn x 7, 3*5. SCALE : 1/8 
HUMAN DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 
FOR CATAPULT EJECTION IN GERMAN TYPE CATAPULT SEAT 
(AERO MED LABORATORY) 
ELBOW BREADTH-22 
i:urn r ', 55 HUMAN DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CATAPULT EJECTION IN GERMAN TYPE SEAT 
SCALE : 1/8 
Figure IV* PRONE POSITION 
The first airplane flight in history was made in the prone position. Since 
that time considerable research work has been done in various countries on the 
operational possibilities of such a use of the pilot. There are many disadvan- 
tages which Lay or may not be outweighed by the advantages. 
From the poor standpoint, the position represents a radical departure from 
that to which the modern pilot has been trained. It offers a frontal field of 
vision which is somewhat lower in angle than that encountered in the modern atti- 
tude. There has been some doubt as to whether this field is adequate enough for 
modern combat conditions and techniques. However, with higher performances to be 
expected in new interceptor aircraft, with radar pick-up, and possibly with radar 
controlled guns, the pilot’s visual field, so far as combat is concerned, may be- 
come less and less important. 
Beyond these two disadvantageous factors, there are several on the credit side 
which should be given consideration. 
First, the pilot is in a position which is actually normal, psychologically, 
for flight attitudes, contrary to his previous training. Second, this position 
enables the ran to withstand ug" forces possibly as high as 15, and perhaps even 
higher. Certainly he cannot stand this value in any position approaching the up- 
right posture. Thirdly, there are certain advantages which should be considered 
from crash safety aspects,- inasmuch as the glide angle of a powerless aircraft, 
under control, -would give the man an effective '*gn somewhat transverse to the 
long axis of the body. Finally, the variation from the modern visual fields may 
or may not be of great importance, as mentioned above. 
Because of these long time considerations, it is worthwhile to recorc the 
data which have been derived from studies on the prone position. First, the tol- 
erances to provide for various statures can actually be more easily accomrodated 
in this type of installation than in the conventional one. The adjustments re- 
quired are those located in the foot pedals, which will automatically determine 
the stature of pilot to be accommodated. If, for example, 6" of pedal adjustment 
are installed, right away it is known that a 6" variation in stature may be uti- 
lized, -/eight considerations, however, may limit this consideration from the 
lateral aspect. Figure IV, 3?, show's the adjustment required in the general as- 
pect and Figure IV, , shows how visual fields will vary with different amounts 
of chest rises and body sizes. The usual amount of attention which should bo 
given to body size will easily accomrodate adequate ranges of body sizes. 
Another consideration from the comfort standpoint is that related to the 
normal position which the feet attain, while the pilot is lyin'" in a nearly hori- 
zontal plane. The position is shown in :rirure IV, *9» fend the average restin' 
any le is 21° back of the vertical; wi th total dor si.flexion 55° forward of the 
restin' angle, and dors is y. te n s i on 21f oft. 4375-Q AML 
RUDDER ACTION 
AILERON ACTION 
Figure 37. AREAS NOT AVAILABLE TO VISION 
NO. I DUE TO POSITION OF INDIVIDUAL 
VERTICAL AT 
2-2 IN 
I IN. RISE 
2 IN. RISE 
4 IN. RISE 
3 IN.RISE 
NO.2 DUE TO SIZE OF INDIVIDUAL 
MEN WEIGHING 170 LBS. OR LESS 
MEN WEIGHING MORE THAN 170 LBS 
Figure IV, 
y 3 ?s . DORSI-EXTENSION 
43 7 5V AML 
REST 
DORSI-FLEXION. 
Figure IV, X'9, Finally, there sho .Id be sor.e consideration given the technique of approaching 
the pilot’s "bed”. The legs may very veil be held in the plane parallel to the 
line of flight, but the thorax, of the trunk, should be lifted about 10°, Figure 
IV, 37, and a greater degree of comfort will be attained for the head ana neck if 
a comparatively sharp rise, which is adjustable, is provided in the uoper chest 
region. In addition, the bed should be sufficiently cushioned and contoured so as 
to prevent body contact with resistant surfaces in the areas of the clavicle, the 
anterior superior iliac, spine, and the patellae. There should also be some pro- 
vision for some lower leg support when the foot is lifted high enough to gain free 
motion on the pedals. The toes should be installed in stirrups on the pedals. 
The problem related to holding the head in a relatively fixed position for 
some period of time, which probably should not exceed twro hours, is much more com- 
plicated, In the first place, every effort should be made to prevent contact be- 
tween tho head support and the bearded portion of the face, because this soon re- 
sults in considerable irritation to the skin. From a purely physical standpoint, 
the support should not be dependent in any degree upon a chin rest. This is due 
to the fact that the head itself, acting free on the neck Joints, will weigh ap- 
proximately 15 pounds, and this v;eight, multiplied by the "g" forces which can be 
tolerated in this position would result in as high as 180 pounds of head weight 
resting uoon the chin. If the oilot were unfortunate enough not to have a good 
"bite” with his teeth at the time of the onset of accelerative forces, it is prob- 
able that he could break off the condyles of the mandible. 
The harness must be designed in such a manner that the weight of the head 
regularly and under Mgn forces will be supported over a broad surface of the fore- 
head, This has been found to be quite satisfactory under experimental conditions. 
Another factor of great importance is the ability of the pilot to be able to move 
his head, to be able to utilize as much visual field as possible, and techniques 
have been developed v.'hich will actually permit greater head motion in this posi- 
tion under forces as high as 12 ?,g" than can be obtained in the usual position 
under forces not exceeding U ITg". This obtained by the simple introduction into 
the system of the head harness of a counter weight and cable system which will 
permit the head to remain free under any "g" forces applied. The groat problem 
here is to force the head down under very high forces in order to prevent black- 
out of the pilot. 
It has also been found that considerable force can be exerted on tho indi- 
vidual control motions, indicating that there is no undue disadvantage in this 
position so far as control loads are concerned. Subsequent testing has indicated 
that these forces can be applied throughout the acceleration ranges which can be 
tolerated by man. BOMBARDIER-NAVIGATOR SEATING 
With the growing interest in high-speed, jet-propelled, bombardment 
aircraft, incorporating relatively small crews of three men, the bombar- 
dier-navigator position has become increasingly important. This crew mem- 
ber will be occupied the entire flight time and all the arrangements for 
his activities should be designed to provide him with the greatest possible 
efficiency. 
In order to maintain a logical perspective concerning the required ar- 
rangements, it should be remembered that the time of the individual will be 
apportioned as to give not more than ten per cent.of the time to use of the 
bombing mechanisms. The remainder will be spent on navigation, ftowever, since 
the main objective of the mission must be accomplished by the actual bombing, 
it is almost as important to provide efficient arrangement for use of peri- 
scopes, etc,, as it is to provide such for navigating. Finally, a single 
seating arrangement must be provided since all the duties are accomplished by 
a single man. This latter helps in many respects because it benefits the 
spatial requirements. 
Inasmuch as the nose sections of the types of aircraft \mder discussion 
are quite small, every effort must be made to reduce the size of the equipment 
required to be close to the man to the smallest size possible. 
Under experimental mock-up conditions it was found that a radar set which 
had 6,3 cu, ft. could not possibly be broken down sufficiently to be placed in 
conjunction with the operator. However, another set, which had only 1.1 cu. 
ft,, very easily adapted jtself to the limited space requirements. 
Two alternate positions of the man may be used. The first, a directly 
fore-and-aft placement of the chair, with a 90° swivel for the navigating posi- 
tion, and the second, a diagonal position of the chair, with a swivel needed 
only for emergency clearance of the man to the escape hatch. In the second 
alternate position, the man is placed in a normal working position at the 
navigating table, and uses the periscope and radarscope by looking diagonally 
over the left shoulder. This position is much the easier to use so long as 
a minimum of manual controls is placed on the 'scopes. 
The radarscope may be permitted to swivel to either side of the periscope 
and will be equally practical. It should be placed about 59" from the floor 
level• 
The chair should be made to provide for use of the back-type parachute 
and might have armrests to improve comfort, although the navigating table will 
provide considerable support. 
Attention should be paid to placing switches and other manual controls 
so that they move in a direction corresponding with that of the hand and wrist. ANTHROPOMETRY IN THE DESIGN OF AIRCRAFT GUN-TURRETS 
General Background 
Introduction: 
The problem of fitting gunners into aircraft gun-turrets was the major 
stimulus to the inception of the entire AAF anthropometric project. The tur- 
ret investigation has determined the selection of subjects and measurements 
in the initial body size survey and has embodied the first application of the 
data collected in that survey. It has required continuous study from the 
receipt of the first British turrets at Wright Field in 19U0 to the present 
time (September, 19i;5), with the existence of several current problems indi- 
cating strongly that advice on gunners’ accommodations will be required as 
long as research in aircraft armament is conducted. 
The gravity and persistence of the gunner’s problem are readily under- 
stood when the origin and function of gun-turrets are examined. Aircraft arma- 
ment is divided into two classes, fixed and flexible guns. Fixed guns, used 
chiefly for offensive purposes, are aimed by aiming the entire airplane, as in 
fighter planes or in those “attack” planes (combined fighter-bombers) which 
have forward-firing guns. They involve no problem of human accommodation, 
although the body of the airplane in which they are installed may, and are thus 
of no present concern. Flexible guns, on the other hand, chiefly defensive 
armament in bombers, are aimed in various directions from inside the airplane. 
They include hand-held guns, locally-controlled gun-turrets, and remotely con- 
trolled guns and turrets. Hand-held guns, which appeared first, are no longer 
contemplated for installation in new airplanes,according to the 9th Edition of 
the Handbook. They may be placed anywhere in the airplane, nose, waist, and 
tail positions being the most common. They do present problems in accommodating 
gunners, but for the most part the difficulties involve human dimensions only 
remotely if at all, and have never been as acute as those of local-control tur- 
rets. For these reasons, gunners* provisions in crew stations involving hand- 
held guns have not been extensively studied. Two cases will illustrate the types 
of difficulty encountered. (1) In the early B-17, the left and right waist 
windows were opposite one another (Fig. IV, UO), causing interference between 
the two gunners in scanning for enemy planes, and in operating the guns. In 
later models, the interference was eliminated by ’’staggering” the windows 
(Fig. IV, iA). (2) In the B-2i|. the windows were not staggered, although the 
gun mounts were (Fig. IV, 1*2). In the later phases of the War, only one waist 
gunner was used since fighter opposition was markedly decreased. His chief com- 
plaint, judging from U.R.’s and questionnaires, was the lack of a comfortable 
seat for scanning on both sides of the airplane. 
Local-control turrets and sighting stations then, the latter operating 
remote armament, are most critical for the gunner. As a result of the earlier 
development of local-control turrets, much the greater proportion of anthropo- 
metric analysis of turrets during the War has been in that direction. To 
anticipate somewhat, one of the principles derived from the study of turrets is 
that any apparatus for human use must provide for the man in its design. The i'iffure 1,0 Pt. zvp ■' gunner using remotely controlled armament should not, in theory, be cramped 
for space, since he is in effect sitting in the airplane itself and not in 
a separate protuberance. Nevertheless, neglect of the principle just men- 
tioned has led to anthropological difficulties which will be considered later 
in the present discussion. 
Definition: 
Turrets are defined as "those self-contained power operated gun positions 
wherein the gunner sitting within the structure controls the position of the 
guns by manipulating the control handles while tracking the target with the aid 
of a computing sight. In all locally controlled turrets, the gunner is sheltered 
within the turret and moves with the guns in azimuth only or azimuth and eleva- 
tion together." (Handbook, 9th Edition, Ch, 21) Power turrets evolved from 
hand-held guns through the intermediate stage of a hand-operated turret. The 
British were the first to produce and use operationally on a large scale turrets 
which were complete units, containing electrically or hydraulically operated 
guns, a computing gunsight, and a gunner plus his personal equipment. The 
effectiveness of such armament is obvious compared to that of hand-held guns or 
turrets which the gunner had to push around against the airstream while peering 
through a simple ring-and-bead sight. As seen even at the end of the first 
World War, the increasing speed of aircraft involved wind forces that the 
gunner could not handle with reliability and which therefore required power 
operation. 
Turret Evolution: 
But the advantages conferred by power operation and computing gunsights, 
such as completely controllable tracking rates and automatic calculation of the 
many factors required to hit a rapidly moving tapget from a moving gun platform, 
are accompanied by inconvenience to the gunner. Heavy guns and supporting 
structure, gunsight, ammunition, and sources of power, all occupy space and 
weight, not to mention the gunner and his personal equipment. Space and weight 
are always at a premium in aircraft. The basic difficulty has been that, until 
the latest stages of the War, turrets were an unwelcome afterthought to airplane 
designers. The primary function of an airplane was conceived to be flight, and 
the realization came only after costly experience that, in the words of the 
Handbook, "The efficiency with which a military aircraft can carry out its 
mission”is dependent to a large degree upon the character of the armament instal- 
lation. . . • Where the armament requirements have been subordinated at the time 
of initial design, it has been impossible to make satisfactory provisions later." 
With space rigidly limited by the dimensions of the plane to which the 
turrets were added, and with his equipment increasing in bulk and complexity, 
the gunner himself was an unwelcome afterthought to turret designers, and one 
of the purposes of the present discussion is to outline the steps by which his 
importance has become recognized. 
When early British turrets were brought to Wright Field for examination, 
most of the American engineers who tried them found them too small for their 
comfortable and efficient operation. This might have led anthropologists to speculate on possible size differences between British and American aircrew 
(some differences have been found, chiefly that AAF aircrew are broader and 
heavier), were it not for the fact that later British turrets afforded gun- 
ners1 accommodations superior to those of early American models. As in other 
aspects of aircraft and turret development, each new designer has had to 
learn for himself. Not only did the RAF learn the lesson of the gunner’s 
importance earlier in point of time than the AAF, since the British turret 
development began sooner, but extraneous circumstances combined to maintain 
this advantage. The use of .$0 caliber machine guns requires much less sup- 
porting structure than the heavier, farther-ranging, and more destructive .50 
calibers; and the British employment of heavy bombers on short-range, low- 
altitude, night missions meant that aerodynamic cleanness and weight considera- 
tions could be compromised in the gunner’s favor. The AAF’s tactics enjoined 
the opposite policy. 
Body Size Survey; 
The danger that the severe limitation imposed by early turrets on gun- 
ners’ efficient operation would restrict the size and hence the number of 
potential gunners was apparent to Col, Benson as early as 191+0. In Feb. 19i£ 
he invited Dr. Hooton, Head of the Anthropology Department at Harvard University, 
to Wright Field to examine British and American turret models, to give a pre- 
liminary evaluation of their suitability, and to draw up a list of body measure- 
ments important in turret design. Dr. Hooton climbed into the various turrets, 
observing those dimensions which seemed to be critical for fit or important in 
view of the gunner's position and required movements. His findings emphasized 
the advisability of a general survey of AAF flyers, both cadets (who become 
pilots, co-pilots, bombardiers, and navigators) and gunners, who would occupy 
the turrets and most other gun positions. Not only were those body measure- 
ments necessary which were applicable to the particular turrets observed, but 
standard anthropometric measurements were desirable to cope with future turret 
designs. In addition, such measurements have in fact, been found to afford 
reasonable predictions of those special dimensions subsequently required. And 
since the value of the body size survey would be enhanced by its applicability 
to aviation materiel other than turrets, measurements dictated by turret problems 
plus others chosen for general utility were selected. Only the former are of 
present concern. 
2951* Aviation Cadets and 5£>U gunners at two of the three Air Corps recep- 
tion centers for each category were included in the survey. 
The measurements were reduced to percentile values, from 5 through 95 > 
"as the most practical elaboration of statistics" for the purpose. In addition, 
correlation scattergrams were drawn up between the generally taken measurements 
of stature, weight, and sitting height and those of importance in the turret 
problem (such as buttock-knee length, knee height, buttock breadth, anterior 
am reach, shoulder breadth, abdominal depth, breadth across knees and elbows), 
and among various pairs of the special turret dimensions. The description of 
the measurements, percentile distribution of each, and the useful correlation 
tables are presented in Appendix 3. The Problem 
Armed with percentile distributions and correlation tables of body 
dimensions of AAF flyers, the anthropologist can attack the turret problem 
directly. By the time the body size survey had been completed and the data 
reduced in September 19ij2, there were several standard turrets in production 
and in service, despite acknowledged shortcomings, since considerations of 
perfection cannot be allowed to hinder production of a vital item. By posi- 
tion in the plane, there were three uppers (Bendix, Martin, and Sperry); 1 
tail (Consolidated); and 2 lowers (Bendix indirect, Sperry-Briggs ball). 
Subsequently, the Bendix lower was discarded, and two alternate tail turrets 
for the B-2l±, the Emerson (also used in the nose position) and Motor Products, 
became standard. 
Turrets generally place the gunner in one of three postures; standing, 
as in the Sperry upper turret (in B-17 airplane); more or less on his sacrum, 
with legs bent, as in ball turrets (in B-17, later in B-2I4. and B-32 airplanes); 
and sitting, as in all others. This variet}' of types, the result of different 
requirements of turret weight, size, and shape imposed by different airplanes, 
is likewise reflected in the diversity of internal arrangements affecting the 
gunner and consequently the anthropologist. The gunsight may move or remain 
fixed as the gunner tracks an eneny plane through it; his legs or his head, or 
both, may be cramped, or neither of these, but his elbows; he may or may not be 
able to wear a parachute or body armor; his seat may or may not be adjustable 
to bring his eye to the gunsight level. 
The problem common to all turrets, however, is four-fold; (1) to evalu- 
ate existing turrets in terms of percentages of AAF flyers accommodated and 
the quality of accommodation afforded. If all AAF flyers are not accommodated, 
(2) to establish size limits for selecting gunners for training. It seems 
obvious that a flyer should not be given an intensive preparation, only to find 
that he cannot fit into the turret for which he has been trained; but it has 
occurred. (5) To ascertain the nature and cause of any difficulties encoun- 
tered, and to attempt to remedy them. The chief focus of interest will inevitably 
be installations within the turret which may be modified without materially 
slowing production, since major redesign may hardly be feasible in view of the 
pressure for production, and, to a lesser extent, the fixed dimensions and 
design imposed by the airplane housing the turret. After the first three 
problems have been met, the experience gained should be used in a fourth direc- 
tion, which is (10 to set up criteria for new designs. Procedure 
The problem has ncm been presented, as well as the tools for its 
solution. The next step is to outline the procedure followed. It appears 
simple to measure a turret, locate the measurements in the percentile distri- 
butions of flyers' body measurements, and thereby estimate the percentage of 
flyers accommodated by the turret. In feet, it was thought at first that the 
distribution tables could be shown to turret designers, the technical words 
explained, and that the anthropologists' task would be thereby accomplished. 
However, it soon became apparent that the applied anthropologist has only 
begun when he has measured his subjects and completed his statistical analysis. 
One of the most consistent experiences of the entire AAF project has been 
that anthropometric data will not be applied correctly - not that they cannot - 
except by or under the direction of anthropologists. 
Clothing Increments: 
In the first place, nude subjects had been measured, whereas bombardment 
aircrew wear some 11? pounds of combat equipment. This made it necessary to 
determine the increments added by various combinations of clothing and personal 
equipment. The two typical clothing outfits worn at the time were heavy winter 
shearling (Fig. IV, 245) and the earliest electrically heatadsuit, Type F-l 
(Fig. IV, i4l4). The shearling was considerably bulkier. As subsequent outfits, 
such as the F-2 electric suit (Fig. IV, I45) were developed, their increment* 
were added, until the following table was completed (Fig. IV, h6). 
Determination of Critical Turret Dimensions: 
An even more serious consideration than clothing bulk in preventing im- 
mediate application of the flyers' body size percentiles to turrets is that 
mere measurement of turret dimensions is insufficient. Not only are movements 
even more likely to hamper efficiency than cramped quarters alone, but the 
selection of significant turret dimensions is imperative. An almost infinite 
number of turret dimensions could be measured, only a few of which might be 
critical. In fact, turret investigations by the Aero Medical Laboratory ante- 
dating anthropometric analysis did include mary irrelevant measurements which 
appeared logical to take but which proved useless. The only way to ascertain 
the critical points is to have men simulate the gunner’s actions in each turret. 
Selection of Subjects: 
Accordingly, several officers and enlisted men, measured according to the 
original body size survey blank, are selected to typify the range of body size 
in Army flyers - of all flyers, it should be noted, not gunners alone, since 
combat experience has demonstrated the need for interchangeability of all crew 
positions. In an emergency, any crew member may have to fill another's posi- 
tion, Dimensions of a typical group actually used in early turret analyses 
are given in Figure IV, U7. These half-dozen subjects are dressed in standard 
flying gear, and their difficulties in operating each turret are noted. When 
any troubles, either of static fit or of required movements, are due to their Figure 1’% ■ ' fXcxrt' :v, rt*  AMOUNTS ADDED TO NUDE DIMENSIONS BY TYPICAL CLOTHING OUTFITS 
Weight 
o Heavy Winter 
b Flying Clothing 
TtVi 
0) 
-P 
<L> x—s 
CC ® 
rH IH 
rH 
XJ 
O rH 
•H O 
U w 
-P 
O -P 
0) *H 
rH P 
W CO 
16.0 
KN 
a 
p 
to 
•o 
$ 
3 
2 
c* 
lU.o 
xJ-d- 
0) 
-p 
aj 
<D r-x 
cc ® 
« S 
O ® 
•H S5 
-P 
O -P 
® *H 
rH P 
W CO 
15.5 
Pounds 
Stature 
1.9 
1.8 
1.9 
1.2 
Inches 
Trunk Height 
,6 
.5 
.7 
.5 
it 
Sitting Height 
.6 
.6 
.6 
.6 
it 
Head Height 
.2 
.2 
.2 
•2 
tt 
Sitting Height Minus 
Head Height 
•k 
•h 
.it 
•i* 
H 
Buttock-Knee 
.5 
M 
1.1 
.3 
n 
Patella Height 
1.8 
1.6 
2.2 
1.9 
tt 
Total Span 
.h 
.2 
0.0 
0.0 
n 
Span Akimbo 
.8 
•h 
0.0 
0.0 
it 
Anterior Arm Reach 
•h 
.2 
0.0 
0.0 
n 
Shoulder-Elbow Height... 
.5 
.5 
.5 
.5 
n 
Biacromial 
1.3 
•U 
.6 
.2 
tt 
Bideltoid, 
.7 
.5 
.8 
.2 
tt 
Chest Breadth,..,.- 
.6 
.h 
.6 
.5 
it 
Elbow Breadth 
hoh 
2.1* 
li.7 
2.9 
ii 
Chest Depth 
l.U 
.7 
1.7 
.7 
it 
Abdominal Depth 
l.h 
•h 
2.2 
.8 
ii 
Bi-iliac 
1.3 
2.1 
.8 
it 
Bi trochanteric 
1.7 
.5 
2.5 
.6 
ii 
Knee Breadth 
2.5 
2.5 
2.1 
1.0 
n 
Squatting Diagonal 
2.9 
1.0 
• • • 
n 
Hand Length 
.5 
•1* 
.2 
tt 
Hand Breadth 
.1* 
.2 
.3 
.2 
ti 
Foot 
2.7 
2.7 
2.7 
2.7 
n 
Foot , 
1.2 
.7 
.9 
.9 
H 
Calf Circumference 
6.0 
1.6 
3-9 
1.8 
11 
Chest Circumference 
9.1 
u.h 
6.8 
5.t 
II 
Head Length 
•U 
.h 
.1* 
•U 
II 
Head Breadth 
•h 
•h 
•U 
•h 
II 
Head Circumference 
1.7 
1.7 
1.7 
1.7 
II 
1 B-5 jacket, A-5 trousers, B-5helmet, A-9 gloves, A-6 boots 
2 F-l suit, B-3 helmet, A-6 gloves, A-9 boots 
5 SJ-U* jacket, 3T-9*trousers, B-6 helmet, A-9 gloves, A-6 boots 
£ PA-17-LI*jacket, PA-17-MI^trousers, B-6 Helmet, PA-17-DI* gloves, A-6 boot, 
A-i; coverall 
3 Measurements; A-6 boot, medium; 12.8” long, 5.0” vd.de: A-6, large; 15.5” long, 
5.5” wide: A-9) large; 15.2” long, J;*?M *dde. 
♦Manufacturers' numbers; Thomas Quilt Factories, Denver; General Electric 
Co., Bridgeport, Conn.  
Haight *lla 
t-c, a. 
Valght glia 
c Q 
Sitting *ila 
Haight c Q 
Trunk til# 
Haight q g 
Shouldar <lla 
Breadth c Q 
El boar gilg 
Breadth c Q 
Knaa lila 
Breadth qq 
Buttock- Ilia 
Knaa c Q 
Knaa Ilia 
Haight <3 
Allan 
72. CX 88-97) 
185(9U-96) 
57 J*( 77-91) 
2i*,l*( 75-88) 
18.2(60-75) 
17.2(70-75) 
8.5(95-96) 
25.5(9U-97) 
25.U(95-96 
Banton 
69.5(51-71) 
155(12-21*) 
5l*.7(8-19) 
25.1(25-1*5) 
17.5(25-1*0) 
16.8(55-65) 
7.5(15-25) 
2l*.6(8l*-9l*) 
21.8(1*5-65 
Danon 
69.2(50-70) 
11*8(1*0-55) 
56.2(1*5-60) 
2i*.0(60-80) 
17.9(1*5-60) 
16.7(50-65) 
7.9(65-80) 
25.7(55-70) 
21.5(50-50 
Fatt 
65.7(8-20) 
155(10-20) 
55.9(55-50) 
2l*.2(68-85) 
16J*(5-1*) 
15.5(9-15) 
7.5(15-25) 
22.1(6-18) 
19.8(5-5 
•adlovski 
70.0(65-31) 
185(91^-96) 
58.9(99-99) 
25.K95-97) 
18.7(80-90) 
17.2(70-75) 
7.9(65-80) 
25.6(50-68) 
21.5(25-1*5 
ftaup 
69.W5U-7U) 
186(96-97) 
57.5(80-95) 
21*.8(85-95) 
18.5(65-80) 
17.5(78-85) 
8.2(88-95) 
25.6(50-68) 
21.7(1*0-60 
ffcrgo 
67.8(29-1*9) 
181*( 95-96) 
56.5(55-70) 
22.9(18-55) 
19.5(95-98) 
18.5(96-97) 
8.9(97-100) 
25.2(55-55) 
21.5(50-50 
Varnet 
65.6(5-6) 
H*l(2l*-55) 
(±5) 
(*5) 
(±10) 
— 
— 
(±5) 
(±2) 
lude Dimensions of Turret Subjects* 
• In inches; weight in pounds. 
•* Cadets and Gunners. 
4533F-A U L 
figure IV, physical dimensions, the turret dimension involved is measured; and from the 
percentiles in the flyers’ series between which the turret becomes unsatis- 
factory to the subjects, there is obtained an approximation to the percentage 
of flyers who will be accommodated and hence to the upper limit of that human 
dimension to use in selecting gunners for that turret. Since the Training 
Command can hardly be expected to take such esoteric measurements of gunners 
as appear in the Anthropological Survey, the correlation tables are consulted 
to translate all the special measurements into the routinely taken height and 
weight. The correlation between height and length dimensions on the one hand, 
and between weight and breadths and girths on the other is high enough, for 
AAF flyers, that the height and weight can serve as rule-of-thumb approxima- 
tions to the others. 
Anthropometric Analysis: 
Anthropometric analysis, it became apparent from a preliminary inspec- 
tion of turrets, comprehends four aspects of gunners’ accommodations, all 
closely inter-related, but more conveniently evaluated separately: comfort, 
efficiency, vision, and safety. A brief discussion of each, with examples 
occurring in specific turrets, will be presented, followed by an illustration 
of the entire procedure of anthropometric analysis to (a) the Sperry turret and 
(b) a comparison of three alternative turrets for the tail position of the B-2ij. 
airplane. 
(1) Comfort includes the purely metrical and relatively static adapta- 
tions of the gunner to his space and to his equipment, as well as general fact- 
ors like thermal adequacy, ventilation, noise levels, freedom from drafts, and 
the like. Spatial adjustment, in turn, consists of vertical, lateral, and 
anterior-posterior (in engineering terms, fore-and-aft) accommodation. The 
following arc typical examples of deficient provisions for the gunner's comfort. 
a. Shoulder Breadth in Bendix Upper Turret 
The Bendix upper turret (Type A-l*, Model N; installed in the B-25 
airplane) illustrated in Fig. IV, JUS has as a major structural com- 
ponent a ’’box casting” of frame in the shape of a sector 20 inches 
across its greatest breadth (at the azimuth ring, the arc of the 
sector) and 19 inches across the gunner's shoulders. Shoulder breadth 
in AAF flyers averages 18 inches, to which shearling clothing adds 
0.7 inches and the F-l electrically heated suit, 0.5 inches. Further- 
more, flying clothing of any type pushes the gunner forward to the 
portion of the box casting narrower than 19 inches. Nude shoulder 
breadth, it will be recalled, is measured with the elbows held tightly 
to the sides, whereas the shoulder position involved in operating the 
Bendix turret control handles adds from 1/2 to 1 inch to shoulder 
breadth. From such calculations, confirmed by the difficulties 
experienced by selection subjects, it is estimated that at least 5(# 
of AAF flyers in light flying clothing (that is, a coverall over shirt 
and trousers) cannot fit the turret at all, or cannot rotate the con- 
trol handles fully in azimuth. In heavy clothing, virtually 100£ are 
discommoded. 151 This difficulty has always hampered the Bendix upper. When 
the anthropometric findings were discussed with Bendix Engineers, 
the latter acknowledged the deficiency, but stated that no remedy 
was possible, inasmuch as the turret diameter is determined by the 
narrow fuselage of the B-25. 
b. Knee Height in Consolidated Tail Turret 
In the Consolidated tail turret (Fig. IV, 1*9) for the B-21+ air- 
plane, a serious vertical constriction is imposed on the knee by the 
relatively short distance, 21-1/1+ inches, from the foot firing pedals 
(on which the foot rests), when depressed, to a stiffening frame 
above. Nude knee height - from floor to top of knee, in sitting posi- 
tion, with lower leg at right angle to thigh - average 22 inches in 
cadets and 21.5 in gunners. The floor slopes upward aft of the foot 
pedal, enabling the knee to be lowered only slightly by advancing the 
foot. With severe constriction, as felt by individuals with long 
lower legs, the foot cannot be advanced at all, causing an acute angle 
at the knee, extremely fatiguing and dangerous because of the likeliness 
of impeding the circulation of blood. Some constriction was felt even 
in light clothing by subjects of average knee height. With the addition 
of 1,8 inches to knee height by the shearling A-6 boot combination (the 
F-l electric suit plus A-9 boot adds 1,6 inches), only about 15$ of AAF 
flyers were accommodated and at least 50£ seriously discommoded. 
Later models of the turret ameliorated the difficulty by having the 
floor continue aft without sloping, but production of the turret was 
discontinued before major modifications were introduced. 
c. Draft in Ball Turret 
In June, 19k39 the following report from the Sth Air Force was 
received by the Aero Medical Labs "It has been noticed by gunners in 
this (ball turret) position that the lower part of the outside of the 
leg is subject to direct blasts of cold air, especially if the turret 
is turned so the firing is in a lateral direction. Consequently, uncom- 
fortably cold feet is a common experience - It is probable that this 
is due to the direct current from a space l/6 to 1/2 an inch wide around 
the shell ejecting chute. No known reason why this opening could not 
be closed," 
The report was brought to the attention of the Armament Unit, Pro- 
duction Section, and the turret examined in conjunction with a repre- 
sentative of that office. It was decided that the condition could be 
corrected by attaching a strip of felt between the ejection chute and 
the opening for the chute in the turret casting. The Briggs Company 
agreed to incorporate the change in production turrets. 
(2) Efficiency implies convenience in operation and includes such considera- 
tions as placement and construction of controls, instruments, gunsights, guns (for in-flight servicing), and other equipment which the gunner must mani- 
pulate. Most of the application of the anthropometric percentiles has been 
in the evaluation of gunners* comfort and efficiency. Fatigue tests, to be 
described later, were attempted in order to obtain a direct comparison of 
a gunner’s efficiency with various turret arrangements, but the attempt 
failed because the numerous variables could not be controlled. The following’ 
are examples of anthropometric concern with efficiency in turrets: 
a. Range Pedal in Ball Turret (Figs. IV, 50 & IV, 51) 
In the early models of the Sperry-Briggs ball turret, the range 
pedal, which feeds data to the computing gunsight on target distance 
was operated by pushing downward against a strong spring with the 
left heel. The pedal was located 22 inches forward of the seat back 
and 1+ to 5 inches toward the gunner from the ammunition box in front. 
In ordinary clothing, neither the shortest subject (buttock-knee length 
21,1+ inches, 2nd percentile of cadets and Sth of gunners) nor the tal- 
lest (buttock-knee length 2i*,6 inches, S3rd percentile of cadets and 
95rd of gunners) could operate the range-finder satisfactorily, whereas 
intermediate subjects could, A short thigh made the lower leg pueh 
at an acute angle instead of straight down,as required by the pedal; 
with the result that the gunner had insufficient strength and length 
of leg to utilize the lower third of the pedal's excursion, A long 
thigh, on the other hand, involved the gunner in obstructions at the 
knee and toe with the ammunition box. 
Inasmuch as the intermediate subjects, who could operate the 
pedal, ranged from the 35th - 55rd percentiles to the 75rd - S5th 
(of cadets and gunners, respectively), it could be concluded that 
roughly the middle third of the AAF flying population was accommo- 
dated wearing light clothing and shoes. 
However, combat gunners almost always wore heavy winter flying 
boots, (Type A-6). Wearing both medium and large sizes (and since the 
A-6 boot is worn over shoes, the larger boots are to be expected), no 
subject could operate the pedal. Rotating the turret to place the 
gunner on his back helped only slightly. The two subjects with the 
longest thighs could not even place their heels in the pedal stirrup. 
As for those who could, the lower edge of the ammunition case pressing 
down on the foot depressed the pedal permanently, so that it could be 
operated only through the upper fourth of its range. 
Several remedies for this intolerable condition were attempted. 
Special felt boots were designed for the gunner; the ammunition boxes 
were taken outside The turret, then replaced; a toe-operated pedal 
was devised and tested; but the only real solution came late in the 
War, with the adoption of a hand-operated range-finder. 
b. Gun-Charging Handle in Sperry Upper (Fig. IV, 52) 
This handle would not permit passage of a hand wearing standard I it 2112 7 
Cha&g/ng G uns 
L OAD/NG $mmo. Can 
52 flying glove, since the manufacturers had not been aware of the gun- 
ner’s combat equipment. Once the gloves were demonstrated, the nar- 
row handle was replaced first by a larger leather thong and later by 
a ball and cord. 
c. Head and Face Cramping in Sperry Upper (Fig. iv, 5?, & IF, 53) 
Trials on S selected subjects, wearing various clothing assemblies, 
demonstrated that in any high-altitude clothing (including the electric- 
ally heated suit) even without parachute, it was excessively difficult or 
impossible to wear any type of oxygen mask. The following dimensions 
show dramatically the inadequacy of the clearance provided; 
(1) Back of turret to sight when horizontal; 12 inches. 
(2) Back of turret to sight at 50° elevation; 6.5 inches. 
(3) Average AAF flyer, back to head to forehead; 6 inches. 
(ij.) Average AAF flyer, back of head to tip of nose; 9 inches. 
(5) Average AAF flyer, back of head to tip of A-10 oxygen mask; 
11.5 inches. 
(6) Clearances established by Aero Medical Laboratory and accepted 
by Armament Laboratory; 
(a) Minimum from any structure behind head to any in front of 
face: 20 inches, 
(b) Minimum of this 20 inches behind head; 1+ - 5 inches. 
Since all gunners had to assume the same position for sighting, all 
were discommoded. 
During elevation of the guns and gunsight, the latter would hit the 
gunner’s oxygen mask and pinch his mask tubing. To be sure, the gunner’s 
head and mask were at an angle to the back of the turret during sighting, 
leaving barely enough room with extremely careful, slow movements. 
Turning of the head for scanning, even with the guns horizontal, had to 
be done similarly. But combat conditions certainly do not permit such 
movements, 
This anthropometric evaluation was confirmed by complaints from 
both European and Pacific Theaters. The requirement that all bombard- 
ment aircrew wear steel helmets for flak protection - quite impossible 
in the early Sperry upper - enhanced the need for providing more room 
for the gunner’s head and face. 
The anthropometric report advocated three remedies all of which 
were adopted: (1) relocating an obstructive switch on the gunsight; 
(2) bulging out the turret dome behind the gunner’s head; and (5) 
moving the whole sight assembly away from the gunner. 
(5) Vision is obviously a paramount consideration in turret design. Since 
the gunneF must scan wide areas, apprehend his target, and then track it (that 
is, follow it through his gunsight while adjusting the sight reticles for dis- 
tance and size of the enemy plane) with both airplanes maneuvering at high speeds. Since the turret also serves as look-out for the entire airplane, it 
is imperative to minimize obstructions to the gunner's vision not only through 
the sighting panel, but also around the entire turret. The gunner should be 
able to scan by moving his head about to.thin the turret, since continuous 
movement of the turret for scanning shortens the life of the electrical system 
and burdens turret maintenance facilities, in addition to slowing the airplane 
when the guns project into the airstream. One of the two major criticisms of 
all early American turrets by a British observer was that "the entire subject 
of the scanning field in each turret had been given too little consideration." 
Not only was visibility evaluated in routine anthropometric examinations 
of gunner’s accommodations, but special studies were made comparing the field 
of vision afforded by various turrets and recommending specific improvements. 
The following are a few examples of deficient visibility in turrets, some 
of which were later corrected; 
a. Sighting Difficulty in the Sperry Upper 
The earliest Sperry turret domes (Figure IV, 55) consisted of a 
number of panes of plexiglass, joined by metal strips running hori- 
zontally and vertically. In combat and during fatigue tests con- 
ducted by the Aero Medical Laboratory, the target was frequently lost 
in the blind spots caused by these obstructions. The horizontal ribs 
were worse hazards than the vertical, since the latter might be 
partially seen around, due to the spacing of eyes and bjr lateral move- 
ments of the head. 
When these difficulties were pointed out, subsequent domes elimin- 
ated first the horizontal and later most of the troublesome vertical 
ribs, with the result that late models have greatly improved visibility. 
b. Scanning difficulties in Martin Upper 
One of the few faults of a generally successful turret has been a 
blocking of the gunner's lateral vision by the gun and a severe reduc- 
tion in downward field of vision by his position, sitting low in the 
turret. As an RAP' observer pointed out in 19i|2, the chief defect of the 
turret was that the gunner could not see anything not diving on him. 
Unfortunately, the construction of the turret has prevented remedial 
action, although it is possible that, had the importance of vision been 
recognized from the beginning a satisfactory design might have been 
adopted. 
c. Comparison of Vision in Consolidated and Emerson Tail Turrets. 
Vision, both for scanning and sighting, was unsatisfactory in the 
Consolidated turret (Figs. IV, & IV, 55) • For scanning, the gunner PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES OF THE CONSOLIDATED TAIL TURRET 
(a) front window,bullet-proof glass 
(b) top center window, plexiglass 
@ SIDE BULKHEAD WINDOW 
@ turret outer shell 
0 ammunition belt 
0 METAL CONSTRUCTION (BETWEEN TOP WINDOW AND 
SIDE BULKHEAD WINDOW) 
@ METAL BAND, TOP OF GLASS WINDOW 
® METAL BAND, EDGE OF PLEXIGLASS OUTER HOOD 
4533&-A M L 
FIGURE H, 54 VISIBILITY FROM CONSOLIDATED TAIL TURRET, 
ANTERIOR HEMISPHERE 
Z.533D-A M L 
FOR KEY SEE FIGURE IT, 54. THE PROJECTION IS SIMILAR TO 
THAT OF A HEMISPHERE MAP PROJECTION. THE CENTER OF THE 
SPHERE IS THE POSITION OF THE GUNNER'S EYE. 
FIGURE EZ, 55 sat low in the turret, bringing his eye very little above the beginn- 
ing of the transparent surface and limiting down vision; the turret 
dome consisted of plexiglass panels jointed by metal strips; and the 
total field of vision was reduced by side bulkheads and other ob- 
structions. As for sighting, targets became lost in a horizontal 
metal band at the top of the sighting panel (exactly as in the Sperry- 
upper turret noted above), and the field of vision fell considerably 
short of the field of fire of the guns. 
These shortcomings were pointed out to the Armament Laboratory, 
but before they could be corrected, production of the Consolidated 
turret ceased. The Qnerson turret, which replaced it, avoided the 
previous errors, and as a result had excellent visibility (Figs. IV, 
56 & IV, 57). 
{U) Safety includes armor protection, ease of entrance and exit, and pos- 
sibilities foremergency escape. All crew members require armor protection in 
some form from flak and if possible from bullets. ’’Flak suits** (armor vests) 
may be worn; armor plate or bullet-proof glass may be provided; or crew stations 
may be designed to utilize heavy construction of the airplane as protection. 
Ease of entrance may be critical if the gunner must assume his position quickly, 
as, for example, to replace a wounded man; ease of exit is vital at all times, 
especially to aid another crew member and to escape when the airplane is 
seriously damaged. Escape in case of ditching or crash landing, which requires 
openings on top of the airplane, is for the most part a problem not peculiar to 
turrets, since most turret gunners are instructed to assume other stations when 
a crashing landing or ditching is imminent (approximately 90£ of ditchings allow 
ample time for the crew to be warned and to assume ditching stations). However, 
some turret gunners, notably in the B-29 tail, routinely remain in their turrets, 
as might others if direct escape were possible. As for parachute escape, it is 
ironic that tail and ball turrets, the best positions in the airplane for direct 
escape - since the flyer will not hit any portion of the airplane - afford inade- 
quate provisions or none at all for so doing. The accelerative forces encountered 
in spinning airplanes make movement so difficult that immediate escape is unques- 
tionably superior to arrangements where the gunner must leave his turret and 
make his way to an escape hatch. 
The following are presented as examples of anthropometric concern with 
safety provisions in turrets: 
a. Armor Protection 
(1) Location of armor plate in Bendix upper. In July, 19U3) the 
Aero Medical Laboratory was requested by both Bendix and the Armament 
Unit, Production Division, to advise concerning a proposed installa- 
tion of armor plate within the box casting, between the central control 
column and the gunner. Anthropometric findings were that at least 50& 
of AAF flyers in light clothing and virtually 100£ in heavy clothing 
either could not fit into the turret at all or could not operate it 
efficiently; that wearing of an oxygen mask was precarious; that no 3ngIneering Di t! s1on 
Mwaor&ndom Report No. SNO-M-ii9«695-kL 
January U4, 19h3 
Ill 59C 7 
Appendix 1 -ContM, 
Figure 3 
Figure IV, 56 
Emerson Experimental Tail Turret. Model 111 
(for B-2lt plane) 
View from left side Insering division 
Memorandum Report No. BNO-M~l4.9-69S-.l1L 
January li,, V)k3 
Appendix 1 -CantM 
Figure 1+ 
Experimental Tail Turret* Model 111 
( for B-2ii plane) 
Turret assembly, looking aft standard parachute could be worn in the turret; that flak suits 
and helmets were becoming required for wear in combat; and that 
amor plate in the proposed position would enhance all the above 
difficulties. It was accordingly advised that the proposed loca- 
tion was not feasible, and an alternative location (along the turret 
ring, below the sighting panel) recommended which would provide sub- 
stantially equivalent protection without interfering with vision or 
aggravating the already serious cramping within the turret. This 
recommendation was adopted. 
b. Steel Helmets for Turret Wear 
Although the anthropometric study of steel helmets for turret 
wear resulted in fitting the former to the dimensions of the latter, 
it illustrates the problems of integration into which the study of 
gunner's accommodations ramifies. When steel helmets for aircrew 
became required for combat wear, data obtained by the Aero Medical 
Laboratory on head siae of AAF flyers, turret clearances, and tests 
of two proposed helmet models in the principal turrets aided in the 
decision to standardize two helmets: one for aircrew in general and 
a smaller one for use in turrets and other cramped quarters. This 
study will be discussed in more detail later. 
(2) Difficulty of entrance and exit 
a. Difficulty in entry in Martin and "Martin Junior" turrets. 
The Martin upper turret (for B~£k and B-26 airplanes, laTer 
used in the B-52) posed a formidable problem of entry to an un- 
aided gunner wearing heavy clothing and a seat parachute. Exit 
was easy, since the entire seat could be unlatched and sYn.ng down. 
The entrance was restricted anteriorly by a metal foot rest and 
ammunition boxes, and posteriorly by the seat, which hung down; 
the presence of gun handles above enjoined slow, careful head move- 
ment; nor were handles or straps provided to help the gunner pull 
himself up and retain his position while reaching underneath him- 
self to secure the seat. 
The Martin "Junior", for the A-50 airplane, was the same turret 
with only two modifications, both of which enhanced the gunner's 
difficulty on entrance: a reduction of 5 inches in over-all dia- 
meter and a fixing of the foot bar, originally adjustable, 6.5 
inches below the seat level, thereby reducing the opening avail- 
able for entry. 
These difficulties, later confirmed by combat reports, were 
pointed out and specific recommendations made for correction. 
Entrance grips were eventually added. Although the shortcomings 
of the Martin "Junior" were acknowledged by the manufacturers, pro- 
duction requirements precluded redesign. 
b. Impeded exit in Emerson tail turret. Insufficient foot space 
was one of the few defects in the Emerson nose and tail turret for the B-2l4. airplane. The difficulty of wearing heavy flying boots, 
Type A-6, was pointed out - in respect to spatial accommodation 
rather than to ease of exit, however - in two Memorandum Reports, 
in 19U2 and early 19h3> and in a trip to the manufacturer’s plant 
in March 19h3• Although the condition was acknowledged to be 
undesirable, it was stated that the need for fitting mechanical 
items into a limited space precluded modification. 
In 19144- an Sth Air Force gunner was interviewed who reported 
that he had tried to leave the turret rapidly in an emergency, 
but could not, his foot catching in each of six attempts to free 
himself. He wore a small shoe, size 7, with a medium-size A-6 
boot. Luckily, the emergency passed, or the gunner might have gone 
down with the plane. 
c. Difficult entry and exit in Emerson nose and tail ball. At 
the end of the War, in keeping wi£H"tHe trend - to be discussed 
later - toward smaller turrets, a small ball turret was built by 
Emerson for the nose and tail of the B-32 airplane. Not only were 
inadequate hand-holds provided, but A-6 boots invariably became 
caught under a transverse bar. The excessive difficulty of entry 
and exit encountered at such a late stage in turret development 
indicates once more that eternal vigilance is the price of gunners’ 
safety. 
(5) Emergency Escape from Turrets 
a. Tail turrets. No standard AAF tail turrets except the B-29 tail 
sighting station permits direct escape, whereas the RAF expressly 
stipulates (in the British equivalent of the AAF Handbook) that 
”the door of tail turrets shall be capable of being opened when on 
the beam (i.e., full to side) to facilitate the escape by parachute 
of the tail gunner.” (Ministry of Aircraft Production, Air Publica- 
tion 970, par. 57)* Anthropometric reports have continually recom- 
mended the adaption of similar safety measures for AAF turrets, but 
with little success. Provision for direct escape was incorporated 
in experimental models of the Motor Products tail turret but deleted 
from the production model. 
b. Ball turret. Although the ball turret an excellent position 
from which to leave the plane by parachute escape, early models 
virtually precluded the wearing of a parachute, since any bulk under 
or behind ary but the smallest gunner pushed his head far beyond 
the gunsight and made sighting impossible. Moreover, the turret 
was so crowded that there was little or no space to stow or to 
attach a chest parachute. 
Anthropometric recommendations were to drop the turret seat 
or to bulge out the door behind the gunner’s back.*- Both sugges- 
tions were tested experimentally, and the former was adopted, with 
the result that direct parachute escape became generally feasible. Now that the chronological and analytical stages of the anthropometry 
of turrets have been discussed at some length, the entire procedure as applied 
to one turret, the Sperry upper, and to a comparison of three competing turrets, 
will now be presented* LOCAL CONTROL 
Gunners1 Accommodations in the Sperry- 
Upper Turret, Type A-l 
The Speriy upper turret (Figs. IV, 52, & IV, 55), used with great suc- 
cess throughout the war in the B-17, was a sturdy, rugged turret in which the 
gunner stood upright while sighting. In later models, a seat and foot-rests 
supplanted a webbing strap seat and stirrups for standing. The turret origi- 
nated in 19U0 as a stop-gap, interestingly enough, until the Sperry Gyroscope 
Company could perfect a remote-control armament system. This was never done 
in the B-17. 
Principles Derived from Study of Sperry Upper Turret 
What general principles, both for anthropologist and for turret designer, 
can be drawn from experiences gained on this turret? Preoccupation with fit- 
ting the turret into the airplane on the one hand, and devising ever better (and 
biggeri) gunsights and fitting them into turrets on the other, had left no room, 
either in the designer’s mind or in the turret, for the gunner. The defects 
reported in the anthropometric evaluation were obvious to anyone who attempted 
to operate the turret as a combat gunner would. No elaborate statistics were 
required to realize that the gunner was intolerably cramped; indeed, since the 
eye of each gunner had to reach the same level for sighting, the chief fault 
of the turret, head and face restriction, affected all sizes of gunner equally. 
When impaired combat efficiency dictated changes in the turret in the 
gunner’s interest, it was relatively minor modifications rather than a thorough 
redesign that improved the gunner’s lot. Had the designers been acquainted 
with the gunner’s problems from the beginning, losses in efficiency, time, and 
production need never have occurred. 
(1) Obviously, consideration of the gunner as a factor in turret design 
is the kernel of the whole problem. All else is but refinement; once grasped, 
this is the principle whence all blessings, in the form of satisfactory' gun- 
ners' accommodations, flow. And the gunner's needs are indeed modest, com- 
pared with the complex mechanical and aerodynamic problems successfully solved 
in turrets. 
(2) Moreover, it is necessary to consider the gunner early in design; 
because once production begins, the pattern is virtually frozen and is extremely 
difficult from a design point of view. Thus some simple changes, like moving 
the roller brackets 2 inches apart, were never accomplished, while others 
equally simple, like moving the microphone from the pedestal to the hand grips, 
or eliminating the ribs from the turret dome, or moving the sight forward 5 
inches, took months to accomplish after the turret was in production. 
(3) A principle which has wide applications in the whole turret project 
can be stated thus; Production schedules are not an excuse for slighting design. Although it is undoubtedly easier to preach than to practice this 
precept, especially in wartime, it has generally been true that "cutting cor- 
ners" does not pay. Possibly the origin of the Sperry upper as a stop-gap 
turret, pending development of central station armament, contributed to a 
feeling that painstaking design or prompt remedy of acknowledged defects were 
not urgent. But the turret lasted for the entire war, and its total effective- 
ness would have been far greater had early models accommodated the gunner as 
well as did the later, A similar situation occurred in the case of the Bendix 
upper, when deletion of the oxygen system from the B-25 airplane was suggested 
as a reason disregarding oxygen mask provisions. As predicted by the Aero 
Medical Laborators’- in advocating more room for the wearing of an oxygen mask, 
the oxygen system was later restored to the B-25* The point is this: while 
improvements and modifications will always be required in turrets, armament 
designers will not have to compromise mechanical perfection in later models if 
they have first accommodated the gunner. 
(10 The vital necessity, in evaluating gunners' accommodations, of con- 
sidering the gunner as wearing all his combat gear and performing all his 
required movements is clearly demonstrated, as is the need for integration 
between airplane, turret, and equipment designers. It is not far from the 
truth to say that no turret presents a problem to most individuals dressed in 
shirt and trousers — the usual equipment worn in factory inspections. But 
when bulky clothing, oxygen masks, flak suits and helmets, and parachutes are 
worn, as they must be in combat, and when the gunner must perform certain opera- 
tions in the turret, then his problems become acute. Then, too, do differences 
in gunners' body sizes become critical. Manufacturers should always be fur- 
nished by the AAF with complete outfits of personal and accessory equipment 
kept constantly up to date, and should be familiarized with operational pro- 
cedures in the airplanes for which their turret is designed. 
(5) Specific features and installations of the Sperry turret, rather 
than its over-all dimensions, have caused its difficulties, mapy of which were 
remedied without increasing the dimensions of the turret or eliminating any 
equipment. It is true that it was necessary to increase the size of the turret 
dome to provide more head room, and that the restrictions on elbow movement 
were not corrected; but it is by no means certain that these were inevitable 
features of the turret, dictated by its dimensions and location in the B-17. 
(6) Anthropometrically, several points are worthy of notice. 
(a) Breaking down gunners' accommodations into comfort, efficiency, 
vision, and safety, and subdividing the spatial analysis still further, 
in terms of lateral, vertical, and fore-and-aft restrictions, enables 
evaluations and suggestions to be made that have a much better chance 
of acceptance than would general aspersions on gunners' comfort. By 
this procedure minor changes which can be incorporated without hamper- 
ing production can be isolated and followed up. 
(b) The subjects used to test turret accommodations should be selected 
as phj'-sically representative of the flyers likely to man the turret. 
Body size criteria for the selection of all aircrew and of turret 
gunners change from time to time; whereas the general requirement for 
interchangeability of crew members is likely to remain. Accordingly, the subjects chosen should represent a wide range — 5th to 95th, 
or 10th to 90th percentiles — of the existent flying population. 
It is an ultimate goal of the anthropometric project that neither 
turrets nor any other crew position need impose size limitations 
on operating personnel. Until that time, the anthropologist will 
have to keep informed on the physical composition of the flying 
population, current directives for aircrew selection, and design 
and performance specifications of airplanes and turrets. 
(c) The striking concurrence of laboratory assessment with inde- 
pendent combat reports is another indication of the soundness of the 
analytical procedure. Combat performance is the ultimate proof of • 
the turret pudding. 
(d) Elaborate use of statistics is unnecessary. Averages and approxi- 
mate percentages have been sufficient for the purpose, which is 
essentially to buttress common sense; to indicate the relative urgency 
of various suggested improvements; and to serve as a general guide in 
the selection of gunners to operate the turret. 
(e) The terminology employed should be engineering rather than anthro- 
pometric. Thus, dimensions should be denoted "knee height" and 
"shoulder breadth" rather than "patella height" and "bideltoid dia- 
meter," and expressed in inches rather than in centimeters. Even when 
carefully defined, technical anthropological language has been found 
to interpose.a serious barrier to the acceptance of the gunner's place 
in turret design. A Comparison of Gunners' Accommodations in 
Three Tail Turrets for the B~2h 
Another example of the application of the anthropometric procedure 
detailed above is afforded by the comparison of gunners' accommodations in 
the three tail turrets for the B-2U: the Consolidated (Fig. IV, U9)> earliest 
of all, and its two successors, the Motor Products and the Emerson (Figs. IV, 
56, and IV, 57). The Emerson was later used in the B-2U nose as well as in 
the tail position. Each turret had been analyzed individually, and the com- 
parison allowed certain general conclusions to be drawn which were later incor- 
porated in Technical Note i+9-2, summarizing the findings of the entire anthro- 
pometric turret study. 
As inspected in January 191&> the Emerson turret embodied two anthropo- 
metric suggestions made to Emerson representatives while the turret was still 
experimental. These were (1) increased amplitude of adjustment in the turret's 
compensating sight-and-seat mechanism (which maintains a constant distance 
between the two at all elevations of the guns) to accommodate the range of sit- 
ting heights of AAF flyers; and (2) a reshaping of the upper rear cross member 
of the turret frame so that it no longer hit the back of the gunner's head. The 
Motor Products model was a first attempt to replace the admittedly unsatisfactory 
Consolidated turret, while retaining many of its features to facilitate pro- 
duction and installation. Later versions of the Motor Products turret, as 
finally standardized, afforded much better accommodations for the gunner; and, 
like the Emerson, incorporated anthropometric suggestions made directly to the 
designer, A large man wearing heavy clothing plus seat parachute could operate 
the later turret comfortably, and his field of vision was good. 
Examination of the comparison of the three turrets confirms all the prin- 
ciples outlined above for the Sperry upper turret. Especially are two points 
clears (1) the Consolidated turret, recognized as unsatisfactory from the 
beginning, had a long life with very few modifications, because it was the first 
and for a long time the only tail turret the AAF had. As in the case of all 
turrets, once production has begun, and especially if replacement is contem- 
plated, even imperative changes may never be made. (2) The diversity of solu- 
tions of the B-2I4. tail turret problem, especially the fact that each of the 
three turrets has its own virtues and defects, demonstrates dramatically the 
truth of the proposition that particular (and, if caught early enough in the 
turret's evolution, often rearrangeable) installations, rather than over-all 
turret dimensions, are the source of the gunner’s difficulties. Selection of Gunners 
Examination of all standard and several prospective turrets yielded the 
percentages of AAF flyers accomodated by each, and the scatter diagrams 
afforded reasonable approximations to the upper limits of height and weight 
of gunners who could operate the turret efficiently. 
Thus, for example, the Martin upper turret imposed a range of 
nude sitting heights between 35 and 37.5 inches on gunners wearing 
winter flying clothing (either shearling or electrically heated suits), 
such range occurring between 65 and 72.5 inches in stature. In the 
same turret, the nude breadth across the elbows should not have exceeded 
15.5 inches, if shearling was to be worn, or 17.5 with the electrically 
heated suit. In the foitier case, the weight would be below I65 pounds; 
in the latter, below 156 pounds. 
Again, the gunner in the Sperry upper should not exceed 70 inches 
or 165 pounds; nor should the gunner in the Bendix upper exceed 150 
pounds in weight. Two gun stations — not turrets — which would 
accommodate tall gunnel’s were the B-17 and B-26 tail positions, but 
both imposed limitations on weight well below 150 pounds, 
These limits were put to use in January 19h3> when the Office of the Air 
Surgeon, responsible for establishing physical criteria for aircrew selection, 
requested the opinion of the Aero Medical Laboratory on a proposed change of 
the upper limits on gunners' height and weight from 70 inches and 170 pounds to 
73 inches and ISO pounds. The Aero Medical Laboratory recommended that the 
proposed change not be adopted, inasmuch as it was virtually impossible for 
individuals 72 inches in height and 180 pounds in weight to operate existing tur- 
rets — upper, ball, or tail— comfortably and efficiently under combat con- 
ditions — that is, wearing heavy winter flying clothing and oxygen masks, even 
without parachutes — for several continuous hours. In fact, great difficulty 
was experienced by individuals at the existing upper limits. Although some 
aberrant gunners above 70 inches and 170 pounds might fit, they would be too 
few to warrant the training of large numbers who would not. And although 
redesigns of current turrets were in prospect and might accommodate larger 
individuals in the future, the equipment actually in service and in production 
at a given time is the proper basis for selecting gunners. 
The Armament Laboratory concurred in this negative recommendation, since 
combat experience had proved the necessity for interchangeable gunners. If 
gunners were to be able to operate any of several turrets, large individuals 
should not be selected and trained, even though they might fit one or two 
existing turrets. 
It was therefore concluded that changing the criteria of selection would 
increase not the supply of gunners, but the number of misfits; and that the 
best way to increase the supply of gunners was to redesign the turrets. 
This recommendation of the Aero Medical Laboratory was accepted by AAF 
Headquarters, and the limits of 70 inches in height and 170 pounds in weight 
were retained until considerably later in the War, when roomier turrets became 
standard. 175• Visits to Turret Plants 
All standard turrets and several experimental models were thus analyzed, 
but the writing of reports and discussions with manufacturers1 representatives 
on current and even experimental models, it became apparent, could do little 
more than modify minor details of finished products. By the time a turret 
has reached even the experimental stage, its design has virtually crystal- 
lized. Major changes, though demonstrably desirable, cannot be effected 
because of the interrelationships between the component parts of a complex 
machine. The time to effect changes is before the wooden mock-up, or even 
before the blue-print stage. 
As stated above, designers should have the gunner in mind constantly 
as an integral part of the turret; and their concept should be functional, in 
the sense that both gunner and turret will be the final product as it enters 
combat, 
In thorough agreement with this point of view, the Armament Laboratory 
considered that the results of the anthropological study could be brought 
home to manufacturers best by personal visits to each turret manufacturer, in 
which the anthropologist could discuss in detail the analysis of each turret 
and demonstrate the difficulties encountered. In all, visits were made to 
nine plants in 19i+$. A complete kit of personal equipment was demonstrated, 
and, as might have been suspected from turret arrangements, proved to be a 
revelation to most manufacturers, who had had little conception of the amount 
dr nature of the gunner's elaborate gear. For example, the gun-charging handle 
in the Sperry upper turret would not permit passage of a hand wearing standard 
flying gloves. A larger leather handle was immediately*substituted, to be 
shortly replaced by a ball and cord device much easier to grasp. Arrangements 
were made for supplying personal equipment kits to all manufacturers for 
experimental design purposes. Moreover, a few employees typical of AAF gun- 
ners were selected and measured, and their measurements located in the AAF body 
size series. Thus, design engineers were shown the practical use of the per- 
centile distributions and were furnished with living examples who could be 
dressed in the newly-supplied flying equipment and whose difficulties could be 
translated into percentages of AAF flyers discommoded. Interestingly enough, 
the Norge Company had already been using an employee as a subject, but on 
measurement he proved to be small, falling well below the AAF average. A 
larger subject was therefore selected and measured. 
In addition to furthering consideration for the gunner in designers' minds, 
mock-ups of turrets under development at each plant were analyzed by the usual 
procedure, except that one subject approximating the average/ AAF height and 
weight (which are 69.2 inches and I5I4. pounds) was used. As a result of these 
analyses and discussions on the spot, many suggestions were put int,o effect in 
the mock-ups while there was still time. 
These anthropological visits to turret manufacturers were then to the 
mutual advantage of the AAF and to the manufacturers, in letting each know 
the other's interests and problems. The manufacturers received indoctrination in a point of view, were shown and supplied with equipment necessary for 
satisfactory design, were furnished subjects located in the AAF series, and 
received comments on the adequacy of gunners1 provisions in their turrets, 
as derived from laboratory analyses, combat reports, and questionnaires. 
In turn, the AAF anthropologist recieved valuable suggestions for improving 
the utility of his contributions. For example, a simpler and more easily 
understood presentation than the original body size percentile memorandum 
report was almost universally desired. Accordingly a simplified presentation, 
in graphic form, containing clothing increments and eliminating the technical 
terminology, details, and correlation tables, was subsequently prepared and 
distributed to all turret manufacturers. A few pages are presented in the 
Appendices, Improvement of Production Turrets and Criteria for New Designs. 
The turret problem confronting the anthropologist, it will be recalled, 
is four-fold: evaluation of gunners1 accommodations in production turrets, 
establishment of physical criteria for gunners to operate them, improvement 
of production turrets, and the formulation of human standards for new designs. 
The first two have been discussed in some detail, while the third task has 
been mentioned from time to time in connection with specific turrets. 
In general, data on the adequacy of gunners1 accommodations, as obtained 
from a variety of sources - anthropometric examinations, questionnaires devised 
by the Aero Medical Laboratory and answered by combat gunners, overseas reports, 
Unsatisfactory Reports, and interviews with gunners — were analyzed and brought 
to the attention of armament engineers at Wright Field and in the industry, 
with detailed suggestions for remedy of unsatisfactory conditions. Many of fee 
recommended modifications were incorporated during the course of production, 
resulting in significant improvement in later models. 
No standardized procedure can be set for every case, but diligence in 
gathering information and perseverance in following up recommendations are pre- 
scribed for the anthropologist undertaking to improve production turrets. 
Wartime experience has shown that written reports, especially on projects 
initiated by the Aero Medical Laboratory, are much more likely to be effected 
when supplemented by personal contact. The trips to turret .manufacturers served 
such a function and by disclosing the type of data and presentation required by 
the industry, led directly into the fourth and most important function of the 
anthropometric turret project; namely, the establishment of guiding principles 
for future design. These principles are embodied in two reports, one on head 
and eye movements in sighting and the other on gunners' accommodations in local- 
control turrets; 
Sighting Movements in Turret Design 
At the request of the Glenn L. Martin Company, a study was undertaken on 
head and eye movements in sighting. In all turrets, the gunner's normal eye 
position is fixed by the location of the gunsight, with seats and other supports 
being adjustable vertically to bring the eye of gunners of different sitting 
heights into line with the gunsight. But the location and type of movement of 
the gunsight, as well as the design of the turret sighting panel determined 
thereby, should be based on the normal position and movements of the gunner's 
head and eyes in sighting I Precise knowledge of the latter was lacking, with 
several misconceptions current, such as that when the gunner is looking straight 
ahead at various angles above and below the horizon, his earhole describes a 
circular course; and that the ear-hole is the pivot about which head and ej’-es 
rotate. As a result of the absence of exact information, insufficient space 
was allowed for the head in most turrets, and gunsight movement during eleva- 
tion and depression of the guns was frequently fatiguing to follow. 
AAF Technical Report No. 1*990, dated 17 August 191*5* M5Jye Movement in 
Sighting as Related to Design of Turret Sighting Panels,w supplies the required data and integrates it with gunsight movement and sighting panel shape, the 
relationship between which had been worked out on theroetical optical grounds 
bv the Armament Laboratory in Technical Report No, IlSS7, dated U February 19k5f 
"The Design of Turret Sighting Panels.” The two Technical Reports should 
always be read together and are presented (the former in full, but only the 
relevant portion of the latter) in Chapter VII. The theoretical equations con- 
tained three unknown factors which prevented their practical utilisation; (1) 
gunsight movement based on the gunner’s sighting operations; (2) location of one 
focus of the ellipse considered to be the best panel shape optically; and (5) 
location on the ellipse of a point determined by the gunner’s head height. 
Technical Report U990 defines all three unknowns and corrects the misconcep- 
tions mentioned above. 
Technical Report i;990 has been distributed through the Armament Laboratory 
turret and glass manufacturers, and its principles have been incorporated 
into actual turrets - constituting, for example, the basis of gunsight move- 
ment and sighting panel shape in the Martin experimental "streamlined” turrets 
for the B-32 airplane. 
Gunners’ Accommodations in Turret Design 
An Engineering Division Technical Note is a publication designed to 
acquaint industry with the AAF's version of good manufacturing practice. It 
comprises desirable and attainable features rather than mandatory specifica- 
tions and is thus eminently suitable for conveying human requirements to turret 
designers. Requirements for gunners' comfort, efficiency, vision, and safety 
derived from the anthropometric study of turrets are summed up in simple 
engineering terms in Technical Note U9-2, dated 8 January 19UU, "Gunners Provisions 
in Local-Control Turrets." 
Technical Note U9-2 has been distributed through the Armament Laboratory 
to all turret manufacturers, and no ma,1or revisions have been indicated by 
developments since it was published. The last sentence should be deleted, inas- 
much as more detailed dimensions have been established for catwalks and escape 
hatches. Subsequent experience with central fire control armament has demon- 
strated that as far as the gunner's needs are concerned, there is no essential 
difference between local-and remote-control turrets, and that the title might 
well be changed to "Gunners' Provisions in Turrets," TURRET ANTHROPOMETRY FROM 19i|i* TO THE END OF THE WAR 
With the publication and distribution of Technical Note 1*9-2, early in 
19U1*, the major portion of the turret study was finished. For four original 
problems had been met, a standardized analytical procedure had been devised, 
and subsequent activity has consisted of its application to particular pro- 
blems. In the opinion of the Armament Laboratory, “The anthropometric studies 
were a success because several specific adverse conditions were improved on 
production turrets... (and) much needed attention was drawn to the necessity 
for comfort of gunners.” One manifestation of this successful indoctrination 
of armament engineers has been the development of the split gunsight in which 
the bulky computing apparatus is placed outside the turret and connected by 
cables to the small optical portion within a much more efficient arrangement 
for the gunner. The body size distributions of AAF flyers are now included 
in specifications for all new turrets, and Aero Medical Laboratory representa- 
tives are routinely requested to inspect drawings, wooden mock-ups, and pre- 
production versions of experimental turret models. Most gratifying of all has 
been the enthusiastic reception by combat gunners of turrets or features of 
turrets in which anthropology has played a part. 
It remains to outline the main trends in turret development and in the 
anthropometric turret study since the completion of its first phase, and to 
derive general principles and conclusions from the whole project. Subsequent 
turret evolution has been along two distinct lines, local control turrets and 
central station fire control, to be discussed in turn. 
LOCAL CONTROL TURRETS 
From the limited anthropometric point of view-and, for proper perspective, 
it should be borne in mind that anthropometry has been a very minor considera- 
tion in the evolution of aircraft armament as a -whole , the recent history 
of local control turret design has been anti-climactic. Under the pressure of 
combat needs, and against the desires of both the Aero Medical and the Armament 
Laboratories, the whittling away of the gunner’s hard won gains was accelerating 
by the end of hostilities. The pendulum was swinging from arming the bomber for 
defense, to increasing its speed for offense; and from consideration of the crew, 
including gunners, to emphasis on airplane performance. 
In addition, the fact'that bombers were being dawned by anti-aircraft 
rather than fighter planes worked against the gunner, since turrets were of no 
avail against flak, and the temptation was strong to eliminate them or reduce 
their size and weight. Against this policy little headway was made by the 
argument that so long as gunners are retained, their welfare should not be 
compromised. 
Armor deletion. The most common method for reducing turret weight was to 
delete armor protection, including bullet-proof glass. Armor plate was re- 
moved from the Martin upper; the Sperry upper substituted a "swiss-cheese” 
pedestal of light metal for the heavy plate protecting the one crew member of 
the B-l? who could not wear a flak suit; a version of the Motor Products tail 
turret (made by the Southern Aircraft Corporation) eliminating armor protection was standardized; and two nose and tail ball turrets, the Emerson (Fig. IV, 
U3) for the and the Sperry for the B-32, were adopted, with markedly 
reduced armor protection. Gunners thus subjected to increased flak with 
decreased protection reacted strongly, Sperry turret gunners would amass 
as many flak suits as they could lay hands on, and would stand on them, more 
than offsetting the intended weight saving I 
Size reduction. Over-all turret size and the room available to the gunner 
were also reduced. The Martin "midget" turret had not been adopted in 19h5f 
but in 1914; and 19i*5 the two nose-and-tail ball turrets mentioned above, of 
which that for the B-2U especially constricts the gunner, superseded the far 
roomier Emerson nose-and-tail turret. Even more radical attempts to reduce 
turret size in the interest of airplane speed were the proposed Mai*tin "stream- 
lined" and later "flush" turrets for the B-$2. 
* Turret prospects. It is likely that the local-control turret as seen 
during the second World War has passed its prime. Refinement and application 
of existing principles can be expected during the operational life of conven- 
tional bombers, both experimental and in production, but future high-speed 
aircraft will probably incorporate remote-control armament. However, as will 
be shown in the next section, this emphatically does not mean that gunners’ 
accommodations may be ignored or slighted. Looking still farther ahead, guided 
missiles may eventually supplant piloted aircraft; but even in this case, a 
man must still do the guiding and must be provided with efficient working con- 
ditions • REMOTE-CONTROL TURRETS 
The essential difference between local and remote control turrets is 
that in the latter, the gunner does not move with his guns, in either azimuth 
or elevation, but operates the sight and other controls from a separate sta- 
tion. Central fire control was developed as the culmination of convergent 
trends in aircraft and armament evolution during the late 1930's. Aircraft 
designers were working toward aerodynamic streamlining and cabin pressuriza- 
tion, whereas armament engineers desired a reduction in gunners, a more com- 
plete coverage of fire around the airplane (by locating the guns outboard), 
and the employment of several guns on one target. 
Bendix lower. The first remote-control turret to achieve large-scale 
uroduction was the Bendix lower, indirect-sighting turret, used for a time in 
the B-25. Figure IV, 5S illustrates the gunner’s chest rest, against which 
he leaned while sighting through the periscope. 
From the very beginning, the turret had numerous defects; for example, 
the periscopic sight had too restricted a cone of vision, the gunner was uncom- 
fortable, could not maintain the kneeling position when the plane was taking 
evasive action, and had no indication of the direction in which his guns were 
firing, 
At least one attempt was made to salvage the turret. At the request of 
the Armament Laboratory, an anthropometric examination was made in 19li2 and indi- 
cated that a redesign would be feasible. Within the existing dimensions of the 
turret and gunsight, a gunner of average size could operate the turret com- 
fortably while rotating, thereby keeping oriented in relation to his guns. The 
minor changes in seat, gunsight, and other structure necessary to effect the 
redesign were outlined and seemed reasonable to the Armament Laboratory, but 
the project was cancelled for other reasons. Waist guns shortly thereafter 
replaced the Bendix lower in the B-25. 
Central Station Fire Control in the B-29» The General Electric central 
fire control system B-29 consists of a top, midline sighting station 
between two side sighting stations in a single cabin compartment, plus a tail 
gunner in a separately pressurized compartment. Gunners’ accommodations were 
first inspected anthroponetrically in May 19i4+, at the request of the Armament 
Laboratory, in an early production version of the B-29. Attempts had been made 
in 19145 to incorporate the anthropometric findings on local-control turrets into 
sighting stations as well, but armament engineers felt that inasmuch as the gun- 
ner was operating within the airplane cabin, the principles of local-control 
turret accommodations did not apply. The effects of slighting the gunner in 
initial design became apparent when unsatisfactory reports were received on all 
four sighting stations from gunners in training. 
fire control system 
As originally constructed, the top sighting station (Fig. IV, 59) had no 
vertical adjustment to bring the eye of gunners of different heights to the 
gunsight level — a fairly elementary consideration which had long been Kl<$ur& IV, 59 accepted for a local-control turret and for most other aircrew stations 
as well. Moreover, the gunner could not wear a back parachute, and his 
head and face were severely cramped. Gunners’ provisions in the side sight- 
ing stations (Fig. IV,60) were as bad as or worse than those encountered 
in any previous turret* the gunner had insufficient room for scanning, 
sighting, or wearing a flak suit, and had to remove his safety belt to assume 
his operating position. Several gunners were lost because they were not wear- 
ing safety belts when their sighting blisters blew out. And despite the 
stipulations in the AAF Handbook and Technical Note U9-2 concerning inter- 
changeability and the reaHy removal of casualties from turrets, the B-29 tail 
gun compartment prevented access to the gunner by another crewman. 
All of the above shortcomings were pointed out by the Aero Medical Labora- 
tory and acknowledged by the Armament Laboratory, which had constructed a 
mock-up of an improved side station. But except for a minor change in the top 
station (the addition of 2 1/2 inches of vertical adjustment, where 6 were 
needed), the exigencies of production in May and June I9I4U prevented any modifica- 
tions whatsoever. 
"689" inspection of the B-29. In July, 19iil> the Engineering Acceptance 
("689") Inspection of ihe B-29 was held at V/right Field. Airplanes had been 
produced and crews had been training in them for months before the inspection, 
so that the scope of the Board's powers was limited. Again the Aero Medical 
Laboratory submitted its recommendations and received concurrence. In addition, 
a special presentation of the same data was made to the Production Engineering 
Section, responsible for introducing modifications into production airplanes, 
and again concurrence was received. But despite this general recognition of 
the inadequacy of gunners accommodations, production requirements once more 
proved to be an insuperable obstacle to immediate correction. 
Modification of sighting stations. But as combat operations succeeded 
training, ihe number and intensity of~adverse reports increased until modifica- 
tion of all four stations became imperative. These changes were based on 
antnropometric advice. In February 19h5* the top station was redesigned, allow- 
ing the gunner to wear a back parachute, removing some obstructions to his head 
and face, and incorporating a 6-inch vertical seat adjustment. In March, the 
side sighting stations were completely modified to provide more room for the 
gunner, thereby'enabling him to sight and scan more efficiently and to wear his 
safety belt at all times. Figure IV, 60illustrates features of the anthropo- 
metric analysis of the modification mock-up. And finally, the tail gun posl- 
tion was revised to permit the rescue of a disabled gunner. Figures IV,61 & 
TV, 62 illustrate essential features of the redesign. 
Summary. Thus, all four of the B-29 sighting stations were eventually 
modified to remedy defects warned against on anthropological grounds at an 
early stage, obvious when pointed out, sources of serious inefficiency in 
training and combat, yet easy to correct from a design standpoint at any time. 
After the original mistake had been made in ignoring the gunner, both by fail- 
ing to specify detailed requirements for gunners' provisions in the Handbook 
and by neglecting to acquaint the airplane designer with the gunner’s combat 
operations and equipment, production requirements precluded any effective 
remedy until nine to twelve months later, after needless loss in lives and B-29 Side r.mner Hitting M-J* nlk Helmet on Oteilglft * P-1C 
Exhibit 0 
Figure 5* 
4 >36 ~ A M L - H 
Figure XV, 60 'TG35‘Z "DEBAC CHG. WS 1o4-M 
VIEW OP BLWd. UlO "DOO*2. EEWOEfe. POR, eEMCVAsL 
OF TA.U— P*20VA ODM.PAET ME.UT 
4.13 6 - A -A M L 
Figure ' 61 
185 Tali Owinar taarganay Raaoua 
4-137-D-AML 
N< Wt. iw, 
•o m»ui^95-jan 
30 JOM X9u5 
Exhibit B 
Figure IV, 62 combat efficiency had been suffered. As occurred regularly in the case of 
local-control turrets, anthropological findings in the laboratory were sub- 
stantiated by gunners* experience in the field. It is worthy of mention that 
the anthropometry of sighting stations, unlike that of local-control turrets, 
was rarely mensurational at all. General consideration of the flyer’s welfare, 
amenable to rough-and-ready anthropometric approximation or to common sense 
alone, was sufficient in most instances without detailed analysis of human 
dimensions. 
Theory of B-29 Sighting Station Deficiencies 
A theory as to the reason for the troubled course of the B-29 sighting 
stations may be that, by a semantic confusion frequently encountered in human 
behavior, the engineers responsible for the development of central station fire 
control identified label with actuality; that is, since the armament was desig- 
nated as "remotely" and not "locally" controlled, since the gunners were opera- 
ting in so-called "sighting stations" inside the body of the airplane rather 
than in "turrets" or excrescences protruding from the airplane, no special 
attention need be paid the gunner. But the gunner in fact must still wear 
bulky gear and operate complex equipment in a restricted space. He must still 
be fitted into a functional arrangement providing for his comfort, efficiency, 
vision, and safety. Conclusions 
The principles which can be derived from the foregoing account of gunners' 
accommodations in B-29 turrets are precisely those which apply 
to local-control turrets. The term applied to the gunner's station-whether it 
is characterized as local-control turret, remote-control turret, sighting sta- 
tion, or gun position - is immaterial. For all. 
(1) CONSIDER THE GUjfNER, The prime requisite is awareness of the 
gunner as a vital factor.in design* to be ignored only at great peril. 
(2) CONSIDER HIM EARLY, It is as true for remote-control as for 
local-control turrets that the earlier the gunner and his gear are considered, 
the better will be his accommodations in the finished product. The modifica- 
tions eventually installed in all four B-29 sighting stations were easy to 
effect at any time for an engineering standpoint, but once the design was 
crystallized, pressure for quantity production delayed their adoption for 
precious months. Even after tHe initial oversight had been made in not ac- 
quainting airplane and armament manufacturers with the gunner's problems, 
there was still time to rectify the design during the Mock-Up Inspection. There 
might even, in terms of the feared immediate production delay versus the pro- 
duction delay inevitable in any case when the modifications finally became manda- 
tory plus the efficiency gained in the interim, have been time at the Engineer- 
ing Acceptance (**689M) Inspection, 
(3) THE GUNNER IS FUNCTIONAL. The gunner who is thus to be kept in 
mind as much as a gunsight or a mechanical drive or an ammunition feed is a 
functional, dynamic entity, -involving not only a variable range of static body 
dimensions and bulky combat gear, but a definite pattern of operations. The 
airplane or armament designer should strive to make the performance of these 
operations as easy and efficient as possible. The gunner's field of vision, 
especially in a scanning or sighting station, should be as large and unob- 
structed as possible. Yfhatever.his duties, he must be kept comfortable, since 
fatigue reduces efficiency, and, if continued over a period of time, may render 
him unavailable for combat as surely as enemy action. And finally, provision 
should be made for his safety; his operating space should allow him to wear 
flak suit and parachute, to be accessible to other crew members, to have a good 
chance forvemergency escape, and to be protected from the stresses of take-off, 
landing, crash landing, and ditching. 
(I;) FUNCTIONAL GUNNERS VARY IN SIZE. 
(5) TEST GUNNERS* ACCOMMODATIONS WITH SUBJECTS REPRESENTATIVE OF AAF 
FLYERS. 
(6) EVALUATE GUNNERS * ACCOMMODATIONS IN COMPLETE, FUNCTIONAL TURRETS. 
It cannot be too often repeated that complete combat equipment should be tried, 
on subject of different sizes, representing known percentiles of the AAF range, 
and in sighting stations complete w-H.h all their accessories - the latter in 
wooden facsimile, if not otherwise avrtilable. This was the procedure ultimately followed in modifying the B-29 sighting stations; it is the test to which 
training and combat operations subject the sighting station or turret; and 
it should be standard practice from the very beginning on all turrets. If 
at all possible, gunners themselves, preferably with combat experience, 
should serve as advisors to Inspection Boards, 
(7) PARTICULAR INSTALLATIONS, NOT CNTRALL DIMENSIONS, CAUSE THE 
DIFFICULTIES. This principle of the local-control turret studies was amply 
confirmed by the B-29 sighting stations. Without increasing the dimensions 
of the B-29 or deleting any equipment, the troublesome features ?/ere remedied 
by rearrangement and revision of existing installations. 
Finally, and most important of all, (S) ALL FLYERS REQUIRE ESSEN- 
TIALLY STMILAR ACCOMODATIONS. Turrets are but one type of crew station, and 
gunnel's but one type of aircrew. All flyers require adequate corafort, efficien- 
cy, vision, and,safety; and all obtain them by essentially similar design 
accommodations for other bomber crew stations, passageways, escape hatches, and 
fighter cockpits are assessed by the same criteria as that of gunners1 accommo- 
dations in turrets. Both aircraft designer and anthropologist can therefore 
apply the principles here presented, derived from the study of aircraft gun- 
turrets, to the design and evaluation of any aircraft space in or through which 
a man must operate. Investigations Incidental to the Turret Study. 
The turret study touched on a number of related topics, and a brief 
account of some of these side excursions will indicate the ramifications of 
any project involving the human factor in aircraft, as well as the central 
position of the anthropologist in integrating diverse items of equipment. 
li Questionnaires for combat gunners. Early in the War, when infor- 
mation on turret performance from the gunner’s standpoint was needed, question- 
naires were devised for several turrets, based on difficulties encountered in 
anthropometric inspections. Although the questionnaires were never widely 
distributed, those that were filled out by gunners in Alaska confirmed the 
anthropometric reports and were therefore valuable in convincing service and 
manufacturing agencies that such evaluations were more than laboratory specu- 
lation. Information obtained from using activities is vital to the successful 
development of any item, and the questionnaire is one method of obtaining such 
information. 
2, Fatigue and performance tests in turrets. At an early stage of the 
anthropometric study of turrets, it was hoped that objective measurement and 
comparison of gunners’ performance in different turrets might permit gunners' 
accommodations in those turrets to be ranked in order of excellence and might 
indicate the optimal arrangement of the gunner's working space. This hope 
proved naive in view of the complexity of fatigue research, and the project 
proved to be unnecessary in that even clear-cut results would have accomplished 
little or nothing more than the relatively crude anthropometric analyses. 
Several subjects were actually tested, in three turrets (Sperry upper, 
Martin upper, and Briggs ball), by means of a beam ol light projected erratical- 
ly onto a screen, and picked up and scored by a photo-electric cell mounted 
between the two turret guns, (One attempt to measure flicker fusion frequency 
as an index fatigue of subjects just after operating turrets in flight failed 
signally because of uncontrollable elements in the test situation)• It immedi- 
ately became apparent that such familiar bugaboos of fatigue testing as train- 
ing and variability of subjects, effect of learning, and standardization of test 
conditions could not be adequately controlled with the time and resources avail- 
able, To take only one example, the test was set up in one comer of a large 
hangar, and at certain times of the morning the sun would shine directly into 
the gunner's eyes, completely nullifying the run. To equate the training of 
subjects (trained gunners not being available) and to reach a base line per- 
formance of each would have taken more time than the results seemed to warrant. 
Quite apart from the testing difficulties, even clear-cut differences in 
performance could only indicate where to search for causes. Possibly relocation 
or redesign of one feature of a turret might alter its performance markedly, a 
possibility requiring considerable time to establish and leaving still unde- 
termined the relative merits of fundamental turret layout. And it is unlikely 
that features of turrets which would make any considerable difference would 
escape notice in the routine anthropometric inspection. Thus, performance tests could only supplement information obtained with infinitely less pains from 
other sources. And finally, basic turret arrangements (such as standing vs. 
sitting vs. kneeling vs. the ball turret position) were largely fixed by air- 
plane design and dimensions, nor were choices between alternative turrets for 
a given position usually made on the basis of gunners’ provisions. It was 
therefore decided that, although fatigue studies might be valuable over a long 
period, the immediate end of improving gunners’ provisions in turrets could be 
better accomplished by other means. 
5. Ball turret rescue tool. In May 19kh, a former ball turret gunner 
in the Sth Air"Tbrce pointed out! to the Aero Medical Laboratory a serious con- 
dition which had resulted in two deaths to his knowledge. A clutch release 
handle was provided by means of which crew members inside the airplane cohid 
rotate the turret so that the turret doors could be opened inside the p3.ane and 
a disabled gunner rescued. However, when the turret was stopped at an angle of 
S0° - 65° below the horizontal, the handle could not reach the clutch shaft to 
disengage the turret, due to interference by the turret ring. In the two cases 
cited, one gunner had become anoxic and the other wounded when their turrets 
were at the inaccessible angle of depression, and they could not be reached. 
The informant had re-designed the tool to work at all turret positions. 
The Aero Medical Laboratory verified this situation by testing several 
turrets, and brought it to the attention of the Armament Laboratory. The 
revised handle, with minor modifications, was immediately put into production. 
U. Steel helmets for aircrew. This project is an interesting epitome 
of the entire AAF anthropometric undertaking. The high percentage of casual- 
ties due to head wounds from low-velocity fragments led, in 19h5> to the require- 
ment that all bombardment crews rrear steel helmets. Brig, Gen, Malcolm C. Grow, 
then Surgeon of the Sth Air Force, designed a light steel helmet to stop such 
fragments, based on AAF Head Type V. At the same time, the Ordnance Department 
in this country modified the standard infantry helmet to fit over flying head- 
gear. The latter helmet afforded more protection than the former, but was 
larger, and the problem was whether one or two helmet types should be standard- 
ized. 
Data on head size and turret clearances gathered during the anthropometric 
turret study showed that the Ordnance helmet (later the M-3)could not be worn 
in most turrets, whereas the Grow helmet (later the M-U) could, thus assisting 
in the decision to standardize two types. Other data, similarly gathered, were 
utilized (1) to determine procurement percentages of the two helmets; (2) in 
modifying the M-3 helmet, standardized for turret wear, to fit the entire range 
of head size in AAF flyers; and (5) in the design of a new, smaller helmet 
(later the M-5) the Ordnance Department. 
5, Parachutes for turret wear. Efforts by the Aero Medical Laboratory 
to co-ordinate turret and parachute design constitute another chapter in the 
integration of diverse equipment affecting the flyer. Despite the fact that 
parachute wear was mandatory, most turret gunners were for a long time unable 
to wear them. This fact was obvious from the earliest anthropometric inspec- tions, and was amply confirmed later from other sources. Both turret and 
parachute designers were informed of the gravity of this problem, and pro- 
gress was made along both lines. 
In the Briggs ball turret, as mentioned above, the seat was lowered to 
allow a parachute to be worn. Chutes could also be worn in later versions 
of the Sperry upper and in the newer Motor Products and Emerson turrets. 
As regards parachutes, experimental versions of thin back chutes (B-3) 
and seat chutes (Switlik 22 - and ?h - foot nylon and "rip-stop" models) were 
tested for suitability in turrets. Memorandum Report No. ENG-U9-695-52I, 
dated 22 November 19h3, subject; "Switlik 2l|-Foot Seat-Type Parachute — 
Suitability for Wear in Turrets" indicates the procedure. Recommendations 
such as to provide straps from catching on projections and pulling loose, were 
made and adopted. Eventually the Personal Equipment Laboratory took over the 
size testing in aircrew stations as well as the design of new types of para- 
chutes, and developments toward the end of the War were promising. Manikins 
A fundamental aspect of good aircraft design should be a continuous 
treatment of the functional man as an item of equipment. To a designer, the 
aircraft will exist almost from the time he makes his first preliminary draw- 
ing. Consequently, it is vitally necessary to have true scale representation 
of the functional man for incorporation in all drawings he prepares. This 
should be common practice, regardless of the scale with which he is working. 
Also, the dynamic aspect of the man, his degree of movement, and his variation 
in size must be well known. 
In order to aid designers in this respect, a profile manikin, jointed, 
and to l/30th scale. Figure IV, 63, has been prepared, showing the man wearing 
heavy flying clothing. No personal equipment, such as parachute, life raft, 
emergency vests, and flak suits, is included, but dimensions are readily avail- 
able and must be utilized in relation to the operational mission intended for 
the aircraft. The worst possible condition, that is, the most equipment ever 
to be required, must be provided for. 
The man is represented in three sizes,called Types A, B, and C, in order 
to give a practical coverage of personnel expected to occupy crew positions. 
Type A, average, is 5 feet 9.U inches tall in the nude, and weighs pounds. 
Type B is short, 5 feet 5*5 inches, and weighs li*0 pounds. Type C, 6 feet 1.5 
inches and 172 pounds, is the tall man. Cockpits and other crew positions 
adequately accommodating this range of statures and weights will then be known 
to accommodate about 90$ of flying personnel under current selection standards. 
Other dimensions are shown in Figure IV, 6i*. 
The adjustabilities of seats and controls previously-described wil] insure 
accommodation of of flying personnel. 
Clothing dimensions added to the nude values may quickly be obtained by 
reference to Figure IV, 1*6. 
By use of photographic enlargement of the l/30th scale profiles, any 
larger scale can easily be obtained. 
Finally, for check purposes at the mock-up stage, full-scale, three 
dimensional manikins should be used to establish the degree of accommodation 
of the crew accommodations. Figures IV, 66, IV, 67, and IV, 66. 
For reference use, manikins of female pilots, WASPJs, were also prepared 
and are available. Figures IV, 69 and IV, 70. 
For informational purposes. Figure IV, 71 shows manikin data as used by 
the German Air Force. V C 
TSp« B 
Tjpe A 
Figuvfc IV,  
TypeA 
ag.j 
1. Weight 
158.3 
Average 
lbs. 
Range 
110-51(5 lbs. 
11*0.3 
Average 
lbs. 
Range 
110-lBfl 
lbs. 
171.7 
Average 
lbs. 
Range 
13T30H 
lbs 
2. Stature 
175.3 
cm. 
(69 in.) 
156-198 cm. 
166.5 
cm. 
(65 1/2 in.; 
156-169 
cm. 
186.3 
cm. 
(73 1/2 in.) 
188-198 
cm. 
3. Total Span 
') 
181.3 
cm. 
(71 1/2 in.) 
158-205 cm. 
172.9 
cm. 
(68 in.) 
158-192 
cm. 
191.5 
cm. 
(75 1/2) 
175-205 
cm. 
h. Anterior Arm Reach 
88.9 
cm. 
(35 in.) 
75-103 cm. 
85.0 
cm. 
(33. 1/2 in.) 
75-98 
cm. 
93.8 
cm. 
(36 7/8 in.) 
88-103 
cm. 
5. Span Akimbo 
93.9 
cm. 
37 in.) 
61-106 cm. 
89.5 
cm. 
(35 1/1* in.) 
81-99 
cm. 
99.7 
cm. 
(36 in.) 
90-108 
cm. 
6. Bi-ac romial 
39.3 
cm. 
< 
15 1/2 in.] 
32-J*6 cm. 
38.0 
cm. 
(15 in.) 
32A3 
cm. 
1*0.6 
cm. 
(16 in.) 
33-85 
cm. 
7. Bi-deltoid 
85-3 
cm. 
17 3/U in.] 
39-52 cm. 
1*1*.1 
cm. 
(17 1/2 in.) 
39A9 
cm. 
1*6.5 
cm. 
(18 1/3 in.) 
83-52 
cm. 
t, Chest Breadth 
28.3 
cm. 
11 1/1* in.; 
22-31* cm. 
27.5 
cm. 
(10 5/8 in.) 
23-33 
cm. 
29.2 
cm. 
(11 1/2 in.) 
(8 lA in.) 
26-38 
cm. 
9. Chest Depth 
20.3 
cm. 
1 
8 in.) 
16-28 cm. 
19.8 
cm. 
(7 5/8 in.) 
16-21* 
cm. 
20.9 
cm. 
17-25 
cm. 
10. Abdominal Depth 
20.8 
cm. 
1 
8 in.) 
16-27 cm. 
19.8 
cm. 
(7 5/8 in.) 
16-25 
cm. 
21.0 
cm. 
(8 1/8 in.) 
17-26 
cm. 
11. Bi-iliac 
25.1* 
cm. 
1 
11 1/1* in.] 
23-31* cm. 
27.3 
cm* 
(10 3A in.) 
23-30 
cm. 
29.8 
cm. 
(11 3/8 in.) 
26-38 
cm. 
12. Head Circumference 
56.1* 
cm. 
22 lA in.] 
51-62 cm. 
55.8 
cm. 
(22 in.) 
53-61 
cm. 
57.0 
cm. 
(22 3/8 in.) 
53-61 
cm. 
13. Chest Circumference 
90.7 
cm. 
1 
36 1/1* in.) 
78-110 cm. 
88.6 
OB. 
(31* 7/8 In.) 
78-102 
cm. 
93.2 
cm. 
(36 5/8 in.) 
82-110 
cm. 
1U. Upper Arm Circumference 
29.1 
cm. 
1 
11 1/2 in.; 
25-31* cm. 
28.1* 
cm. 
(11 lA in.) 
29.9 
cm. 
(11 3/8 in.) 
15. Forearm Circumference 
21*.2 
cm. 
1 
9 1/2 in.) 
22-28 cm. 
23.7 
cm. 
9 1/3 in.) 
21*.8 
cm. 
(9 3A in.) 
16. Shoulder-Fingertip 
75.8 
cm. 
i 
29 13/16 in.) 
72.5 
cm. 
28 1/2 in.) 
79.0 
cm. 
(31 1/8 in.) 
17. iorearm-Fingertip 
1*9.5 
cm. 
19 1/2 in.) 
87.2 
cm. 
18 2/13 in.) 
16-20 
52.1 
cm. 
(20 2/3 in.) 
15. Hand Length 
19.3 
7 5/8 in. 
16-22 cm. 
iO 
cm. 
7 1/8 in. 
cm. 
20.3 
cm. 
8 in.) 
18-22 
cm. 
19. Hand Breadth 
6.6 
cm. 
3 in-l 
7-10 cm. 
8.8 
cm. 
3 1A in.) 
7-10 
cm. 
6.9 
cm. 
3 1/2 in. 
8-10 
cm. 
20. Wrist Breadth 
6.0 
cm. 
2 378 in. 
5*8 
cm. 
2 1/1* in.) 
6.2 
cm. 
2 1/2 in.) 
21. wrist Thickness 
8.1 
cm. 
1 5/8 in.) 
31-1*3 cm. 
8.0 
cm. 
1 1/2 in.) 
1*.3 
cm. 
(1 3A in.) 
22. Snoulder-Elbow 
36.9 
cm. 
H* I/? in. 
35.0 
cm. 
13 3A in. 
31-39 
cm. 
39.2 
cm. 
15 1/2 in.) 
3 5 A3 
cm. 
23. Elbow-Seat 
23.0 
cm. 
9 1/16 in. 
22.5 
cm. 
8 7/8 in.) 
23.6 
cm. 
9 1/3 in.) 
2lt. Bi-enicondylar Elbows 
1*2.0 
cm. 
kl6 1/2 in., 
32-51* cm. 
1*0.9 
cm. 
16 1/8 in. 
32-51 
cm. 
1*3.2 
cm. 
(17 in.) 
37-58 
cm. 
2B. Bi-trochanteric 
35.7 
cm. 
|2p 5/6 Jin.] 
30-L7 cm. 
38.8 
cm. 
13 Hi in* 
31-39 
cm. 
37.2 
cm. 
(11* 2/3 in.) 
(21 1/8 in.) 
33-87 
era. 
26. Thigh Circumference 
52.3 
cm. 
U7-o0 cm. 
28-1*5 cm. 
51.1 
cm. 
20 1/8 in. 
53.8 
cm. 
27. Calf Circumference 
35.5 
cm. 
18 in.) 
38.7 
cm. 
13 5/8 in. 
28-1*2 
cm. 
36.5 
cm. 
18 1/3 in. 
30A2 
cm. 
25, Xiphoid Height 
126.0 
cm. 
1*9 3/16 in.) 
118.7 
cm. 
{*0 3A in. 
132.8 
cm. 
52 5/16 in.) 
29. Lower Rib Height 
112.0 
cm. 
,1*1* 1/8 in. 
106.8 
cm. 
1*1 7/8 in. 
ii9.o 
cm. 
(86 5/8 in.) 
30. Umbilicus Height 
10L.8 
cm. 
1*1 3/16 in 
99.6 
cm. 
39 3/16 in 
) 
m.i* 
cm. 
(1*3 ?/8 in.) 
31. Iliac Crest Height 
IQl* .8 
cm. 
1*1 3/16 in 
) 
cm. 
39 3/16 in.) 
33 3/8 in. 
*8* 
cm. 
(83 (/pin.) 
32. pubic Height 
89.1 
cm. 
35 
ou.6 
cm. 
cm. 
(37 3/16 in.) 
33- Crotch Height 
82.2 
cm. 
$ & &i 
83-103 cm. 
78.1 
cm. 
30 11/16 i: 
1. . . 
87.8 
cm. • 
(38 3/8 in.) 
69-103 
3u. Sitting Height 
92.1 
cm. 
80.14 
cm. 
31* 778 in.. 
03-91* 
cm. 
96.8 
cm. 
(38 in.) 
cm. 
36. Trunk Height 
3o. Buttock-Knee 
59.9 
59.5 
cm. 
cm. 
23 m S:; 
50-69 cm. 
t*9-70 cm. 
cm. 
cm. 
22 578 in. 
22 1A in. 
20 5/8 in. 
$LA5 
cm. 
cm. 
U’.3 
cm. 
cm. 
it % iS:j 
57-69 
59-70 
cm. 
cm. 
37. Patella Height - Sitting 
55.3 
cm. 
,21 3A in. 
1*6-65 cm. 
52.3 
cm. 
86-57 
cm. 
59.2 
cm. 
(23 1/3 in.) 
56A5 
cm. 
35. patella Height - Standing 
51.7 
cm. 
20 3/8 in. 
16-29 cm. 
1*9.1 
cm. 
19 3/8 in. 
7 1/3 in.) 
16-22 
55.0 
cm. 
(21 ll/l6 in.) 
39. Knee Breadth 
19.2 
cm. 
1 1/2 in.) 
18.6 
cm. 
cm. 
19.9 
cm. 
7 7/8in.) 
18-23 
cm. 
lO. Foot Length 
26.8 
cm. 
.10 1/2 in.) 22-31 cm. 
25^ 
cm. 
10 1/16 in 
) 
2m 
cm. 
28.1 
cm. 
11 1/16 in.) 
22-31 
cm. 
Li. Foot Breadth 
9.8 
cm. 
,3 7/8 in.) 
8-12 cm. 
9*5 
cm. 
3 3/8 in.) 
cm. 
10.2 
cm. 
(8 in,) 
(3 1/8 in.) 
9-12 
cm. 
12, External Malleolus (Ankle) 
Height 
7.5 
cm. 
3 in.) 
7.1 
cm. 
2 13/16 in.) 
8.0 
cm. 
U3. Internal Malleolus (Ankle) 
Height 
6.7 
cm. 
,3 3/8 in.) 
6.3 
cm. 
3 1A in.) 
9.3 
cm. 
3 578 in. 
88. Ankle Breadth 
7.6 
cm. 
.3 in.) 
7.1* 
cm. 
3 in.) 
7.9 
cm. 
(3 1/8 in.) 
56. Ankle Thickness 
9.6 
cm. 
3 13/16 in.) 
9.3 
cm. 
3 11/16 in.) 
10-11* 
10.0 
cm. 
3 15/16 in.) 
80. ’lasion-Mentoi. 
12.3 
cm. 
.1* 7/8 in. 
10-15 cm. 
12.0 
cm. 
1* 3A in. 
cm. 
12.6 
cm. 
(5 in.) 
11-15 
cm. 
It 7. Squatting Diagonal* 
81*.5 
cm. 
(33 1/1* in.) 71-102 cm. 
81.8 
cm. 
32 1/8 in.) 
75-99 
cm. 
88.2 
cm. 
(38 3 A in.) 
75-99 
cm. 
*The subject sits on a six-inch block, 
as near 
the 
edge as comfortable, with the heels 
drawnatt at 
the base of the 
block. 
He leans forward at the hips and clasps his hands 
at the knees. The dimension extends 
from the maximum curvature 
of the 
back near the shoulders to the 
tip of the longest toe. 
Figure 17> 
Values and Distributions for kanlkin Types. 
Exhibit B. 
Engineering Division 
Memorandum Report No. ENG-U9-695-28 
June 19U3 196 197 Figure IV, 6?  
TYPE A. 
TYPE B. 
TYPE £. 
TYPE D. 
Arerage 
Average 
Average 
Average 
height 
126.6 lbs. 
i75,2 cm. 
121,9 lbs. 
Stature 
161t.6 cm. 
6U.9 In. 
159,0 cm. 
62.5 in. 
69.0 in. 
161.3 cm. 
63.5 in. 
Anterior in Reach 
60.7 cm. 
31.8 In. 
78.2 cm. 
30.7 In. 
85.2 cm. 
33.5 in. 
79.1 cm. 
31.1 in. 
Arm Length 
72.7 cm. 
28.6 In. 
69.7 cm. 
27.lt in. 
77.lt cm. 
30.5 in. 
71.7 cm. 
28.2 in. 
Span-Aklabo 
67.0 cm. 
3lt.3 In. 
83.9 cm. 
33.0 in. 
92.lt cm. 
36 Jt in. 
8tu9 cm. 
33.lt in 
Shoulder -Elbow ht. 
3U.7 cm. 
13.7 In. 
33 .It cm. 
13.1 In. 
37.0 cm. 
llt.6 in. 
3*t.6 cm. 
13.6 in. 
Biacromial 
35.0 cm. 
13.8 In. 
3lt.3 cm. 
13.5 In. 
36,6 cm. 
llt.lt in. 
3lt,0 cm. 
13.U in. 
■.deltoid 
It0.9 cm. 
16.1 In. 
ltO.2 cm. 
15.8 In. 
It2.2 cm. 
16.6 in. 
39.8 cm. 
15.7 in. 
Hand Length 
17.6 cm. 
6.9 In. 
17.0 cm. 
6.7 In. 
18.5 cm. 
7.3 in. 
NM4 Breadth 
7.7 cm. 
3.0 in. 
7.6 cm. 
3.0 in. 
6.0 cm. 
3.1 n. 
Upper An Clrcuaferanee 
2lt.9 cm. 
9.8 In. 
2lt.7 cm. 
9.7 in. 
25.3 cm. 
10.0 in. 
2lt.lt cm. 
9.6 in. 
Forearm Circumference 
19.0 cm. 
7.5 in. 
16.7 cm. 
7.U in. 
19.7 cm. 
7.7 in. 
19.2 cm. 
7.6 in. 
■rlat Breadth 
5.It cm. 
2.1 In. 
5.3 cm. 
2.1 in. 
5.5 cm. 
2.2 in. 
Wrist Depth 
3.6 cm. 
1.5 in. 
3.7 cm. 
1.5 In. 
3.9 cm. 
1.5 in. 
Sitting Haight 
86.6 cm. 
3lt.l In. 
81t.2 cm. 
33.1 in. 
91.0 cm. 
35.8 in 
85.9 cm. 
33.7 in. 
gre Height 
76.1 cm. 
30.0 In. 
7U.3 cm. 
29.3 in. 
80.1 cm. 
31.5 in. 
7lt.lt cm. 
29.3 in. 
Shoulder Height 
60.lt cm. 
23.8 In. 
58.6 cm. 
23.1 In. 
61t.O cm. 
25.2 in. 
58.7 cm. 
23.1 In. 
Cheat Breadth 
25.8 cm. 
10.2 In. 
25.3 cm. 
10.0 In. 
27.0 cm. 
10.6 in. 
Chest Depth 
19.0 cm. 
7.5 In. 
16.9 cm. 
7.It in. 
19.1 cm. 
7.5 in. 
Seek Circumference 
31.3 cm. 
12.3 in. 
30.7 cm. 
12.1 in. 
32.2 cm. 
12.7 in. 
Bust Circumference 
66.6 cm. 
35.0 in. 
87.3 cm. 
3U.lt in. 
90.9 cm. 
35.8 in. 
Chest Circumference • 
73.9 cm. 
29.1 in. 
72.It cm. 
28.5 in. 
75.9 cm. 
29.9 in. 
86.9 cm. 
3U.2 in. 
Waist Breadth 
22.5 cm. 
8.9 in. 
21.8 cm. 
8.6 in. 
23.2 cm. 
9.2 in. 
Waist Depth 
16.9 cm. 
6.7 in. 
16.7 cm. 
6.6 in. 
17.3 cm. 
6.8 in. 
Waist Circumference 
66.9 cm. 
26.3 in. 
65.8 cm. 
25.9 in. 
68.6 cm. 
27.1 in 
66.li cm. 
26.1 in. 
Hip Circumference 
96.6 cm. 
38.1 In. 
95.0 cm. 
37.lt in. 
99.1 cm. 
39.0 in. 
9lt,5 cm. 
37.1 in. 
■-iliac 
26.0 cm. 
11.0 in. 
27.2 cm. 
10.7 in. 
29.0 cm. 
ll.lt in. 
28.lt cm. 
11.* in. 
BITrochanteric 
38.2 cm. 
15.0 in. 
37.6 cm. 
Ut.8 in. 
39.6 cm. 
15.6 in. 
36.lt cm. 
15.1 in. 
giber* Breadth 
38.lt cm. 
15.1 in. 
37.9 cm. 
lit.9 in. 
It0.2 cm. 
15.8 in. 
37.9 cm. 
lit.9 in. 
Wsldt Height 
102.9 cm. 
It0.5 in. 
99.2 am. 
39.1 in. 
111.* cm. 
U3.7 in. 
10W.9 cm. 
39.7 in. 
Crotch Height 
77.3 cm. 
30.lt in. 
73.9 cm. 
29.1 in. 
82.5 cm. 
32.5 in. 
7lt.9 cm. 
29.5 la*. 
Buttock-Knee 
57.5 cm. 
22.6 In. 
55.6 cm. 
21.9 in. 
61.0 cm. 
Zlt.O in. 
56.8 cm. 
22.lt Im. 
Patella Height 
51.0 cm. 
20.1 In. 
It6.9 cm. 
19.3 in. 
5!t.3 cm. 
21.lt in. 
Ii9.lt cm. 
19.5 in. 
Foot Length 
21t.3 cm. 
9.6 in. 
23.1j cm. 
9.2 in. 
25.7 cm. 
10.1 in. 
21t.3 cm. 
9.6 in. 
Foot Breadth 
9.2 cm. 
3.6 In. 
9.0 cm. 
3.5 in. 
9Jt cm. 
3.7 in. 
9.2 cm. 
3.6 in. 
Inkle Breadth 
6,5 cm. 
2.5 in. 
6.3 cm. 
2.5 in. 
6.6 cm. 
2.6 in. 
Inkle Depth 
6.1 cm. 
3.2 in. 
7.9 cm. 
3.1 in. 
6.3 cm. 
3.3 in. 
Knee Breadth 
19.2 cm. 
7.6 In, 
19.0 cm. 
7.5 in. 
19.L cm. 
7.6 in. 
19.1 cm. 
7.5 in. 
Thigh Circumference 
It9.1l cm. 
19.lt in. 
It9.2 cm. 
19.lt in. 
50.3 cm. 
19.8 in. 
It9.5 cm. 
19.lt in. 
Calf Circumference 
35.0 cm. 
13.8 in. 
3lt.5 cm. 
13.6 in. 
36.1 cm. 
lit.2 in. 
3lt.5 cm. 
13.6 in. 
Head Length 
18.7 cm. 
7.3 in. 
18.5 cm. 
7.3 in. 
19.0 cm. 
7.5 in. 
Head Breadth 
Ut.7 cm. 
5.8 in. 
Hi.7 cm. 
5.8 in. 
15.0 cm. 
5.9 in. 
Head Circumference 
55.2 cm. 
21.7 in. 
5U.7 cm. 
a.5 in. 
55.9 cm. 
22.0 in. 
Face Length 
11.6 cm. 
lt.6 in. 
11.3 cm. 
lt.5 in. 
11.8 cm. 
lt.7 in. 
Face Breadth 
13;3 cm. 
5.2 In. 
13.1 cm. 
5.2 in. 
13.6 cm. 
5.1t in. 
lose Length 
5.3 cm. 
2.1 in. 
5.3 cm. 
2.1 in. 
5.5 cm. 
2.2 in. 
Bi malar 
10.7 cm. 
It.2 in. 
10.6 cm. 
It.2 in. 
10.9 cm. 
It.3 in. 
Nasal Bridge Salient 
2.6 cm. 
1.0 In. 
2.6 cm. 
1.0 in. 
2.6 cm. 
1.0 in. 
Nasal Bridge Breadth 
3.1 cm. 
1.2 in. 
3.1 cm. 
1.2 in. 
3.1 cm. 
1.2 in. 
ae 
h-t 
M 
Figure IV, 6S GERMAN AIR FORCE MANIKIN 
Body Sisa 
Length Maasuraaants in Inohas 
k 
bed* 
f 
K h I k 1 
■ no 
65.0 
35.U 9.1 11.9 2l*.l* 15.8 17.1 53.U 5.5 29.2 H.8 
11.8 2.0 7.9 
68.9 
55.U 10.0 13.2 27.0 
15.5 
18.7 57.U 5.9 30.9 15.0 
12.8 2.1* 3,7 
7l*.9 
38.1* 11.0 li*.6 29.5 
16.9 
20.2 1*1.1* 6.3 33.8 U*.l 15.8 2.8 9.1* 
BBBADTH AMD DEPTH DIMENSIONS (Total Dlaanlions with Wintar Clothing) 
Trunk An bnadth, aaasurad from elbow to elbow, ana at 
•Idas, an flaxad. 23.6 
Sitting braadth (sitting). 13*7 
Chast dapth (3) (sitting). 11.8 
Abdoainal dapth (sitting). 11.8 
Hand Hand braadth, aaasurad across knuckle, without 
thuab. 3*9 
Hand thioknass. 1.8 
Indaz fingar thioknass. 1.0 
Lsg Thigh braadth (aaasurad in middle, sitting). 7*9 
Thigh thioknass (Masurtd in middle, sitting). 7.1 
Knaa braadth (flaxad). 3*9 
Foot Boot braadth. 3*1 
Boot thioknass# aaasurad at basal phalanx of 1st 
toa. 3.1 
1) Given as tha diaansion of the winter glows. 
2) Given as tha diaansion with fait over boot. 
3) lithout oxygon equipment and baok-typa panohuta. 
U) Braadth and thioknass roundad off to higher Talusj they are therefore 
approxiaations without axaetnass. 
4 4 O 4A AML 
Figure IV, 70. CHAPTER V 
Emergency Exits 
To an aircraft designer an emergency exit is somewhat of an unnecessary 
evil, inasmuch as it is to a great extent a passive addition to the airplane 
and will inhibit the full strength fulfillments of the structures. Any aper- 
ture which must be left in the skin of the airplane will result in some loss 
of stressing. However, there are certain safety conditions so far as the 
crew is concerned which must be fulfilled in order to gain in the long run the 
full operational measures. The old theory that a man who gets away and lives 
to fight another day is still a good man is one which still is as important as 
it ever was. The operational record of escaped aircrew members who have re- 
entered combat has been remarkable, and is proof in itself that good emergency 
exits are important features in all combat planes. Therefore, it is felt that 
a good deal of study can be made on the functional qualities of emergency exits 
and objective methods derived for instituting the necessary compromises between 
the actual size of the opening required, the factors involved, and the strengths 
of structures of the plane. A considerable amount of work has been done by the 
indirect method of interviewing crew members who have successfully bailed out 
of aircraft or who have successfully survived ditching of planes. Most of these 
records contain in them certain points which emphasize the importance of exits 
which are adequate in size and in performance. A very high percentage of reports 
has indicated that time and time again the mechanism involved in jettisoning 
the door has failed, and that this has resulted in loss of lives. Unfortunately, 
all of these data are derived from men who have survived bail-out and who must 
serve as circumstantial evidence to indicate that some of their fellow crewmen 
failed completely to escape from the aircraft. Many other comments have re- 
lated the fact that men actually had to be pushed and pried through openings 
which were obviously too small. 
The methods by which objective data can be obtained regarding the essential 
size requirement of emergency exits are relatively simple in the first stages. 
One method is by construction of mock-ups of various sizes, shapes, and posi- 
tions. By the simple process of having men actually pass through these apertures 
with the nrjay-i mum amount of personal equipment and body size actually encountered 
under operational conditions, we may learn much about the requirements. Experi- 
ments have been conducted in this manner, and have indicated that minimum sizes 
can be established without regard to the various other complicated factors, such 
as slipstreams, adjacent projections from ithe aircraft, and the cramped quarters 
which are commonly encountered inside the airplane. This method in itself is 
quite incomplete, but it has served to establish the fact that there are, at the 
present time, apertures in aircraft through which it is well nigh impossible to 
pass, under the most ideal conditions. This, in itself, should be conclusive 
proof that the emergency exits, should be made not smaller than the following 
sizes: 
Openings located in the side of an aircraft should not be less than 31” in 
a vertical dimension, and 20" in the horizontal dimension. An opening located 
in the bottom of the plane should not be less than 29" in the fore-and-aft dimension, and 20" in the lateral dimension. Openings designed for bail-out 
procedures should never be located in the upper half of the airplane. Every 
attempt to do this has resulted in increased hazards on the part of crew 
members during aircraft failure in flight, because of the high incidence of 
impact with wing and/or tail structures. Some installations have gone so far 
as to require that the man must bail-out into the area of the propellor and 
have been installed on the assumption that the engine could be stopped and the 
propellor feathered. Installations of exits in the upper half of the aircraft 
should be confined entirely to the requirement of ditching and crash landing 
escape. The minimum dimensions for these openings under the most ideal con- 
ditions are IS" diameter or IS" square. In every case access to the openings 
must be readily available by means of steps or otherwise, (Figure V, 1). 
One of the most encouraging features which has been considered for 
emergency exit openings has been the design and installation of the other 
items of equipment which must project through the skin of the aircraft in such 
a manner as to be jettisonable. This would apply to gun turrets, radar instal- 
lations, and photographic equipment, many of which require openings which are 
at least adequate in size so far as bail-out or ditching requirements are con- 
cerned. Astrodomes, in particular, if properly designed and installed, can 
easily be used for ditching requirements and are particularly advantageous 
because they are frequently available to a large proportion of the crew. 
A considerable number of other factors which are not directly designed as 
emergency exits is still worth consideration, inasmuch as they effect the 
functions of the exits. For example, an exit of more than adequate size is 
still completely worthless if the crew members are prohibited from reaching 
it by the random installation of other pieces of equipment along the pathway 
a man must use in proceeding from his crew position to the exit. Furthermore, 
even on the assumption of well planned internal installation of equipment, 
many seemingly minor factors may still enter into the eventual problem. Admit- 
tedly, in a construction process of many of the pieces of equipment, the fact 
that small bolts may project l/2" beyond their required distances appears to 
be a very small space consideration, but this half inch may determine whether 
or not a man under emergency conditions will reach his exit because under 
hurried conditions the snagging of clothing, of parachute harnesses, or even 
of the ripcord handle, may hamper progress of the man to such an extent that 
he never succeeds in reaching the hatch in time. In the installation of the 
opening, these small projections are multiplied tremendously in their importance 
to the proper achievement of bailout. 
Another consideration which should be kept in mind in bail-out procedure, 
from the design standpoint, is a common-sense realization that a man cannot 
clear large vertical distances without the help of handholds or footholds. 
These factors are readily analyzed in the early mock-up stages of any airplane 
and a little foresight on the part of the designer, the construction men, and 
the military authorities would do much in preventing the future loss of lives. 
One of the most important considerations from the standpoint of necessary hand- 
holds and footholds should be that involved in the part played by acceleration 
forces during bail-out procedures. It seems bard to realize at first that it 
is impossible for a man to raise himself out of a seat when as little o.s three 
mqi» »s ai’c being applied to him, but this is an actual fact. The further instal— MINIMAL SIZES AND OPTIMAL SHAPES 
FOR ESCAPE HATCHES 
SIDE HATCH 
FULL EQUIPMENT INCLUDES-FLYING CLOTHES, EMERGENCY (C'l) VEST, LIFE VEST, 
AND CHEST, BACK OR SEAT-TYPE PARACHUTES. 
BELLY HATCH 
fULL EQUIPMENT INCLUDES-FLYING CLOTH ES,EMERGENCY (C-l) VEST, LI FE VEST 
AND CHEST, BACK OR SEAT-TYPE PARACHUTE. 
TOP DITCHING HATCHES 
FULL EQUIPMENT includes-flying CLOTHES, EMERGENCY(C-l) vest, life vest 
AND DINGHY. 
AERO MEDICAL LAB 
34 56 
Figure V, 1, lation of recessed handholds will aid the man in being able to extricate 
himself from such awkward situations. 
Further consideration along this line should be a full realization that 
there are certain requirements for proper storage space of miscellaneous loose 
equipment. An item which weighs no more than twenty pounds is extremely diffi- 
cult to handle under the influence of three "G”fs, or even less, because the 
movements of the man himself have become extremely limited, and it can readily 
be imagined what difficulties a man would have in trying to displace odd ob- 
jects along his path of egress. 
It has been the experience of the Amy Air Forces, during the past years, 
that the application of common sense to the analysis of these problems will 
solve if not all, of them. CATWALKS 
Catwalks are passageways installed in heavy aircraft to permit and to 
facilitate movement of personnel throughout the airplane. ?/ith an intent 
to facilitate movement, it is highly desirable that the structures be so 
placed that the personnel may move about with the least possible restric- 
tion. This holds especially for men who are wearing heavy equipment, in- 
cluding a parachute. 
There are two dimensional requirements which must be met; first, for 
maximum structural strength it must be trapezoidal in shape; and secondly, 
it must be large enough in cross-section to permit the easy transgress of 
any person wearing full flying equipment and falling into the size range of 
Air Corps Flying personnel. 
Experimental tests conducted by means of mock-up. Figure V, 2, have 
indicated that minimum dimensions £or such a trapezoid are sixty-three inches 
in height, twenty-two inches on the top side, and twelve inches at the 
bottom. CHAPTER VI 
Crew Weights 
In Chapter II, The Functional Man, there was a discussion of the 
factors involved in the increase in size due to the addition of personal 
equipment, and to required motions of the body. In addition, there is 
another factor related to the man and his equipment which is important in 
the consideration of weights and balances in aircraft. This is the increase 
in weight due to the addition of equipment. 
Nude body weights in aircrew are ordinarily limited as follows 
a. Fighter pilots, 120 to 180 pounds. 
b. Commissioned bombardment aircrew, 120 to 200 pounds. 
c. Gunners, 120 to 170 pounds. 
d. Other non-commissioned aircrew, 120 to 200 pounds. 
The common practice in listing of crew weights has been to give 200 
pounds total, based originally on a top of 180 pounds nude, plus 20 pounds of 
parachute. Personal equipment became so complex during the war that the fol- 
lowing weights were possible for different crew positions, due to equipment 
alone. 
a. Low altitude fighter, 71 pounds, I* ounces. 
b. High altitude fighter, 82 pounds, 9 ounces. 
c. Medium and heavy bombardment, 117 pounds, 6 ounces. 
d. Very Heavy bombardment, 108 pounds, 15 ounces. 
It should be apparent from these figures that much closer attention 
should be paid to total crew weights in the operational aircraft. The design 
purpose of the aircraft should be clearly defined and the individual crew 
weights possible for the various positions calculated on that basis, rather 
than using axrounded value of 200 pounds. 
Subsequent to the above calculations, the AAF issued instructions that 
bomber crews would be figured at 250 pounds, exclusive of flak suits and one- 
man life rafts, and fighter, at 230 pounds. 
A breakdown of the personal equipment weights for the various types of 
aircraft is as follows: 
Heavy Bombardment 
lbs. oz. 
1. Electric suit; For high altitude temperature below 0°F. 
Heavy underwear, G, I. uniform, F-5 suit, B-15, A-ll suit, 
heavy socks, electric insert, A-6 boot, F-2 glove, AN-H-16 
shearling helmet, belt, suspenders, connecting cord, bail- 
out bottle H-2, and oxygen mask, 29 6 
2. For pilot, co-pilot, all fighter personnel; (on seat): 
B-S parachute, B-5 cushion, C-l emergency vest. 36 lbs. oz. 
3. For all flight personnel over water; B-I4. life vest, 1-man 
raft. 21 12 
Ll• Belt, holster, pistol, clip, 7 rounds. 3 IS 
5. Flak, helmet and suit, 26 6 
117 6 
Very Heavy Bombardment 
1. Intermediate Suit; For moderate altitude or heated cabins; 
temperature lLi° to 50°F. Cotton underwear, G. I. uniform, 
B-15, A-ll suit, light wool sock, service shoes, A-6 boot, 
A-11A glove, A-11A helmet, suspenders, belt, oxygen mask, 
H-2 bailout bottle, electric goggles. 20 II4. 
2. For pilot, co-pilot, all fighter personnel; (on seat); 
B-8 parachute, B-5 cushion, C-l emergency vest. 36 
3. For all flight personnel over water; B-i; life vest, 1-man 
raft, 21 12 
L+, Belt, holster, pistol, clip, 7 rounds. 3 15 
5. Flak, helmet and suit. 26 6 
108 15 
Low Altitude Fighter 
1* Light suit; for low altitudes, heated cabins, temperature 
50° to866F, Cotton underwear, G. I. wool uniform, AN-S-51 
gabardine coverall, cushion sole socks, service shoe, B-5A 
glove, AM-H-15 helmet, belt. 9 9 
2, For fighter personnel; (on seat); B-S parachute, B-5 
cushion, C-l emergency vest. 56 
3. For all flight personnel over water; B-U life vest, 1-nan 
raft. 21 12 
I;. Belt, Holster, pistol, clip, 7 rounds, 3 15 
“71 ~ 
High Altitude Fighter 
1. Intermediate suit; for temperature lii° to 50°F. Cotton 
underwear, G. I. uniform, B-15* A-ll suit, light wool sock, 
service shoes, A-6 boot, A-11A glove, A-11A helmet, sus- 
penders, belt, oxygen mask, H-2 bailout bottle, electric 
goggles. 20 ll; 
2, For fighter personnel; (on seat): B-8 parachute, B-5 
cushion, C-l emergency vest, 36 
5. For all flight personnel over water; B~U life vest, 1-man 
raft. 21 12 
I*. Belt, holster, pistol, clip, 7 rounds. 5 _J-5 
82 9 The average nude crew weight is about 15U pounds and could be used as 
a generalization for rounding off weights, but should not be used as a 
fixed figure, regardless of crews, inasmuch as the individual crew will 
not be loaded as average weights all the time. "An aircraft does not fly- 
on the average111 CHAPTER VII 
Movenent of the Head and Eye in Sighting 
Tests were made to determine the arc of movement of the head in fol- 
lowing with the eyes a series of points at various angles above and below 
tne horizontal, extending from directly above to directly below the subject. 
No turning to the side was involved. The total arc covered by the series of 
points is 180°, and nine fixation objects were used, at 22 1/2° intervals, 
as shown in figure VII, 1. 
The subject was instructed to look at the various points in succession, 
at each stage holding his head in whatever way seemed most comfortable and 
natural. A record was made of the position of the eye and of the ear-hole 
at each stage. There is some erratic variation due to individual preference 
in moving the head more and the eyes less, and vice versa, to obtain a given 
angle of vision, but all subjects followed the same general pattern. The 
diagram in Figure VII, 2 represents the average of twenty-one subjects. 
Adjustment for looking at points near the horizontal plane and up to 
about 1*3° above is made largely by movement of the head on the neck. Move- 
ment of the entire neck becomes more conspicuous as the latitude of the move- 
ment increases. The subjects are not allowed to bend the trunk forward, 
though there is an inclination to do this in looking down. 
The requirements for an adequate sight mounting are that the sight shall 
move and turn in such a way that the axis of the sight shall always be aligned 
with the position which the normally occupies when looking in the direction 
in which the sight is aimed. When the guns are aimed Ii5° upward from the hori- 
zontal, for instance, the eye in its normal position for looking up at i&° 
should be in the correct position for holding the target in the center of the 
sight. In addition, the distance between sight and eye should remain fairly 
constant. 
The head movement cannot be fitted into any simple geometric formula, so 
that some deviations from the experimentally determined angles of sight and 
eye positions will be necessary in order to fit a mechanical system of sight 
movement to the normal system of head and eye movement. It is important that 
any deviations shall be made in the right direction. 
In stage 1 of Figure VIT, 2 (looking directly upward), head, neck and eye 
movement are all very nearly at maximum, and no liberties should be taken 
with the position of the sight'. The worst possible error is to have the sight 
too far forward at the time when it is aimed directly upward; this necessitates 
tipping back of the head while the neck is held straight. Since many of the 
neck muscles extend all the way from the back of the head down to shoulder 
level, and act on the head and neck simultaneously, this is a very difficult 
position to maintain. 
In stages 2, 3, and i; (from 67° to 22° upward), the sight movement will DIAGRAM SHOWING EXPERIMENTALLY 
DETERMINED EYE POSITIONS FOR 
SIGHTING ANGLES FROM 90° ABOVE 
TO 90* BELOW THE SUBJECT 
SHOULDER 
REST 
FIGURE I 
4533A-A M I 
Figure VII, l DIAGRAM SHOWING OPTIONAL 
EYE POSITIONS FOR VARIOUS 
SIGHTING ANGLES 
DOTTED LINES TO SHOW 
OPTIONAL LINES OF SIGHT 
4533B-A M L 
FIGURE 2 
Figure VII, 2 give fair satisfaction if the line of sight passes from one-half to one 
inch back of the eye points A2, and Al;. Accommodation can be made by 
increasing the angle of the head and decreasing the angle of the eye. 
The horizontal (stage 5) is taken as point of reference. Adjustment 
to this must be made by adjustment of the seat; the sight positions for 
other stages should be correct when the position for stage five is correct. 
In stages 7, 8, and 9* particularly the latter, the sight action may be 
as if points A7, A8 and A9 were one-half to one inch further forward, since 
bending of the trunk, not allowed in the experimental arrangement, may be 
brought into play. The subjects showed an inclination at stage 9 to lean 
away from the shoulder rest, although in a moving airplane they would sacri- 
fice some stability by doing so. 
The distance between sight and eye can be varied if necessary in order 
to satisfy the other conditions better. The distance of the sight is less 
critical than the proper position of the sight at various sighting angles. 
The movement and rotation of the sight cannot be reduced to any system 
with a single axis of rotation, A compound system can be devised, however, 
by which the sight will travel in an arc which keeps it at a constant dis- 
tance from the eye and at the same time facing in the correct direction at 
each point of its arc; making use where necessary of the possible compromises 
outlined above. One such system is illustrated in Figure VII, 5 to give an 
approximate fit for a sight moving through an arc of 180°. If a range of less 
than this angle were to be used, other systems could be devised to give an even 
better fit over a smaller range of angular motion. 
It she .Id be noted that when looking directly upward, the average subject 
tips his head back until the back of the head is two and one-fourth inches 
behind the plane of the back-rest. An additional inch should be allowed for 
larger heads. DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING TYPE 
OF MECHANISM POSSIBLE FOR 
ALIGNING GUN-SIGHT WITH EYE 
POSITIONS. 
CENTER OF ARC OF A 
POINT EQUI-DISTANT 
FROM EYE IN DIRECTION 
OF SIGHT. 
SMALL ARROWS INDICATE 
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 
IDEAL AND ACTUAL EYE 
POSITIONS. 
-AXIS OF 
SIGHT 
-CENTER OF 
(SIMPLIFIED) ARC 
OF EYE MOVEMENT. 
SHOULDER REST 
SCALE i 
4533C-A ■ L 
-IOURE 3 
Figure VII, 3 The Design of Turret Sighting Panels 
A turret sighting panel should be designed so that the deviation of the 
line of sight through the panel is zero or is constant for all angles of ele- 
vation and azimuth of the sight. If this is not done then an error in sight- 
ing is introduced as the guns are elevated or rotated. If the deviation is 
constant and the guns are harmonized with the sight while the panel is in po- 
sition then there will be no error when the guns are moved. In order to elim- 
inate the error introduced by a movement of the sight line in azimuth a cylin- 
drical type panel which is flat in azimuth should be used. 
The next problem is to determine the curvature of the panel which would 
give a constant deviation of the sight line for all angles of elevation of the 
sight. There are.several methods of accomplishing this. 
The first method is to construct the sighting panel using a series of flat 
plates. However, the seams formed by Joining the plates together create blind 
areas which are very objectionable. 
A second method is to make the sighting panel a true cylinder so that the 
axis of the cylinder coincides with the elevation axis of the sight. This can 
be done only if the sight moves in a true arc about a point when the angle of 
elevation is changed. In this case the angle of incidence of the sight line on 
the spherical section of the cylinder would be constant for all angles of ele- 
vation and, therefore, the deviation of this sight line would be constant. 
However, in most installations this would result in a very high dome as the 
sight usually pivots about a point near the gunner’s ears and the radius of 
the cylinder would have to be long enough to allow clearances for the ammuni- 
tion feeds, etc. 
A third method is to make an elliptical panel with one focus at the point 
(see Figure VII, I4.). This point should be on the horizontal line of sight in 
such a position that the lines of sight at various angles of elevation pass 
through or near it. Experiments have shown that when the line of sight at 
a given angle of elevation crosses the horizontal sight line as much as 1-1/2 
inches from the error introduced is of the order of a few mils. Therefore, 
when designing a sighting panel for an upper turret it is particularly desir- 
able that the line of sight for angles of elevation from 0° to 1*0° cross the 
horizontal sight line within ± 0,25” of *'F^, The next step is to measure a 
distance "h", along the line of sight at maximum depression, long enough to 
enable the panel to fit into a dome with a known base diameter. This diameter 
is fixed by the diameter of the turret. When selecting the distance "h" con- 
sideration should be given to the various types of mounting brackets and any 
pieces of equipment in the front part of the turret which must be cleared by 
the dome. The distance MhM locates the point A. Next a distance MgM should 
be measured along the line of sight at 90° elevation, this distance being high 
enough to give the proper clearances for head room etc. within the dome. In 
this way the point B can be located. 
An ellipse through A and B with one focal point at can then be constructed Figure VII, &. 
and V2 are vertices of ellipse (on major axis) 
M is vertex of ellipse (on minor axis) 
Points A and B are- symmetrical about minor axis of ellipse 
C is center of ellipse 
* angle of elevation above horizontal sight line 
0 * angle of elevation above major axis of ellipse 
k = angle that line of sight along F-jA makes with horizontal sight line 
w ■ angle that line of sight along Fq_B makes with major axis of ellipse 
H* « angle that line of sight along makes with major axis of ellipse 
= angle F]AF2 *= angle FqBFg 
q * distance from A to horizontal sight line 
AB= m F]P = r F]_A - F2B = h F]_B - F2A = g 
a = cv-j_ - V2C - 1/2 major axis b = CM = l/2 minor axis 
c = CF1 = F2C 
sin k » . -5— a B — — 
h 2 
m2 s g2 + h2 - 2gh cos(90° + k) c . g sin 
2 sin "V 
sinv » g sin(9Q° + k) b ="Va2 - c2 
m 
? = 180° -(w + HO w - 90° k * as shown in the calculations under Figure VII, 1* By this construction the (Table I) 
points A and B are made symetrical about the minor axis of the ellipse so that 
the radii of curvature and the angles of incidence of the lines of sight (as- 
suming that they pass through F]_) at these two points are equal, thereby making 
the deviations equal. This is done by locating the other focal point F2 at a 
distance "h" from B and a distance HgM from A. 
Assuming that the line of sight at any angle of elevation passes through 
F, then the deviation of the sight line through any point P on the ellipse 
between A and B will not vary greatly as can be shown by carrying out the cal- 
culations below. 
Actually, since the sight lines do not pass through the true deviation 
will vary from the computed value. However, from the figures given in Table I 
it can be seen that this error may be neglected. This table shows the total 
deviation of the sight line through the sighting panels used in the Sperry 
Upper Local Turret. At 10° elevation where the line of sight passes through 
there is a difference between the calculated deviation and the measured 
deviation. This is due partly to the assumptions made in the calculations, 
although the greatest part of this difference is probably due to the tolerances 
required in the process of bending the glass to the given form. 
If more than one type of sight is used in the same turret and it is de- 
sired that the same panel be used to give similar sighting characteristics, 
it is necessary that the point F]_ remain fixed for all sight installations. Relation of I$ye Movement in Sighting to 
Design of Turret Sighting Panels. 
1. Technical Report No, I4SS7 discusses three possible designs of tur- 
ret sighting panels, all based on movements of the gun-sight. The present 
study indicates what this gun-sight movement might be. 
2. The above report favors an elliptical panel based on the intersec- 
tions of lines of sight at various elevations. Location of the point 
(Figure VII, Ij) is the crucial step in constructing this ellipse, but no 
method for its determination is presented - merely specifications which it 
should fill. This point can be located exactly by extending the lines of 
sight (Figure VII, 1) for 22.5° and 1+5° of elevation, back to v/here they 
cross the horizontal. The lines of sight up to and possibly beyond U5° of 
elevation cross the horizontal sight line within 0.25 inch of one another, 
exceeding the specifications by at least 5°» 
5. The point B (Figure VII,1), another critical point, is determined 
by a consideration of head clearance within the turret dome. In this connec- 
tion, the following exact data, gathered by the Aero Medical Laboratory, 
Engineering Division, are pertinent: The average eye level from the seat for 
Army Air Forces flyers is 51*5 inches, and ranges from 30 to inches. The 
average head height above the eyes is 5«1 inches and ranges from Uo5 to 5.7 
inches. Three to five more inches should be allowed for leather and steel 
helmets, and for possible raising of the head to increase scanning visibility. 
I4, When looking directly upward, the average subject shortens his 
sitting height by 0,5 inch and tips his head back until the back of the head 
is 2 to 5 inches behind the plane of the back-rest. Space should be allowed 
behind the head for this, as well as for oxygen mask and tube clearance at all 
gun-sight elevations - critical matters in some turrets. 
5. It will be noted that (Figure VII, 1) eye movement is virtually a 
circular arc from 90° above to I4.50 below horizontal, (This arc is perfect from 
67.5° above to 25° below horizontal.) The mechanical problems of mounting and 
pivoting the gun-sight are thus simpler than if the curve were complex. One 
possible mechanical system is presented in Figure VII, 5* However, it would 
be better to draw the arc almost exactly through the points between 67.5° above 
and I4.50 or 67.5° below the horizontal, and to let the less important points, 
like 67.5° and 90° below, fall outside the arc. These points were obtained by 
not allowing the subject to bend forward at the trunk, as would naturally occur 
in looking straight down,1 in line with the general arc. 
6. It may finally be noted that : 
a. The ear-hole does not move in a circular arc, as commonly supposed. 
b. The pivot point of eye or sight is not the ear-hole, but is 
roughly 2 inches below and 1/2 inch behind it. CHAPTER VIII 
Appendices 
1. Anthropometric Instruments 
2. Head Dimensions 
$. Male Body Dimensions 
I4. Female Body Dimensions 
5. References 1. ANTHROPOMETRIC INSTRUMENTS 
1. Anthropometer - This is a metal rod of approximately 7 feet in length 
which is calibrated in centimeters and millimeters and breaks down into U 
sections for packing and carrying. A slide works on the rod and a demount- 
able spike fits through a sleeve in the slide. Another similar spike ray be 
mounted at the top of the rod. Two scales are worked on the rod, one reading 
from the bottom up, the other from the top down. This instrument is used in 
all of the larger linear measurements of the body, e,g. stature, sitting 
height, chest breadth, etc. 
2. Spreading Caliper - This is a compass-type instrument with the arms 
bowed so that their ends are opposed. The scale is calibrated in centimeters 
and millimeters from 0 to JO and works through a slide attached to one of the 
arms. It is useful in taking linear measurements of small extent between points 
not accessible to the Sliding Caliper, e.g, head length, head breadth, etc. 
J. Sliding Caliper - This consists of a flat metal bar upon which a slide 
moves. One end of the bar and the slide are equipped with points, sharp on 
one side, blunt on the other. The bar is scaled in centimeters and millimeters, 
0 to 25. 
l\.. Steel Tape - This is a 6-foot flexible steel tape in a metal case with 
spring rewind. It is scaled on one side in centimeters and millimeters and on 
the other in inches. (Lufkin Rule, Keuffel & Esser hytface or equivalent). 
The above instruments are calibrated on the metric system: since all standard 
anthropometric work employs this scale. Thus a world-wide basis for comparison 
is available without laborious conversion from English inches to centimeters. 
5* Tailor's'Tape - A 60-inch, high grade, linen tape for use in taking 
tailors’ dimensions of subjects. These tapes vrear out rather rapidly under 
continual use and a supply of new tapes should be kept on hand. 
6. Glove Tape - a cloth tape for measuring the circumference of the hand 
to determine glove size. The scale is French Rule. These tapes can be obtained 
from glove manufacturers but the use of any reliable cloth tape scaled in 
English Rule may be preferred. Figure DC, 1. 1 2. TECHNIQUES FCr MEASURING THE HEAD 
ANTE R0P0JL2TER 
1. Head Height; Head in horizontal plane determined by line joining- 
bottom of bony orbit and the tragi on point. Perpendicular height from tragion 
to mid-longitudinal line on top of head; average of readings for both sides. 
Tragion is defined as the point ’.'here the tragus of the ear terminates 
superiorly, i.e., the superior corner, toward the head, of the main excavation 
(concha) of the external ear. 
SPREADING CALIPER 
2. Head Breadth: Greatest horizontal breadth of head above the ear 
openings, wherever found. Points of calipers held in horizontal plane and 
moved about until the maximum reading is obtained. 1-ode rate pressure. 
3. Minimum Frontal Diameter: Smallest distance between temporal crests, 
above surpa-orbital ridges. Noderate pressure, 
1;, Bi-Tragion: Distance between the two tragia (defined under Head Height). 
Contact only; no pressure. 
5. Bizygomatic A.: Greatest breadth across zygomatic arches (the bone from 
cheek to ear), wherever found. Contact only. Nark points with skin pencil. 
6. Bimalar: (1) On entire Kelly, Patterson, TTright, and half the Y/ilber- 
force series: distance between antero-lateral angles of malar (cheek) bones. 
Points are narked with a skin pencil, in the middle of the bone vertically. 
Contact only. (2) On the entire Naxwell, Y/right, and 1herforce series; 
head in horizontal eye-ear plane. Perpendiculars to this plane are dropped 
from the external canthi (corners) of the eyes, and marked on the mid-points, 
vertically, of the malars. Contact only. (3) On half the Wilberforce series; 
lower edge of malars, just medial to antero-lateral corner, hark points. 
Contact only. 
7. Bigonial: On mandible (lower jaw), distance between external gonial 
angles (corner where horizontal and ascending rami (branches) meet). Firm 
contact. 
8. Head Length: Glabella (most anterior point of supra-orbital ridges, 
in mid-line) to opisthocranion (most posterior point of occiput (back of skull) 
in the mid-line). Moderate pressure. 
Note: All single measurements of bilateral traits are taken from the left side, 
9. Tragion-Nasal Root: Tragion (defined under Head Height) to deepest con- 
cavity of nasal root. Contact to skin only. 
10. Tragion-Subnasale; Tragion (defined under Head Height) to juncture 
of nasal septum with philtrum (central hollowed region between nose and lip). 
Contact. 
11* Otobasion Inferior-Philtrum; Otobasion inferior is the junction of the 
ear lobule with the cheek. To middle of philtrum (defined in preceding). Con- 
tact. 12, Otobasion Infcrior-Supramen bale: Ctobasion inferior (see preceding) 
to median point of greatest concavity above the chin eminence and be low the 
lower membranous lip. Contact. 
13. Chin Projection, Kenton-Conion: ■enton for this measurement is the 
most anterior point in the mid line of uhe lower border of the mandible, Gonion 
is the postero-inferior of the horizontal and ascending rami of the lower 
jaw. Firm pressure on both points. 
SLIDING CALIPER 
lit., C r in ion-I1 enton Face Height: Cr inion is the lowest point reached by 
the hair" in the forehead mid line. If hair has bean lost from this region, the 
i;easurernent is not taken. The fixed point of the caliper is placed on menton 
(for this measurement, the mid-point of the inferior border of the randible). 
Firm pressure on menton. 
15. Nasion Ienton Face Height: Pas ion (the middle of the. naso-frental 
suture) is palpated and marked. Fix caliper on menton (see preceding). 
16. Upper Face Height, Nasion-Prosthion: Nasion (see preceding) to 
inferior tip of gum between the two central upper incisors, 
17. Nose Height: Nasion to subnasale (juncture of septum with philtrum). 
18. Nose Length: (1) On entire Kelly, Wright-Patterson, and Wilberforce 
series, nasion to middle of most prominent part of nasal tip in lateral view. 
(2) On entire Maxwell, Wright, and Wilberforce series, nasion to most inferior 
point on midline of nasal tip. 
20. Nasal Root Breadth: (l) On entire Kelly, Wright, Patterson, and Wilber- 
force series., distance between frontal processes of maxillae, just inside 
internal capthi (c-orners) of eyes. Firm contact, 
21. Nasal Root Breadth; (2) On Maxwell, Wright, and Wilberforce ser-iejSj, 
distance between naso-maxillary junctures, (Breadth across nasal bones them- 
selves at superior lateral borders.) Finn contact. 
22. Nasal Bridge Breadth: Palpate distal (lateral) ends of bony side 
walls of nasal skeleton. Maximum breadth at juncture of cheek and side wall of 
nasal bridge. Firm contact. 
23. Nasal Base Breadth (alae): Breadth across alae (wings) of nose, nostrils 
at rest and not flared. Contact. 
2i|, Nasal Root Salient: Internal oanthus (corner) of eye to midline of 
summit of nasal root. Minimum distance, 
25. Nasal Bridge Salient; (1) On Kelly, Wright, Patterson, and ?;ilber- 
force series, juncture of side wall of nasal bridge with cheek, to middle of 
summit of nasal bridge. Palpate bottom of bony side wall of bridge, and mark. 
Contact measurement to middle of nasal bridge perpendicular to bridge line, 
(2) On Maxwell series, perpendicular from tip of bony bridge in midline of nose, 
to juncture of bony side-wall with cheek. 26. Nasal Tip Salient; Alare (juncture of nasal ala (wing) with cheek) 
to pronasale (midpoint of most prominent portion of nasal tip in lateral 
view,) 
27* Nasal Tip Height: Subnasale (juncture of philtrum and septum) to 
pronasale (most outstand ing point on middle of tip). 
28. Biocular Diameter: Distance between outer angles of the external 
canthi (corners) of the eyes. Eyes opened wide and directed upward. Taken 
with caliper ends directed upward, 
29. Interocular Diameter: Distance between internal canthi. Measure- 
ment taken from below, 
30. Ear Implantation Length: Otobasion superior (superior juncture of 
external ear with side of head) to otobasion inferior (juncture of lobule with 
cheek, ) Pointed ends of caliper, 
31. Ear Length, Maximum: Maximum distance along axis of ear, wherever 
found. 
32. Mouth Breadth: Distance between two corners of mouth, to edge of lino 
of lip juncture, not necessarily to edge of membrane. Mouth in natural posi- 
tion; contact only; pointed ends of caliper. 
33. Mandible Height: Fixed end of caliper on menton (mid-point of inferior 
border of mandible), measure to superior point of gum between the two central 
lower incisors. Firm pressure on menton.. 
3k» Chin Breadth: Maximum breadth of mental eminence (chin) at juncture 
of confluence with lower border of the body of the mandible. Determine and 
mark intersection of the curve of the lower border of the chin meets the curve 
of the lower border of the mandibular corpus (body). Palpation may be necessary. 
Contact only. 
35* Chin-Neck Projection: (1) Kelly, 7,right, Patterson, and V.!iIberforce 
series: subject in horizontal eye-ear plane. I enton (in this measurement, 
the most anterior point in the mid line of the lower border of the mandible) 
to juncture of chin with neck. Bar of caliper firmly against tip of thyroid 
cartilage (Adam's apple), caliper held horizontally. 
36. Chin-Heck Projection: (2) Maxwell series: straight line distance 
between tip of thyroid cartilage and menton. Angle of caliper variable. 
37. Neck Breadth: Breadth of neck at the middle. Contact only. 
39* Neck Depth; Thyroid cartilage to back of neck perpendicular to axis 
of neck. Contact only. "Orientation Values." 
The head is first set firmly in a square, consisting of one board 
parallel and one perpendicular to the floor, and is then placed in a hori- 
zontal plane determined by a line Joining the bottom of the bony orbit and 
the tragion point. The horizontal arm of the square is then tangent to the 
vertex; and the vertical arm, to the occiput. 
ANTHROPOMETER 
1+0. Horizontal-Tragion: Distance from horizontal board to point whore 
the tragus of the ear terminates superiorly, i.e. the superior corner, toward 
the head, of the main excavation (concha) of the external oar. Anthropometer 
vertical. Average of readings for each side. 
I4.I • Wa 11-Tragi on: Distance from vertical board to tragion. Anthropometer 
horizontal. Average of readings for each side. 
1+2. Wall-Otobasion: Distance from vertical board to Junction of oar lobule 
with cheek. 
i+3. Wall-Thyroid Cartilage: Vertical board to anterior point of thyroid 
cartilage. Contact only, to skin. 
1+1+, Wall-Henton: Vertical board to most anterior point in midline of 
lower border of the mandible. 
i+5» Wall-External Canthus: Vertical board to outer angle of external 
canthus (corner) of eye. Average of readings for each side. 
1+6. Horizontal-Can thus: From horizontal board to outer angle of external 
Canthus. Average of two readings. 
1+7* Horizontal-Nasion; Horizontal board to middle of naso-frental suture. 
For the following measurements, the square is removed from the subject’s 
head. 
SLIDING CALIPER 
1+8. Tragion-Gonion: Tragion to postero-inferior angle of the horizontal 
and ascending rami of the mandible (lower Jaw). Contact, to skin. Loft side. 
1+9. Subnasale-Canthus: A distance (straight line) from the junction of the 
nasal septum with the upper lip to the outer corner of the eye, 
50. Tragion-Otobasion: (Both points defined above). Left side. 
51. Otobasion-Canthus: (Both points defined above.) Left side, 
52. t-enton-Supramentale: lent on for this measurement is the mid-point of 
the inferior border of the mandible. Supramentale is the median point of 
greatest concavity above the chin eminence and below the lower membranous lip. 53. 1‘enton-Philtrum: I'enton (as defined in the preceding paragraph) to 
central hollov/ed region between nose and upper neirbranous lip. 
5I4.. Cantbus-I>alar ; ; External canthus to point in middle, vertically 
of the malar (cheek) bone. The point is determined by dropping from the 
external canthus a perpendicular to the horizontal (tragion-lov/er border of 
orbit) plane in vhioh the head is fixed. Contact only; left side* Figure IX * 2, !• Figure :;>t ?f9.* 
229  Facial Survey of Aviation Cadets. 
Number 
ITean 
Bango 
Ago 
H+5U 
23 yrs. 1+ mos. 
18-27 
1. 
Head Height 
121+6 
130. 5 mm. 
HO-ll+B 
2. 
Head Breadth 
114+3 
153.9 
138*172 
3. 
I inimum Frontal 
11+52 
105.8 
92-120 
1+. 
Bi-Tragion 
li+53 
H+1+.7 
12l+-160 
5. 
Bizygomatic 
H+53 
11+2.1+ 
117-162 
6. 
Bimalar 
558 
108.5 
92-128 
7. 
Bigonial 
11+51+ 
IO6.5 
87-123 
8. 
Head Length 
n+52 
197.5 
172-218 
f 9* 
Tragion-Nasal Root 
11+51 
125.3 
109-139 
10. 
Tragion-Subnasale 
114+5 
129.8 
115-11+5 
n. 
Otobasion Inferior-Philtruin 
909 
116.1+ 
102-151 
12. 
Otobasion Tnferior-Supramentale 
11+51* 
H5.0 
95-132 
13. 
Chin Projection, Nenton-Gonion 
1095 
99.9 
83-119 
lh. 
Crinion-Fenton Face Height 
1320 
185.0 
157-211+ 
15. 
Nasion-Fenton Face Height 
11*51 
123.2 
102-11+5 
16. 
Upper Face Height 
900 
73.5 
59-86 
17. 
Nose Height 
121*7 
56.0 
1+5-69 
13. 
Nose Length (Pronasale) 
K 
1093 
1*8.6 
55-63 
19. 
Hose Length (Pronasale) 
V 
358 
51+.9 
1+2-61+ 
20. 
Nasal Root Breadth 
K 
1095 
23.9 
17-33 
21. 
Nasal Root Breadth 
M 
558 
15.3 
11*25 
22. 
Nasal Bridge Breadth 
ll*50 
32.2 
21+-1+1 
23. 
Nasal Base Breadth (alao) 
11+52 
35.3 
2&.1+5 
2l+. 
Nasal Root Salient 
11+53 
21+.0 
18-50 
25- 
Nasal Bridge Salient 
11*51 
29.3 
22-1+0 
26. 
Nasal Base Salient 
909 
31+.7 
28-1+2 
27. 
Nasal Tip Height 
121+6 
21.5 
15-29 
28. 
Biocular Diameter 
11*50 
93.0 
82-108 
29. 
Interocular 
11+53 
32.2 
21+-1*2 
30. 
Ear Implantation Length 
ii+51* 
52.8 
1+2-66 
31. 
Ear Length, Maximum 
1299 
65.0 
52-79 
32. 
Mouth Breadth 
1300 
51.8 
+2-63 
33- 
Mandible Height 
901 
1+0.9 
32-56 
3U. 
Chin Breadth 
1093 
61.2 
1+6-75 
35. 
Chin-Nock Projection 
K 
1096 
1+6.6 
27.69 
36. 
Chin-Neck Projection 
M 
551+ 
55.0 
37.71+ 
37. 
Neck Breadth 
909 
118.1 
105-11+0 
39. 
Neck Depth 
11+51+ 
118.9 
105-11+0 "Orientation Values." 
Size of series - 198 
Bean 
Range 
UO. Horizontal-Tragion 
150.3 
115-11+1+ 
lj.1* Wall-Tragion 
96.9 
75-HO 
l\2, Wall-Otobasion 
IOI4.6 
86-123 
1^3• Wall-Thyroid Cartilage 
11+7.6 
122-20U 
Wall-External Can thus 
191.2 
172-222 
1;5. Fa 11-External Canthus 
171.5 
150-I88 
J46. Horizontal-Canthus 
111+.5 
90-136 
U7. Horizontal-Nasion 
102.6 
75-129 
1|8. Tragion-Gonion 
61;. 8 
1+9-32 
It9. Subnasale-Canthus 
72.8 
62-86 
50. Tragion-Otobasion 
32.0 
25-1+6 
51. Otobasion-Canthus 
89.9 
72-10U 
52. honton-Supramentale 
27.5 
20-37 
53* Menton-Philtrum 
62.3 
51-78 
5i|# Canthus-Malar K 
27.5 
19-31+ 
Canthus-halar M 
28.7 
22-35 
All measurements are in millimeters. 5. TECHNIQUES FOR MEASURING THE BODY 
1, YIeight: In pounds. 
2, Stature: Heels together, toes at i|5° angle. Back straight, head in 
horizontal plane defined by line from tragpion (about top of oar hole) to 
bottom of bony orbit. Measure from front or back, with anthropometer vorti- 
cal, to vertex (highest point in mid line of head). 
3* Total Span: Observer hold anthropometer horizontally, subject pushes 
movable arm with left hand. Distance between tips of middle fingers. Maximum 
stretch without straining. 
i+. Anterior Arm Reach: Heels together; heels, buttocks, riddle of back 
(in lateral sense), and occiput against wall. Require subject to attain maxi- 
mum horizontal forward reach, with contacts maintained. Both arms horizontal, 
extended equally. Distance from wall to tip of right middle finger. 
5* Span-Akimbo: Arms flexed, held horizontally, palms down, fingers 
straight and together; thumbs touching chest; wrists straight. Fingers of each- 
hand do not meet. Anthropometer bar must be horizontal and in contact with 
back and elbows, the latter being manipulated as required. Measure from behind. 
Distance between two elbow points, Hot necessarily a maximum distance. 
6. Biacromial: Distance between acromial points (external borders of end 
of scapular (shoulder-blade) spine). Be sure subject is relaxed, but not col- 
lapsed, Firm contact. 
7« Bi-deltoid: Arms at side, palms forward. Maximum contact dimension 
across de11oids (large muscles around shoulders), 
8. Chest Breadth: Flat portion of anthropometer against chest at nipple 
level. Use only moderate pressure. 
9. Chest Depth: Horizontal antero-posterior dimension at nipple level. 
Contact to sternum (breast bone); fixed arm of anthropometer in spinal groove. 
10. Abdominal Depth: Maximum horizontal contact diirension, wherever found. 
11, Bi-iliac: A firm pressure dimension, maximum iliac brim (across hip 
bono_s). Heels together. 
12, Head Circumference: Maximum of - three attempts. 
13. Chest Circumference: Horizontal circumference just above nipples. Do 
not tighten the tape; merely contact all around. Chest neither expanded nor 
collapsed; take during quiet breathing. 
li+. Tipper Arm Circumference; Horizontal circumference at the maximum of 
the biceps muscle. 
15. Forearm Circumference: Circumference taken halfway between elbow and 
wrist. ' ' ~ ' 16. Am Lengths Length of am from top of clavicle to the tip of the 
middle finger as the am hangs at the side of the body, 
17. Forearm Length: Distance from elbow to middle finger tip with the 
fore am flexed at the elbow. 
16. Hand Length: Right hand, fingers extended and together, palm up. 
Distance from proximal end of navicular (srall wrist bone at base of thumb) 
to tip of middle of middle finger. Fixed end of caliper firmly pressed against 
navicular, light contact to finger tip. 
19. Hand Breadth: Right hand, fingers extended and together, palm up. Arms 
of caliper parallel to axis of fingers. Distance between radial (lateral) pro- 
jection of distal eMof second metacarpal, and ulnar (medial) projection of 
distal end of fifth metacarpal. Firm contact. 
20. ?.rrist Breadth; Thickness of the wrist at the level of the two bony 
projections just above the wrist joint. Firm contact, 
21. Tirist Thickne ss; A dimension transverse to 20. 
22. Shoulder-elbow; Trunk erect, humerus vertical, forearm horizontal, 
Measure from top of acroriion process to bottom of elbow, 
23. Filbow-seat: Distance from elbow as measured in 22 to level of seat. 
2l+. 3i-e picondylar, elbowrs-: Humeri vertical; arms pushed medially until 
they touch trunk wall. Hands -on sides of thighs, knees together and right-angled, 
trunk erect. Distance between lateral epicondyles of humeri (outer projec- 
tions of elbows). 
25* Bi-trochanteric; Knees together and at right angles, trunk erect. 
Maximum lateral diameter of buttocks; light touch measurement. Anthropometer 
horizontal. 
Thigh Circumference; Horizontal circumference of thigh halfway between 
crotch and knee• 
27. Calf Circumference: Weight oven on both feet. Left calf, maximum 
horizontal, of three attempts. 
2®* Xiphoid Height: Vertical distance, subject standing, from juncture of 
sternum and xiphoid process to floor. 
29• Lower Rifc Height;. Vertical distance, subject standing, from lower 
rnar^in of last rib, viewed laterally, to floor. 
. Umbilical Height; Vertical distance, subject standing, from center 
of uirbilious to floor.— 
,, -I-liao Crest Height; Vertical distance, subject standing, from ton of 
xn® iliac crest viewed laterally, to the floor. 32, Pubic Height: Vertical distance, subject standing, from the upper 
rargin of the pubic syr physis to the floor. The pubic symphysis lies be lev; 
the umbilicus, and is the upper rargin of the pelvic bone in the rid line, 
33. Crotch Height: Vertical distance, subject standing, from crotch to 
floor, 
3I4.. Sitting Height: Subject back on table as far as possible, until backs 
of knees hit table edge. Le:~s dangle freely. Trunk as erect as possible; head 
in eye-oar horizontal, as in stature, leasure from rear. 
35. Trunk Height: Trunk in same position as above. Distance from table to 
topmost margin of bony sternum (breast-bone) palpated. Disregard suprasternal 
bones, leasure from front. 
36. Buttock-knee: Right Side. Trunk erect. Knees together and knee 
angle at right angle; thighs horizontal. Contact measurement, buttock to skin 
over patella (knee-cap). 
37* Patella Height: Right Side. Leg in right angle position. Base of 
anthropometer near base of heel. Contact to top of muscle mass near end of femur 
(thigh bone). A maximum height, 
38, Standing Knee Height: Vertical distance, subject standing, from top of 
knee bone, patella, to floor. 
39, Bi-epicondylar, fen oral; Knees at right angles, feet together, medial 
epicondyles of femora in firm apposition. Distance' between lateral epicondyles 
(lateral projections of knees), 
1+0. Foot Length: Weight even on both feet. Left foot, maximum contact 
from heel to great toe (or second, if longer). 
1+1. Foot Breadth: height even on both feet. Left foot, maximum breadth with 
arms of anthropomoter parallel to long axis of leg and foot. Light pressure. 
1+2. External lalleolar Height; Vertical distance from lower leg bone, just 
above the ankle, on the outside to the floor, 
1+3, Internal Malleolar Height: Vertical distance from lower log bone, just 
above the ankle, on the inside to the floor. 
i+l+. Ankle Breadth: Distance between the two bony projections of the lower 
leg at the ankle. 
1+5. Ankle Thickness: Fore-aft distance between front and back of ankle at 
the level at which I|l+ was taken. 
1+6. Face Length: Distance from the most depressed part of the root of the 
nose to the tip of the chin in the mid line of the face. PERCENTILE DISTRIBUTION - HOW TO USE THEM 
Percentile distributions (calculated for all metric characters) are 
offered as the most practical elaboration of statistics for the present pur- 
poses. They show what measurement values would accommodate percentages of 
cadets or gunners from five to ninety-five. By subtraction, per cent, of 
series between any given values can be ascertained. Other percentages may bo 
obtained by interpolation. If a turret dimension is fixed, by reference to 
the table it can be decided what proportion of cadets or gunners fall within 
that dimension and can be accommodated by it, or exceed it. The median (50 
per cent.) is in these series practically equivalent to the arithmetic mean. 
The total range of measurements is also given. It should bo borne in mind, 
however, that the ranges may be unduly extended by cases which represent 
errors in recording.. The most obvious errors have been eliminated, but some 
less flagrant ones may remain. The percentile distributions are given in 
Tables 1-29* JrrtWNe. U.s. ARMY AIR CORPS-MATKRIIX DIVISION - ANTHROPOLOGICAL SURVKY 
NAME Observer Dale 
Oortl (Srrt> ImMU 
1 LOCATION 
2 MILITARY UNIT 
3 RANK: private*>|non-coni.11|o(Rcer1*| 
INDUCTION BASIS: selectee11 volunteer* | reserve* | 
4 . ...... AGE •■■■■•■ 
Uwi Sat**,) 
5 BIRTHPLACE - SUBJECT: 
»••. a U. S.a.: or emom. a fcwisn) 
6 BIRTHPLACE —FATHER; 
(Srorr, XU.S.A.; or teoiwn. X rorrrso) 
7 BIRTHPLACE —MOTHER: 
(Sraro, SUSA., or cooorn. * rorotso) 
8 NATIONAL EXTRACTION 
(Two principal strains) 
9 RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION (Familial): I Protestant1* | Catholic111 
Jewish1* ] Other* | 
EDUCATION (Highest Schooling):[iiliterzte*|read and write*! 
| grade* I high*| special training (tech., bus., etc )* college7 : prof.*! 
10 OCCUPATION (principal) 
11 MARITAL STATUS: single**|marriedu|divorced or separated1*! 
| widower* | 
RACE; White*|Negtoid*|Mongoloid*|Other*| 
12 HAIR COLOR: black1* jdk. brown11 |med. brown1* | red brown11 
(gold brown* Jash brown*,’golden41 sib11 red4 
13 HAIR FURM: straightu!low waveOJdeep wave^Jcurly1! 
I frizzly or woolly1! 
14 EYE COLOR: pure dark (dk. or It. brown)1*! 
(pure light (gray, blue, gray-blue)11! 
|mixed light1*) 
| mixed even11 
(mixed dark*! 
15 SKIN COLOR: palcu|med. pinku!6orid or ruddy1*] 
I brunet11swarthy* | yellow brown*! 
|dk. brown*! black*! 
16 VASCULARITY; (scratch on chest) 
(abs.1* | subm.u | med.1*! pron.11 
SOMATOTYPE: 
17 ENDOMORPHY 1-2-3-4-S-6-7 
18 MESOMORPHY I-2-3-4-5-6-7 
19 ECTOMORPHY 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 
20 ANDROGYNY: I-2-3-4-S-6-7 
21 DYSPLASIA; 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 
22 MUSCLE TONUS; asm. (totally relaxed)1* 
sm. (soft)1* 
+ (med.)** 
+ + (tense)* 
0*. M 
Subject Standing — 
WEIGHT 23 L. 
STATURE ’ 24 _ 
SPAN — TOTAL 25 • _ _ 
ANTERIOR ARM REACH . . . 26 
SPAN —AKIMBO 27 _ 
B1 ACROMIAL 28 _ 
BI-DELTOID 29 _ 
CHEST BREADTH 30 
CHEST DEPTH 31 „ !_, 
ABDOMINAL DEPTH 32 
BI-ILIAC 4 . 33 __ 
FOOT LENGTH 34 . .. __ _ 
FOOT BREADTH 35 
HEAD CIRCUM 36 __ 
CHEST CIRCUM. (rat) 37 _ _ 
CALF CIRCUM. (left) 38 II 
SuejBcr Si-mwo 
SITTING HEIGHT 39 _ _ 
TRUNK HEIGHT 40 _ 
BUTTOCK-KNEE 41 _ _ 
PATELLA HEIGHT (from door) .42 _ _ 
BI-EPICONDYLAR (elbows) . 43 _ _ 
BI-TROCHANTERIC . 44 
BI LP[CON'D FEMORAL (knees) 45 _ _ 
SHOULDER-ELBOW HEIGHT, 46 
SQUATTING DIAGONAL 47 _ _ 
HEAD LENGTH 48 _ _ 
HEAD BREADTH 49 
FACT BREADTH SO _ _ 
FACE LENGTH 51 L_l 
NOSE LENGTH 52 
NOSE BREADTH 53 
HAND LENGTH 54 
HAND BRFADTH 55 
1 voices 
HEIGHT (lb..) , . . 56 
SITTING HEIGHT/STATHRE 57 
CHEST BRFADTH/BI ACROMIAL 58 
CALE/BI ACROMIAL 59 
CHEST D./BlACROMIAL 60 
BI-ILIAC/BIAC 61 
HEAD CIRC./CHEST CIRC. 62 
CHEST CIRC./STATURE 63 
CHEST D./CHEST BR 64 
HEAD BR./HEAD L 65* 
FACE L./FACE BR 66 
NOSE BR./NOSE L. 67 
68 _ 
69 
70 
71 .... 
..... 72 ... 
73 _ _ 
74 
75 _ _ 
76 __ __ 
77 __ 
78 
80 1_J LJ 
4518B-A M L 
Figure IX, i. A.A.F. TYPE A. 
Figure IX, ?, 2. 5.SPAN AKIMBO IS MEASURED TO 
THETIPS OFTHE ELBOW WITH THE 
FORARMS FOLDED IN TO THE CHEST. 
A.A.F. TYPE A. A.A,£ TYPE A 
4 408 B 
Figure I) , 3> h* 24.BI-EPICONDYLAR OF ELBOWS. 
OUTSIDE DIMENSION OFELBOWS 
IN THE SITTING POSITION. 
A.A.F TYPE A 
4408 
Figure IX, 5, it. TABLE 1 
.HEIGHT 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Weight in Pounds 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Gunners 
3% 
12S.5U 
119.71+ 
10% 
133.81 
125.01+ 
15/o 
157.17 
131.01 
20% 
159.75 
133.65 
?3% 
U42.13 
136.23 
55^ 
11+6.31 
11+0.95 
Uo% 
H4S.65 
11+2.91 
U3% 
130.81 
ii4+.6U 
30% 
155.12 
n+7.07 
33% 
155.27 
li+9-37 
60% 
157.1+2 
150.85 
(>5% 
159.90 
152.79 
70% 
162.37 
155.61+ 
m 
165.148 
157.1+5 
m% 
16S.?6 
160. J+2 
&3% 
172.71+ 
163.65 
90% 
177.U3 
166.73 
93% 
1S1+.01+ 
175.50 
Number: 2960 
Range: 110-210 
Median: 133*12 
Number: 5&U 
Range: 106-203 
Median: II4.7.O7 TABLE 2 
STATURE 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Stature in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm. 
Inches 
Gunners 
Cm. 
Inches 
C# 
Z>/o 
166.08 
65. h 
161.02 
63.U 
10% 
168.00 
66.1 
I63.85 
6ii. 5 
15; b 
169.35 
66.7 
165.56 
65.2 
20% 
170.1*9 
67.1 
166.35 
65.7 
171.1*3 
67.5 
168.21 
66.2 
30% 
172.51 
67.9 
169.10 
66.6 
35% 
173.1*2 
60.3 
170.05 
66.9 
U0% 
171*. 22 
68.6 
171.01 
67.3 
h5% 
17i*.91+ 
68.8 
171.66 
67.6 
50% 
175.67 
69.2 
172.1*1 
67.9 
55% 
176.1*2 
69.5 
173.31 
68.2 
60% 
177.31* 
69.8 
17i*.22 
68.6 
6% 
176.15 
70.2 
171+.96 
68.9 
70% 
178.97 
70.5 
175.77 
69.2 
75% 
179.90 
70.8 
176.62 
69.5 
oO% 
181.02 
71.5 
177. i|6 
69.9 
S5% 
182.20 
71.7 
178.38 
70.2 
90% 
183.79 
72.1* 
180.05 
70.9 
95% 
185.85 
73.1 
182.25 
71.7 
Number: 2961 
Range: 136-193 (61.U-73.0) 
Median: 175*67 (69.2) 
Number: 5&U 
Range: 151-190 (59.U-7U.3) 
Median: 172.iA (67.9) TABLE 5 
SPAN-TOTAL 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Span-Total in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm. 
Inches 
Gunners 
, Cm. 
Inches 
% 
170.60 
67.2 
I65.6O 
65.2 
10# 
172.91 
68.0 
168.19 
66.2 
15% 
nh.ldi 
68.7 
170.10 
66.9 
20/3 
175.73 
69.2 
172.09 
67.7 
25/o 
176.91 
69.7 
173.U. 
68.2 
3055 
176.00 
70.1 
175.01 
68.9 
35/'o 
176.93 
70.5 
176.25 
69.6- 
179.90 
70.9 
177.11 
69.7 
i;5£ 
180.73 
71.1 
178.08 
70.1 
50/u 
181.56 
71.5 
179.01; 
70.5 
55£ 
1S2.U7 
71.8 
179.86 
70.9 
60/o 
183.62 
72.1 
180.62 
71.1 
65/ 
ISU.39 
72.6 
181.62 
71.5 
10% 
185.1+5 
73.0 
182.55 
71.8 
15% 
1S6.61 
73.5 
163 .1+7 
72.2 
m% 
167.21+ 
73.9 
ISl+.U, 
72.6 
'65% 
189.21+ 
74.5 
185.80 
73.1 
90% 
190.97 
75.2 
127. ip 
73.8 
9% 
193.32 
76.1 
189.79 
7J+.7 
Number: 2959 
Range: 15S-205 (62.2-00,7) 
Median: 181.58 (71.5) 
Number: 5&3 
Range: 15U-202 (60,6-79.5) 
Median: 179 (70*5) TABLE U 
ANTERIOR ARM REACH 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Anterior Arm Reach in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles' 
Cadets 
Cm. 
Inches 
Gunners 
Cm, Inches 
5% 
63.01 
32.7 
ei.oli 
31.9 
10% 
6l+.l6 
53.1 
82.30 
32.it 
15% 
63.15 
33.5 
63.50 
52.9 
20% 
85.95 
33.s 
8U.67 
55.5 
25% 
66.55 
31+.1 
65.56 
33.7 
50% 
£7.Hi 
31+.3 
66.26 
3U.C 
33% 
67.75 
3k. 5 
56.66 
3U.2 
hP% 
66.31 
3h.S 
S7.36 
3U.U 
h5% 
66.6 3 
35.0 
67.6U 
31+.6 
50% 
09.3k 
35.2 
66.36 
3U-8 
55% 
69.62 
35-ii 
66.96 
35.0 
60% 
90.3k 
35.6 
S9.1U* 
35.2 
&3% 
90.66 
35 .£ 
69.92 
35.U 
10% 
91.1*3 
36.0 
90.i|6 
35.6 
15% 
92. Hi 
36.3 
91.06 
35.9 
to% 
92.73 
36.5 
91.62 
36.X 
&3% 
93.56 
36.8 
92.59 
36.1* 
90% 
9k. 3k 
37.2 
93.50 
36.8 
95% 
95.95 
37.6 
9U.66 
37.1+ 
Humber: 2959 
Range; 75-103 (29.5-1+0.6) 
Median: 59.3l+ (55*2) 
Number: 5^0 
Range: 75-99 (29.5-39.0) 
Median: 55. 30 (3U •&) TABLE 5 
SPAN-AKIMBO 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Span-Akimbo in Centimeters and Inches 
Percfentiles 
Cadets 
Cm, Inches 
Gunners 
Cm, Inches 
3% 
£6.1h 
3U.7 
65.U2 
35.6 
10$ 
69.33 
35.1 
£7.01 
5U.5 
15? 
90.31 
55.5 
££.1U 
3U.7 
20$ 
91.ll. 
55.9 
£9.06 
55.1 
25% 
91.79 
36.I 
69.79 
35.3 
30% 
92. 
36.3 
90.U9 
35.6 
33% 
92.SU 
36.5 
91.1U 
35.9 
Uo% 
93.29 
56.7 
91.66 
36.1 
k3% 
93.7U 
56.9 
92.20 
36.3 
30% 
9U.22 
37.1 
92.20 
36.5 
35% 
9U.7U 
37.3 
93.35 
36.7 
60% 
95.25 
37.5 
93.66 
37.0 
63% 
95.75 
37.7 
9U.36 
37.1 
70% 
96.32 
37.9 
9U.63 
37.3 
73% 
96.92 
3S.1 
95.U2 
37.5 
£0$ 
97.72 
36.5 
96.07 
37.2 
&3% 
96.56 
32.2 
96.63 
36.0 
90% 
99.5k 
39.2 
97.39 
32.3 
93% 
100.95 
39.7 
92.87 
32.9 
Number: 2956 
Range: 61-106 (31.9-^42.5) 
Median: 9U.22 (37.1) 
Number: 562 
Hange: 79-106( 31.1-Ijl.7) 
Median: 92.60 (36.5) TABLE 6 
BIACROIvZLAL 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Biacroraial in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm. Inches 
Gunners 
Cm, Inches 
5% 
36.61 
11+.1+ 
35.37 
13.9 
IO70 
37.30 
11). 7 
36.13 
11).2 
155S 
37.76 
1U.9 
36.79 
11+.1+ 
20% 
36.13 
13.0 
37.11 
11+.6 
25;^ 
36.51 
13.2 
37.1)2 
li+.B 
30^ 
36.77 
13.3 
37.60 
11). 9 
35^ 
39.03 
15.1+ 
36.12 
15.0 
UO/o 
39.29 
15.3 
32.1)0 
13.1 
1)55? 
39-3U 
15.6 
32.67 
13.2 
50/b 
39.79 
15.7 
36.95 
15.3 
55^ 
1+0.03 
15.0 
39.20 
13 *1+ 
60% 
lio.22 
15.9 
39.1)6 
15.5 
65 $ 
14D.55 
16.0 
39.71 
15.6 
702 
Uo.co 
16.0 
39-96 
15.7 
1% 
1+1.07 
16.2 
1+0.21 
15.6 
'60% 
14.35 
16.3 
1+0.51 
15.9 
u.70 
16.1+ 
1+0.67 
16.1 
90% 
1+2.19 
16.6 
I4I.2I+ 
16.2 
95% 
142.90 
16.9 
i4.95 
16.5 
Number: 2956 
Range: 32-36 (12.6-18.1) 
Median: 39.79 (15-7) 
Number: 3^3 
Range: 32-14+ (12.6-17.3) 
Median: (13•3) TABLE 7 
BI-DELTOID 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Bi-Deltoid in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm. 
Inches 
Gunners 
Cm. Inches 
% 
142.30 
16.7 
1+1.08 
16.5 
10% 
J4.3-21 
17.0 
1+2,146 
16,7 
13% 
1+3.60 
17.2 
1+2.90 
16.9 
20% 
++•10 
17.+ 
+5.29 
17.0 
23% 
lil+.l+O 
17.5 
+3.60 
17.2 
m 
++.70 
17.6 
+3.91 
17.3 
3555 
+5.00 
17.7 
++.17 
17.+ 
hP/o 
1+3.21+ 
17.8 
++.+1 
17.3 
+5% 
1+3.1+0 
17.9 
1+J+.66 
17.6 
30% 
+5.72 
10.0 
++.90 
17.7 
55% 
+5.96 
10.1 
+5.16 
17.s 
60% 
1+6.22 
10.2 
1+3 *U3 
17.9 
65,1 
1+6.50 
10.5 
+3.70 
10.0 
10% 
146.77 
1S.+ 
+5.97 
10.1 
75% 
+7.C6 
10.5 
+6.30 
10.2 
'60% 
+7.+3 
10.7 
1+6.63 
10.3 
*3% 
+7.79 
10.0 
+6.97 
10.5 
90$ 
+8.31 
19.0 
+7.51 
10.7 
95* 
1+9.00 
19.3 
1+0.16 
19.0 
Number: 2955 
Range: 39-52 (15.U-20.5) 
Median: U5-72 (18.0) 
Number: 5&U 
Range: 39-50 (I5.l4.-i9.?) 
Median: iiU*90 (17*7) TABLE 8 
CHEST BREADTH 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Chest Breadth in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm. 
Inches 
Gunners 
Cm. Inches 
5% 
26.23 
10.3 
25.56 
10.1 
10% 
26.76 
10.5 
26.20 
10.3 
v>% 
27.15 
10.7 
26.54 
10.4 
20% 
27.40 
10.a 
26.9U 
10.6 
25* 
27.65 
10.9 
27.20 
10.7 
30% 
27.90 
11.0 
27.45 
10.a 
35% 
26.12 
11.1 
27.64 
10.9 
hP'/o 
26.35 
11.2 
27.aU 
11.0 
h5% 
28,53 
11.2 
26.03 
11.0 
50% 
26.75 
11.3 
26.21 
11.1 
55% 
25.95 
11.4 
26.U0 
11.2 
60% 
29.16 
11.5 
28.59 
11.3 
65* 
29.36 
11.6 
28.85 
n.4 
70% 
29.60 
11.7 
29.09 
n.4 
75% 
29.aU 
11.a 
29.33 
11.5 
o0'/o 
30.11+ 
11.9 
29.59 
11.7 
S5% 
30.50 
12.0 
29.93 
11.5 
90% 
30. as 
12.2 
30.29 
11.9 
95% 
31.56 
12,4 
30.62 
12.1 
Number: 2957 
Range: 22-3U (8.7-13.k) 
Median: 28.73 (11.3) 
Number: $S1 
Range: 21-33 (0.3-I3.O) 
Median: 28.21 (11.1) TABLE 9 
CHEST DEPTH 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Chest Depth in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm* Inches 
Gunners 
Cm. Inches 
5/1 
16.25 
7.2 
IS.OS 
7.1 
loss 
16 .S3 
7.U 
13.73 
7.U 
15% 
19.23 
7.6 
19. ol+ 
7.5 
201 
19.51 
7.7 
19.35 
7.6 
251 
19.77 
7.6 
19.62 
7.7 
301 
19.96 
7.9 
19.06 
7.6 
351 
20.19 
£.0 
20.06 
7.9 
t 0% 
20*36 
S.O 
20.2S 
S.O 
h5% 
20.57 
£.1 
20.U9 
6.1 
50% 
20*76 
6.2 
20.69 
£.2 
551 
20.96 
6.3 
20.66 
6.2 
601 
21.15 
6.3 
21.08 
6.3 
651 
21*36 
6 .Ij. 
21.27 
s.U 
701 
21.60 
6.5 
21.U6 
6.5 
751 
21.su 
£.6 
21.7U 
6.6 
£01 
22.1U 
6.7 
22.0U 
6.7 
m% 
22.52 
6.9 
22,141 
6.6 
901 
22.9U 
9.0 
22,67 
9.0 
95% 
2J. 6U 
9.3 
23. U5 
9.2 
Number: 2959 
Range: 16-28 (6.3-11.0) 
Median: 20,76 (6.2) 
Number: 56 3 
Range: 13.-27 (5,9-10.6) 
Median: 20.69 (6.2) TABLE 10 
ABDOMINAL DEPTH 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Abdominal Depth in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
On, Inches 
Gunners 
On, Inches 
3% 
1C. 31 
7.21 
18.26 
7.20 
10jS 
IS, 9 k 
7.1+6 
18.79 
7.40 
15^ 
19.23 
7.57 
19.16 
7.55 
20% 
19.4S 
7.67 
19.1(1 
7.6U 
25:o 
19- 74 
7.77 
19.67 
1.13 
30% 
19.99 
7.87 
19.93 
7.87 
33% 
20,19 
7.95 
20.14 
7.93 
l\0% 
20.39 
8.03 
20.33 
8.00 
I&f> 
20.59 
6.12 
20.32 
8.08 
30% 
20.79 
8.IS 
20.71 
8.I5 
5% 
20,99 
S.26 
20.90 
8.23 
ka% 
21.21 
8.35 
21.11 
8.31 
21.43 
8.ii+ 
21.35 
8.lH 
10% 
21.65 
8.52 
21.56 
8.52 
13% 
21. SO 
8.62 
21.81 
8.58 
00% 
22.1? 
6.74 
22.07 
8.70 
03% 
22.56 
S.89 
22.46 
0 »oI+ 
90% 
22.95 
9.05 
22.86 
9.00 
93% 
23.70 
9.33 
23.59 
9.29 
Number: 2956 
Range: 16-27 (6*3-10.6) 
Median: 20*79 (8.2) 
Number; 5&U 
Range: 16-3& (6*5-li4*2) 
Median: 20*71 (6.2) TABLE 11 
31-I LIAC 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Bi-"Iliac in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm. 
Inche s 
Gunners 
Cm.■ Inches 
5% 
26.U3 
10. k 
26.13 
10.3 
10% 
27.06 
10,7 
26.58 
10.5 
13% 
27.3; 
10.8 
26.98 
10,6 
20% 
27.61 
10.9 
27.25 
10.7 
23% 
27.89 
11.0 
27.50 
10.8 
30% 
28.12 
11.1 
27.76 
10.9 
33% 
28.31 
11.1 
28.01 
11.0 
Uo% 
28.51 
11.2 
28.20 
11.1 
U3% 
28.70 
11.3 
28.1;1 
11.2 
30% 
28.89 
11.1; 
28.60 
11.3 
33% 
20,09 
11.1; 
28.80 
11.3 
60% 
29.30 
11.5 
28.99 
11.1+ 
63% 
29.51 
11.6 
29,22 
11.5 
jo% 
29.72 
11.7 
29.45 
11.6 
73% 
29.9U 
11.8 
29.68 
n.7 
80$ 
30.20 
11.9 
29.91 
11.8 
85$ 
30.52 
12.0 
30.22 
11.9 
90% 
30.814 
12.2 
30.63 
12.0 
95% 
31. 14 
12.1; 
31.15 
12.2 
Numbers 2956 
Range: 23~3U (9-1-13-U) 
Mediant 28.69 (ll.Ii.) 
Number: 58U 
Ranger 21+-3U (9.U-13-U) 
Medianr 28.60 (11.3) TABLE 12 
FOOT LENGTH 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Foot Length in Millimeters and Inches 
►1 
a 
vO 
vf) 
03 OD —0 ~-'3 
On OnNJI NJ1 p-p~NX NX ro 
ro 
M 1—1 
3 
NT1 
-S 
NTI Q vn 
cA 
O NJ1 O NTI O NT) O NJ1 
o'N o'4 0"a O'V o^i 
o vn 
"cA^A 
a 
NJ1 Q vn 
a 
ct 
3 
Oi 
ro 
ro 
ro 
ro ro 
ro 
ro ro ro ro ro ro ro 
ro ro 
ro 
ro ro ro 
03 
ON O ON o Q\ ON On NT) NJ1 NTI NJ1 .p- 
~'0 
ro vO 
ONNJI 
ro 
t—1 NO CD ~>3 NJ1 p"NX 
t-1 NO 
00 On NX NO 
3 
• 
• 
• 
• • 
• 
• •••••• 
• • 
• 
• • • 
® 
NX N>4 NO O \0 NX 03 NTI t-* On Qs t-> 
O\N0 
O NX 
h-> 
I-* On Q> 
h-> NX O 
o 
fn 
1—‘ 
ro qnnx 
OoOn-^I\3nO-^HN)4 
•"0 
a- 
M 
1—' 
y-> 
1—' h-> 
J—1 1—1 H-* t—1 1—1 f—* 1—1 
M lr-» 
t-1 
1—1 •—1 _ 
n 
3 
M 
h-> 
M 
o o 
o 
O O o O O O O 
O O 
o 
O O NO 
P 
a 
ct 
co 
NX 
t-J 
o no od ~>3 on onnji p-p-vx nx ro 
ro !-• o od 
& 
3 
CO 
ro 
ro 
ro 
ro ro 
ro 
ro ro ro ro ro ro ro 
ro ro 
ro 
ro ro ro 
00 "■] —0 
ON ON ON ON On On ONNJI NTI VJ3 NTI NTI p~p- 
s 
Q 
M 
03 VTl VM H-* NO ~-0 OsrrNjJ M O 03 0NNJ1 
ro 
O ON NX 
3 
♦ 
• 
• 
• • 
• 
• •••••• 
• ♦ 
• 
• • • 
• 
g 
03 CD On NX O NJ1 
CD VO NO VM OS ro NX I—• NX 
O NX h-> 
5 
h-> NTI 
od ro 03p-~-J w hojnd o —x 
ro ON NX 43- ON OD 
P 
3 
P 
CO 
t—1 
i—■ 
M 
1—1 1—1 1—1 h—1 1—1 1—1 1—* 
I-* 1-* 
n 
(—• 
I-1 
o 
o o 
o 
o o o o o o o 
O O NO NO NO NO 
M 
o 
03 "0 On Onnji p-p-vx I\) r\) h OnD 
03 On 
3 
m 
Number: 2959 
Range; 22^-311 (8.8-12.2) 
Median: 267*19 (10.5) 
Number: 5&3 
Range: 228-300 (9.0-11.8) 
Median: 263*53 (10• JU) TABLE 13 
FOOT BREADTH 
Distribution in_ Percentiles 
Foot Breadth in Millimeters and Inches 
Percent!les 
Mm. 
Cadets 
Inches 
Fm. 
Gunners 
Inches 
% 
91.11 
3.6 
89.08 
3.5 
10% 
92.51* 
5.6 
91.07 
3.6 
13% 
93.63 
3.7 
92.30 
3.6 
20% 
91+.57 
3.7 
93.18 
3.7 
2555 
95.17 
3.7 
93.92 
5.7 
30% 
95.81 
3.8 
91+.51+ 
3.7 
35^ 
96.1+7 
5.8 
95.51 
3.8 
I+05? 
97.10 
5.8 
95.96 
3.8 
1+55? 
97.72 
3.8 
96.1+9 
3.8 
50% 
98.31+ 
3.9 
97.08 
5.8 
555? 
98.91 
3.9 
97.81 
3.8 
60% 
99.1+9 
3.9 
98.50 
3.9 
655? 
100,11 
3.9 
99.18 
3.9 
70 % 
100.82 
U.o 
99.85 
3.9 
755? 
101.6U 
U.o 
100. U3 
U.o 
80% 
102.57 
U.o 
101.16 
U.o 
85% 
103.57 
U.i 
102.35 
U.o 
90% 
101+.90 
U.i 
103.62 
U.i 
955? 
106.63 
U.2 
105.30 
U.2 
Number: 2959 
Range: 83-118 (3.5-I1.6) 
Radian; 9Q*3h (3*9) 
Number: 58U 
Range; 80-111 (3.l-U-U) 
Median: 97*08 (3*8) TABLE lU 
head circumference 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Head Circumference in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cm. 
Cadets 
Inches 
Cm. 
Gunners 
Inches 
5k. 51 
22.5 
53.92 
21.2 
10% 
55*10 
21.7 
51*. 36 
21.U 
Vyti> 
55.56 
21.8 
51*. 71+ 
21.5 
20% 
55.6i+ 
21.9 
55.07 
21.7 
25% 
55.88 
22.0 
55.29 
21.8 
50% 
56.10 
22.1 
55.52 
21.8 
35% 
56.50 
22.2 
55.75 
21.9 
Uo% 
56.50 
22.2 
55-98 
22.0 
U5% 
56.70 
22.3 
56.18 
22.1 
30% 
56.89 
22.1* 
56.37 
22.2 
55% 
57.08 
22.5 
56.57 
22.3 
60% 
57.28 
22.6 
56.76 
22. U 
65% 
57.U6 
22.6 
56.96 
22.U 
70% 
57.66 
22.7 
57.20 
22.5 
15% 
57.85 
22.8 
57.1*5 
22.6 
Q0% 
58.10 
22.9 
57.70 
22.7 
Q3% 
58.1*2 
23.0 
57.91* 
22.8 
90% 
58.79 
25.2 
58.3I* 
22.9 
95% 
59.37 
23.1* 
58.85 
23.2 
Number: 2955 
Range: 51-62 (20.1-21*.!*) 
Median: 56.89 (22.1*) 
Number: 5Ql+ 
Range: 51-60 (20.1-23.6) 
Median: 56.57 (22.2) TABLE 15 
CURST CIRCmiRBRRNCE-REST 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Chest Ciroumference in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cm. 
Cadets 
Inches 
Gunners 
Cm. 
Inches 
5% 
83.96 
33.1 
82.61 
32.5 
10% 
85-37 
35.6 
814.05 
33.1 
i5/o 
86.140 
34.0 
85.06 
35.5 
2.0% 
87.19 
34.3 
85.93 
33.8 
25% 
87.92 
54.6 
86.80 
34.2 
50% 
88.61 
34.9 
87.53 
34.5 
55% 
89.23 
35.1 
88.27 
34.8 
ho% 
89.90 
35.4 
88.9I4 
35.0 
h5% 
90.32 
35.6 
89.51 
35-2 
50-^ 
90.70 
55.7 
90.05 
35.4 
55% 
91.43 
36.0 
90.60 
35.7 
60% 
92.07 
36.3 
91.18 
55.9 
65% 
92.77 
56.5 
91.85 
36.2 
10P% 
93.53 
56.8 
92.53 
36.14 
75% 
94.29 
37.1 
95.52 
36.7 
80% 
95.11 
37.4 
94.16 
37.1 
85% 
96.10 
37.8 
94.98 
37.4 
90% 
97-48 
38.4 
96.13 
37.8 
95% 
99.16 
39.0 
98.23 
38.7 
Number: 295U 
Range: 78-110 (30.7-U3.5) 
Median: 90.70 (35*7) 
Numbert 5&+ 
Range: 78-101; (30.7-U0.9) 
Median: 90.05 (35.U) TABLE 16 
CALF CIRCUMFERENCE - Left 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Calf Circumference in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cm. 
Cadets 
Inches 
Cm. 
Gunners 
Inches 
5% 
32.61+ 
12.8 
31.72 
12.5 
IQ% 
53.35 
13.1 
32. U6 
12.8 
15 % 
33.83 
13.3 
33.00 
13.0 
20% 
3U.19 
13.5 
33-1+0 
13.2 
2&o 
31+.1+9 
13.6 
33.71+ 
13.3 
30% 
31+.80 
13.7 
31+.05 
13.1+ 
33% 
35.09 
13.8 
3U.31 
15.5 
lp% 
35.57 
13.9 
3l+. 55 
13.6 
U3% 
35.65 
1I+.0 
31+.79 
13.7 
30% 
35.95 
1I+.1 
35.02 
13.8 
36.20 
1J+.3 
35.28 
13.9 
60'o 
36.50 
1U.U 
35.60 
1U.0 
36.78 
Hi. 5 
35.96 
1U.2 
70% 
37.09 
1I+.6 
36.32 
11+.3 
75-% 
37.1+1+ 
11+.7 
36.68 
1U.J+ 
80'o 
37.79 
lit. 9 
57.21 
11+.6 
85,^ 
38.23 
15.0 
37.1+6 
11+.7 
90% 
38.79 
15.3 
37.92 
lit. 9 
93% 
39.62 
15.6 
38.61+ 
15.2 
Number; 2955 
Range; 28-l;5 (11.0-17.7) 
ledian; 35*93 (ill-. 1) 
Number; 581 
Ran re : 29-hO (11.1;-13.7) 
Median; 35.02 (13.8) TABLE I? 
SITTING HEIGHT 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Sitting Height in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm. 
Inohe s 
Cm. 
Gunners 
Inches 
3% 
87.60 
3U.5 
83.55 
33.6 
10% 
88.60 
3k.9 
86.75 
31+.2 
V5% 
89.35 
35.2 
87.75 
31+.5 
20% 
90.01 
35.1+ 
88.1+8 
31+.8 
2[J% 
90. Ifi 
35-6 
89.10 
35.1 
30% 
90.96 
35-8 
89.59 
35.2 
35% 
91.38 
36.0 
90.06 
35.5 
Wo 
91.81 
36.1 
90.J+3 
35.6 
k5% 
92.20 
36.3 
90.80 
35.7 
50% 
92.55 
36.1+ 
91.18 
35.9 
33% 
92.91 
36.6 
91.57 
36.0 
60% 
93.30 
36.7 
91.95 
36.2 
65% 
93.71 
36.9 
92.33 
36.5 
70% 
9k. 15 
37.0 
92.71 
36.5 
13% 
9k* 66 
57.3 
93.12 
36.7 
00% 
95.20 
37.5 
93.60 
56.9 
03% 
95.80 
37.7 
91+.13 
37.0 
90% 
96.57 
38.0 
9U.82 
37.3 
95% 
97.70 
58.5 
96.07 
37.8 
Number: 2959 
Range; 83-IO3 (32.7-1*0.6) 
Median: 92*55 (36.10 
Number: 5814- 
Ranges 82-100 (32.5-39*U) 
Median: 91,18 (35.9) TABLE 18 
HEAD HEIGHT 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Head Height in Hi1limeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Ion. 
Inohe s 
I'm. 
Gunners 
Tnche s 
3% 
123.29 
4.8 
119.96 
k.7 
10% 
125.1+3 
k-9 
122,09 
4.8 
Wo 
126.52 
5.0 
123.67 
4.9 
201 
127.56 
5.0 
124.97 
4.9 
W 
128.52 
5.1 
125.86 
5.0 
30% 
129.21 
5.1 
126.75 
5.0 
35% 
129.98 
5-1 
127.74 
5.0 
Wo 
130.73 
5.2 
128.50 
5.1 
w 
131.58 
5.2 
129.25 
5.1 
50% 
132.22 
5.2 
130.23 
5.1 
3% 
133.00 
5.2 
150.3k 
5.2 
60% 
133.63 
5.3 
131.43 
5.2 
63fo 
134.47 
5.5 
i32.ll 
5.2 
Wo 
135.21 
5.3 
132.87 
5.2 
15% 
136.03 
5fk 
133.99 
5.5 
Wo 
136.95 
3-k 
154.91 
5.3 
Wo 
138.12 
3-U 
136. Ik 
3-k 
90Vo 
139.42 
5.5 
137.59 
3-k 
93% 
141.55 
5*6 
139.71 
5.5 
Number: 2956 
Range: 110-153 (i>3“6.0) 
Median: 132.£2 (5.2) 
Number: 
Range: lli|-li;7 (i|.5“5«8) 
Median: 150,23 (5*1) TABLE 19 
SITTING HEIGHT MINUS HEAD HEIGHT 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm. Inches 
5?* 
75.09 
29.6 
1 Ofo 
75.99 
29.9 
13% 
76.68 
50.2 
20% 
77.27 
30.it 
23% 
77.77 
50.6 
30% 
78.21 
30.8 
33% 
78.62 
31.0 
W 
79.03 
31.1 
h3% 
79. ho 
31.3 
Wo 
79.76 
3i.it 
w 
80.13 
51.5 
Wo 
80.51 
31.7 
Wo 
80.89 
31.8 
70% 
81.32 
32.0 
75% 
81.78 
32.2 
w 
82.50 
32.it 
Wo 
82.88 
52.6 
90% 
83.62 
52.9 
95% 
81+.7U 
33.3 
Number? 
2955 
Range• 
70-90 (27.6-35.it) 
Median: 
79.76 (31.U) 
260, TABLE 20 
TRUNK HEIGHT 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Trunk Height in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm. Inches 
Gunners 
Cm. 
Inches 
5% 
56.14a- 
22.2 
5l*.70 
21.5 
10% 
51.52 
22.6 
55-78 
22.0 
13% 
57. 85 
22.8 
56. lf.& 
22.2 
20% 
58.30 
23.0 
36.9h 
22.1* 
?-3% 
58.72 
25.1 
37-k0 
22.6 
30% 
59.08 
25.3 
57.78 
22.7 
33% 
59-1*2 
23. i* 
58.15 
22.9 
hO% 
59.75 
•23.5 
58.50 
23.0 
h3% 
60.02 
23.6 
58.83 
23.2 
50% 
60.33 
23.8 
59.11* 
23.3 
33% 
60.6)4 
25.9 
59.14* 
23.1* 
60% 
60.95 
2I4.O 
59.71* 
23.5 
63% 
61.27 
2)4.1 
60.05 
25.6 
70% 
61.63 
21*. 3 
60.35 
23.8 
15% 
62.02 
2)4. u 
60.65 
23.9 
80% 
62. 1*2 
2)4.6 
60.97 
2l*,0 
S3% 
62,92 
2)4.8 
61.52 
2l*.2 
90% 
63.1x3 
25.0 
62.18 
21*. 5 
93% 
61*. 59 
25.3 
63.01 
2)l.8 
Number: 2957 
Range: 50-69 (19.7-27.2) 
Median; 60.33 (25.8) 
Number: 5&3 
Range: 51-66 (20.1-26.0) 
Median: 59«lU (23.5) TABLE 21 
buttock-knee 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Buttock Knee in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cn. 
Inches 
Gunner 
Cm. 
'S 
Inches 
3% 
55.92 
22.0 
53*72 
21.1 
10% 
56. a 
22.u 
5^.92 
21.6 
13% 
57.53 
22.6 
55.33 
22.0 
20% 
57.37 
22.3 
56Ja 
22.2 
23% 
53.25 
22.9 
56.'92 
22.U 
30% 
53.60 
23.1 
57.35 
22.6 
33% 
53.95 
23.2 
57.77 
22.7 
Uo% 
59.23 
25.3 
5S.1U 
22.9 
h3% 
59.60 
23.5 
53.I46 
23.0 
30% 
59.95 
23.6 
53.77 
23.1 
33% 
60.25 
23.7 
59.10 
23.3 
60% 
60.57 
23.3 
59J*5 
23 .i* 
63% 
60.39 
21+.0 
59-31 
23.5 
10% 
61.23 
21+. 1 
60,l6 
23.7 
13% 
bl.vo 
2).. 3 
60.51 
23.3 
m% 
62.14+ 
21+J + 
60.36 
?J»,b 
®3% 
62,66 
2ii,7 
6U*2 
2U.2 
00% 
63.52 
2)1.9 
62.11 
2I4.U 
95% 
6I4.I45 
25.6 
62.31 
2-h.l 
Number; 2956 
Range; U9-70 (19.5-27.6) 
Median: 59*93 (23.6) 
Number; 5$2 
Range: 51-65 (20.1-25.6) 
Median: (25.1) TABLE 22 
PATELLA HEIGHT - from floor 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Patella Height in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm. 
Inches 
Gunners 
Cm. 
Inches 
5? 
51.9? 
20. u 
50.22 
19.3 
102 
5?. 7? 
20.7 
51.09 
20.1 
152 
53.50 
21.0 
51.70 
20. k 
202 
5?. 73 
21.2 
52.23 
20.6 
25% 
5U.19 
21.5 
52.su 
20.3 
50% 
5U* 5U 
21.5 
53.25 
21.0 
352 
5U.90 
21.6 
53.61 
21.1 
h0% 
55. ?1 
21.7 
55.96 
21.2 
h5 % 
55.51 
21.3 
5)4.29 
21.U 
502 
55.31 
22.0 
5!j.60 
21.5 
552 
56.11 
22.1 
5)i.92 
21.6 
60;J 
56J42 
22.2 
55.2U 
21.7 
65;? 
56.7? 
22.3 
55.57 
21.3 
702 
57.05 
22.5 
55.90 
22.0 
752 
57. U7 
22.6 
56,25 
22.1 
30;? 
57.33 
22.3 
56.62 
22.3 
<352 
53.39 
23.0 
56.93 
22. U 
90;S 
53.9U 
23.2 
57 55 
22.6 
952 
59.92 
23.6 
53.52 
23.0 
Number: 2959 
Range: (16.1-25.6) 
Median: 55.81 (22.0) 
Number: 
Range: U5-62 (17.7-2J*.|*> 
Median; (21,5) TABLE 23 
BI-EPICONDYLAR - ELBOW'S 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Bi-Epicondylar in Centimeters and Indies 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm, 
Inches 
Gunners 
Cm. inches 
3$ 
38.33 
13.1 
37.2,1+ 
16.6 
10% 
39.20 
13. 6 
33.23 
13.1 
15% 
39.32 
15.7 
53.92 
13.3 
?.0% 
1+ 0.29 
13.9 
39.1+2 
13.3 
25% 
1+0.71 
16.0 
39.90 
13.7 
30% 
1+1.10 
16.2 
1+0.29 
15.9 
35% 
1+1. h3 
16.3 
60.63 
16.0 
iM 
1+1. V 
16.6 
61.01 
16.2 
1+53 
62.10 
16.6 
1+1.31 
16.3 
50% 
1+2.1+0. 
16.7 
I4I .61 
16.u 
55% 
142.70 
16. 3 
1+1.91 
16,5 
60% 
1+3.00 
16.9 
1+2.31 
16.6 
05% 
1+3-353 
17.1 
1*2.75 
16.3 
70% 
1+3.76 
17.2 
1+3.17 
17.0 
15% 
66. 13 
17.1+ 
1+3.57 
17.2 
80% 
66.65 
17.6 
1+3.96 
17.3 
135% 
1+5.16 
17.3 
1+1+.55 
17.5 
90% 
1+5.80 
13.0 
1*5.21* 
17.3 
95% 
1*6.72 
13,6 
66.30 
13.2 
Number; 2955 
Range: 32-51+ (12.6-21.3) 
Median: i+2.I4.O (16.7) 
Number s 5&U 
Ranges 33-5U (15.0-21.3) 
Medians Ul.6l (16.10 TABLE 2k 
BI-TROCHANTERIC 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Bi-Trochanteric in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm. 
Inches 
Gunners 
Cm; 
Inches 
3% 
33.21 
13.1 
32.25 
12.7 
log 
33.3? 
15.3 
32.30 
12.9 
Vi% 
31*.21* 
13.5 
53.20 
15.1 
20% 
3h.3(> 
13.6 
53.51 
13.2 
23% 
3h.SS 
13.7 
53.32 
15.3 
30% 
33.1k 
15.8 
5li.ll 
15.1* 
33% 
35-36 
13.9 
3U.33 
13.5 
h0% 
35.53 
■lU.o 
31*. 59 
13.6 
1*5$ 
55.80 
ilt.i 
3U. 31* 
15.7 
3% 
36.03 
111. 2 
35.09 
13.3 
33% 
36.29 
lh.3 
35.36 
13.9 
60$ 
36.55 
lli.il 
35.63 
lli.O 
65$ 
56.31 
11*. 5 
35.90 
U*.l 
"r0% 
57.10 
lli. 6 
36.19 
lit. 2 
75$ 
37. kh 
ll*.7 
36.50 
lil.il 
30$ 
57.73 
ll*.9 
36.31 
li*.5 
35$ 
58.13 
15.0 
56.13 
lli.6 
90$ 
58.63 
15.2 
37.65 
Hi.3 
95$ 
39.1A 
15.5 
33.26 
15.1 
Number; 295U 
Range: 30-l;7 (11.8-13.5) 
Median; 36.03 (1I+.02) 
Number; 5$3 
Range: 31-1*2 (12.2-16.5) 
Median: 35*09 (13»<S) TABLE 25 
BI-EPICONDYLAR FEMORAL - Knees 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Bi-Epicondylar Femoral in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm. 
Inches 
Gunners 
Cm. Inches 
*>% 
Id.10 
7.1 
17.65 
6.9 
10f 
18.31* 
7.2 
16.07 
7.1 
15% 
id.57 
7.3 
16.214 
7.2 
20% 
Id. 62 
7.U 
I6.I4O 
7.2 
25% 
19*03 
7.5 
12.56 
7.3 
50% 
19*15 
7.5 
18.73 
7.14 
55% 
19*27 
7.6 
16.90 
7.14 
ho % 
19*39 
7.6 
19.01* 
7.5 
h5% 
19*50 
7.7 
19.16 
7.6 
50% 
19*62 
7.7 
19.26 
7.6 
55% 
19.71* 
7.2 
19.1*0 
7.6 
bO% 
19.86 
7*2 
19*52 
7.7 
b5% 
19*92 
7*9 
19.61* 
7.7 
70% 
20.16 
7.9 
19*75 
7.6 
73% 
20.55 
6.0 
19*27 
7.6 
S0% 
20.3k 
6.1 
20.014 
7.9 
55% 
20.75 
6.2 
20.26 
6.0 
90% 
20.92 
6.2 
20.59 
6.1 
95% 
21,14.2 
g.i* 
20.69 
6.2 
Number: 2955 
Range: 16-29 (6.3-11J.) 
Median: 19.62 (?.?) 
Number: 581 
Range: 16-22 (6.3-8.?) 
Median: 19.28 (7.6) TABLE 26 
SI!QU IDER-E L3GW HEIGHT 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Shoulder-Elbow Height in Centimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Cm. 
Inches 
Gunners 
Cm. 
Inche s 
5% 
314.56 
15.6 
33.76 
15.3 
10% 
35.19 
13.8 
3U.140 
15.5 
1^0 
35.57 
1I+.0 
3U.89 
13.7 
20% 
35.96 
ll+.2 
35.26 
13.9 
25% 
36.21 
114.3 
35.61 
1U.0 
30% 
36.Ui 
1U.3 
55.95 
iii. 1 
351? 
36.63 
1m-. 1+ 
36.19 
1I+..2 
1+0% 
36.91 
Hi. 5 
36.ia 
H4.3 
h5% 
57.13 
1U.6 
36.61+ 
1I+.I+ 
50% 
37.3U 
1U.7 
36.36 
H4.5 
55”? 
37.51+ 
li+. 3 
37.09 
Hi. 6 
60% 
57.75 
H4.9 
37.52 
llj.7 
65% 
37.95 
H4.9 
37.56 
ill. 8 
70% 
33.22 
15.0 
37.80 
11+.9 
75% 
38.51 
15.2 
33.05 
13.0 
80% 
38.80 
13.3 
38.38 
15.1 
85% 
39.16 
15. h 
58.70 
15.2 
90% 
39.63 
15.6 
39.06 
15.u 
95% 
1+0.26 
15.6 
39.71+ 
15.6 
Number: 2955 
Range: 2?-u3 (10.6-16.9) 
Kedianx 57.5U (11+.7) 
Number: 5^3 
Range: 31~l\2 (12.2-16.5) 
ledians 56.86 (1J4..5) TAB IE 2? 
HAND LENGTH 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Hand Length in I.;illimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Pm. 
Inches 
Gunners 
I'm. 
Inche s 
5% 
179.1+0 
7.1 
175.9+ 
6.9 
10; £ 
182.1.(3 
7.2 
180.23 
7.1 
13% 
181+.1+9 
7.3 
131.97 
7.2 
20 b 
186.16 
7.3 
I83.6C 
7.2 
23% 
187.+6 
7.1+ 
I85.ll 
7.3 
30'0 
188.61 
7.1+ 
186.59 
7.3 
35^ 
189.79 
7.5 
187.57 
i.k 
1+03 
190.82 
7.5 
188.91 
l.U 
1+5^ 
191.81+ 
7.6 
190.05 
7.5 
50:b 
192.82 
7.6 
191.29 
7.5 
553 
193.96 
7.6 
192.1+0 
7.6 
60,b 
19+.87 
7.7 
193.35 
7.6 
653 
196.07 
7.7 
191+.62 
7.7 
70 0 
197.18 
7.8 
IQ 6.08 
7.7 
15% 
198.35 
7.8 
197.35 
7.6 
80% 
199.08 
7.9 
198.76 
7.8 
85% 
201.P2 
7.9 
200,59 
7.9 
90% 
203.95 
8.0 
202.29 
8.0 
95% 
207.33 
6.2 
205.69 
8.1 
Humber: 2952 
Range; I63-223 (6.1+-8.8) 
I'edian: 192.82 (?.6) 
Humber 
Range: 160-220 (6.3-8.?) 
ledian: 191.29 (7.5) TAB IE 28 
HAND BREADTH 
Distribution in Percentiles 
Rand Breadth in Millimeters and Inches 
Percentiles 
Cadets 
Mm. 
Inche s 
Gunners 
Mm. 
Inches 
3% 
79.69 
3.1 
78.87 
3.1 
10% 
80.57 
3.2 
80.18 
3.2 
15% 
81.91 
3.2 
81.36 
3.2 
20% 
82.78 
3.5 
82.26 
5.2 
25% 
83,148 
5.3 
83.21* 
3.3 
30% 
Qlu 02 
5.3 
83-71* 
3.3 
-53% 
Sit. 53 
5.3 
81*. 29 
3.3 
hO% 
85.06 
3.U 
81*. 82 
5.3 
k3% 
85.60 
3.U 
85.26 
3.U 
30% 
86. lU 
3.1+ 
85.69 
5.U 
33% 
86.65 
5.U 
86.16 
3.U 
60% 
87.17 
3.U 
86.67 
3.U 
63% 
87.79 
5.5 
87.16 
3.U 
70% 
88.1*6 
3.5 
87.73 
3.5 
73% 
89.09 
3.5 
88.1*2 
3.5 
Q0% 
89.86 
5.5 
89.17 
5.5 
63% 
90.73 
3.6 
89.92 
3.5 
90% 
91.91 
3.6 
90.90 
3.6 
93% 
93.1+7 
3.7 
92.23 
3.6 
Number: 2955 
Range: 73-101+ (2.9-ii.l) 
Median: 86. li; (3*U) 
Numbers 582 
Range: 72 -98 (2.8-3*9) 
Median: 83.69 (3*U) TABULAR INCONSISTENCIES 
In comparing percentile distributions and correlation tables, some small 
and occasional inconsistencies may bo noted in frequencies and totals. These 
are due to the following factors: 
a. Occasional mechanical lapses of the card counter resulting in 
one or two misplaced cases. These have not been corrected since they are 
too few to influence results, and since each correlation requires nearly 
one-half day of work with the sorter and card counter. 
b. Cases in which one of the variables in the correlation or index 
is absent from the original data, 
c. Cases in which the correlation scattergram revealed an error in 
measuFing or recording the dimension, resulting,in the case being thrown 
out subsequent to the compilation of the distribution table. 
CORRELATIONS 
The correlation scattergrams and summary tables show the relations of stature 
weight, and sitting height to various dimensions of interest for turret accom- 
modation. For instance, enter any table at a given stature class and you may 
see what is the range of buttock-knee length found in each value of buttock-knee. 
These correlations are designed to avoid the necessity of considering for each 
individual all of the different turret dimensions. No coefficients or correla- 
tion have been calculated, since the entries in the cells are the significant 
items - not so much the general measure of relationship. 
They also show, by the absence of close correlation, which bodily dimensions 
have to be checked for turret accommodation, irrespective of the stature, weight, 
or sitting height. It may be(found necessary to calculate many more such correla- 
tions as new spatial problems may arise. 
The reason for selecting stature, weight, and sitting height as general 
measurements for correlating with other body segments was, initially, the hope 
that these very well-known and commonly taken dimensions might be sufficiently 
closely associated with some of the measurements particularly devised for turret 
accommodation as to enable the selection of men for a specified turret size to 
be made without the application of "trick measurements". Thus, stature, weight, 
and sitting height were correlated with all the apoosite measurements. Fortun- 
ately, it has proved to be the case that roost of the important measurements for 
this purpose can be fairly well predicted from stature and weight. 
Then certain measurements of putatively great importance in the turret 
problem were further inter-corrslated with other measurements. This selected 
list included patella height, buttock-knee, bi-trochanteric, anterior arm reach, 
bi-deltoid, abdominal depth and bi-epicondylar (elbows), squatting diagonal, 
foot length (with patella height only), and truck height with chest circumference. 
These measurements wore correlated with each other. These correlations were 
abandoned respectively v.rhen it became evident that the law of diminishing returns 
was operating. Comments on the individual scattergrams reveal the utility, or 
lack of it, of these various inter-correlations. SCHEMATIC GUIDE TO C CURE LAT I GITS. OP PPJ1.CIPAL MEASUREMENTS 
00 
•"d 
CT 
p 
® 
ct 
00 
H' 
C 
hQ 
09 
3 
> 
£ 
tr 
o 
a 
P 
ct 
CO 
Ct 
ct 
nr 
CD 
ct 
CO 
o 
a 
H- 
f-w 
c 
1 
o 
a 
09 
H* 
3 
CL 
yj 
d 
00 
1 
1 
CD 
» 
H- 
CL 
> 
n 
v> 
Y' 
H- 
*t> 
cd 
H* 
I 
ct 
ci- 
a 
j—* 
i 
V 
H* 
a 
w 
i 
P 
09 
o 
★ 
Weight 
cd 
H" 
1 
)r 
Z? 
o 
1 
O 
ts 
cs 
r—* 
Ci 
o 
% 
M 
o' 
/% 
u 
3 
rv\ 
cd 
o 
» 
"0 
h>• 
O 
CL 
o 
o 
Cl 
p 
O 
I-' 
M 
0 
0 
Squatting Diagonal 
C 
ct 
H* 
o 
O 
Cd 
o 
ct 
ct 
*"1 
O 
Q 
P 
cl 
(L-J 
M* 
<v*« 
On 
rr 
VB 
H* 
*TO 
• 
0 
* 
Anterior Arm Reach 
o 
ct 
\J 
Q 
cr 
I-1 
P 
3 
c+ 
Jn 
:r 
M 
.V 
1 
p 
C* 
CO 
r+ 
• 
• 
0 
* 
Shoulder-Elbow Height 
a> 
tv 
w 
c+ 
rr> 
►d 
—f. 
79 
3* 
p 
CO 
a 
U1 
n 
H* 
r 
CT 
S' 
a 
t—< 
o' 
o 
* 
♦ 
• 
0 
♦ 
Span-Akimbo 
5- 
CO 
0 
• 
• 
© 
♦ 
0 
Bi-deltoid 
0 
0 
0 
0 
♦ 
0 
♦ 
Sitting Height 
0 
0 
• 
• 
• 
• 
* 
0 
Bi-epicondylar (elbows) 
0 
0 
• 
• 
• 
• 
0 
0 
0 
Abdominal Depth 
0 
0 
0 
0 
• 
• 
• 
• 
* 
0 
Bi-trochanteric 
0 
0 
• 
0 
• 
♦ 
• 
0 
0 
* 
Buttock-knee 
*• 
♦ 
0 
♦ 
• 
* 
0 
* 
• 
• 
#. 
0 
♦ 
Patella Height 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
0 
* 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Leg Length (subtractive) 
♦ 
denotes 
utilizable 
correlation 
0 
denotes 
low 
, useless correlation 
• 
denotes 
correlation 
not attempted GENERAL COIvlCENTS GIT CORRELATIONS 
The correlations to be discussed have been attempted only for the Aviation 
Cadet series, and not for the gunners. 
Stature. Of twelve correlations involving stature, seven are high enough 
to be utilTzable, whereas five show little relationship. The seven useful cor- 
relations of stature are with weight, sitting height, buttock-knee, patella height 
(all components of stature ); and anterior arm reach, span-akimbo, and shoulder- 
elbow, The five of no utility are of stature with bi-deltoid, abdominal depth, 
bi-epioondylar bi-trochanteric, and squatting diagonal. 
In general, bodily lengths are predictable from stature, breadths are not. 
'height. Of eleven correlations based on weight, only three have predic- 
tive value; These are of weight with bi-deltoid, bi-epicondylar (elbows), and 
bi-trochanteric (all breadth dimensions). Though weight is roughly determined 
by stature, knowledge of weight will not help determine values for the long bodily 
dimensions (sitting height, buttock-knee, patella-height); the arm segments 
(anterior arm reach, span-akimbo, and shoulder elbow); the erratic squatting dia- 
gonal; or abdominal depth. 
Generally, bodily breadths are predictable from weight; lengths are not. The 
combined use of stature and weight permits reasonable prediction of all measure- 
ments mentioned except squatting diagonal and abdominal depth. 
Sitting Height. This dimension is usefully correlated with only two of 
eleven other dimensions: patella height and squatting diagonal, 
Span-akiifbo. This dimension correlates usefully with two other arm dinen- 
sions, anterior arm reach and shoulder-elbow; and with two leg lengths, patella 
height and buttock-knee. 
Patella Height. It can be predicted, as noted above, from stature, sitting 
height and span-akimbo, while it will permit predictions of buttock-knee and foot 
length. 
Unpredictable Traits.- In general, abdominal depth, bi-deltoid, and squat- 
ting diagonal vary erratically and cannot be predicted from or permit prediction 
of other dimensions. (Squatting diagonal can be roughly approximated if sitting 
height is known.) When crucial, they must be measured directly. 
The correlations are summarized on the following graph, while the individual 
scattergrams have comments appended. 7/eight (nounds) 
Median 
T75T57 
206-211 
(69.2) 
1 
2 
200-205 
1 
1 
u 
2 
2 
1 .1 
15 Jg-199 
2 
1+ 
11 
5 
6 
3 
168-193 
5 
11 
15 
15 
6 
7 
1 
182-18? 
10 
20 
21 
21 
10 
5 
1 
176-131 
1 
h 
12 
22 
51 
26 
21+ 
15 
6 
1 
170-175 
3 
6 
17 
53 
50 
39 
31 
7 
5 
1 
16U-169 
1 
7 
23 
37 
52 
55 
1+9 
27 
18 
h 
1 
158-163 
1+ 
8 
37 
50 
69 
76 
53 
31+ 
8 
6 
1 
Median 
152-157 
1 
22 
U7 
73 
75 
80 
57 
29 
12 
3 
155.12 
116-151 
2 
1 
32 
U6 
80 
107 
69 
39 
21 
2 
3 
ll+0-li+5 
2 
10 
38 
75 
75 
86 
61 
31+ 
12 
1 
131+-159 
2 
16 
52 
61 
6U 
6U 
38 
13 
2 
128-133 
u 
8 
33 
h6 
32 
28 
6 
1 
122-127 
1 
1 
ll+ 
25 
31 
19 
2 
116-121 
1 
2 
5 
6 
3 
8 
1 
110-115 
1 
2 
h 
3 
Cm. 
156 
159 
162 
165 
168 
171 
171+ 
177 
180 
I83 
186 
189 
192 
195 198 
158 
161 
161+ 
167 
170 
175 
176 
179 
182 
I85 
188 
191 
19h 
197 
Inch© s 
6l. 1+ 
62. 
6 63.8 65.O 66.1 
67. 
3 68.5 
69.7 
70.9 
72.0 
73.2 71+.+ 
75.6 
76.8 78.0 
62.5 
63,7 6I+.9 66.0 67.2 
68.1+ 69*6 
70.8 
71-9 
73.1 
7U.3 75-5 
76.7 
77.9 78.2 
Stature 
There is a 
gradual 
increase 
of weight with 
increased stature 
• Prediction is 
bet-ter 
toward 
the 
extremes, since 
the middle 
ranges 
of stature include individuals 
with almost 
the 
entire range of weight. 
SCATTER DIAGRAM 1 
CORRELATION] OF V.EIGHT Vi ITH STATURE Anterior Arm Reach 
Kedian 
175.67 
Cm. Inches 
{•69-2) 
102-ioU hb.'2-l*o.9 
2 
1 
99-iox 39.0-1*0.1 
3 
8 
8 
7 
2 
1 
96-98 37.8-38.9 
5 
li+ 
25 
31 
22 
8 
2 
1 1 
93-95 36.6-37.7 
5 
13 
51 
97 
111 
89 
21 
13 
2 
90-92 35.U-56.5 
1 
6 
3h 
101 
173 
196 
126 
67 
23 
9 
Fedian 
87-89 3I+.2-35.3 
1 
1 
1 
59 
127 
179 
208 
li*0 
7h 
26 
8 
2 
1 
89.34 (35.1) 
81+-86 33.I-3I+.I 
1 
1 
21+ 
7h 
I5h 
133 
110 
57 
18 
U 
3 
2 
8I-83 31.9-33.O 
8 
35 
60 
h9 
35 
?-U 
17 
2 
78-80 30.7-31.8 
1 
5 
9 
9 
8 
6 
h 
75-77 29.5-30.6 
2 
Cm. 
156 
159 
162 
165 
168 
171 
Uh 
177 
180 
183 
186 
139 
192 
195 198 
158 
161 
16U 
167 
170 
173 
176 
179 
182 
185 
188 
191 
19U 
197 
Inch©s 
6l. h 
62..6 
63.8 
65.c 
66. 
1 67.5 68.5 
£9.7 
70.9 
72. 
0 73.2 
74.4 
75. 
6 76.8 78.0 
62.5 
63.7 
61*. 9 
66.0 
67.2 68.14 69.6 
70.8 71.9 
75. 
1 74.3 
75.5 
76.7 77.9 78.2 
Stature 
The correlation is 
fairly close, except 
for the wide variation in 
arm 
reach of 
very 
tall 
men. 
SCATTER DIAGRAM 2 
CORRELATION OF ANTERIOR ARK REACH WITH STATURE Span-Akimbo 
Median 
T7W 
Cm. Inches 
(69.2) 
108 142.5-142.8 
1 
2 
105-1071+1.3-142.3 
1 
3 
1 
102-101; I+O.2-I4I.2 
1 
11 
13 
9 
19 
17 
1 
2 1 
99-101 39.0-U0.I 
2 
h 
13 
hi 
78 
92 
33 
14 
6 
96-98 37*8-38.9 
3 
10 
38 
107 
176 
145 
8b 
2U 
7 
ledian 
93-95 36.6-37.7 
1 
1 
16 
8U 
190 
255 
215 
100 
ho 
7 
1 
914.22 (37.1) 
90-92 55.4-36.5 
1 
11 
78 
162 
180 
169 
65 
23 
3 
1 
87-09 34.3-35-3 
9 
37 
92 
109 
51 
29 
6 
8I4-86 33.1-5U.2 
1 
6 
lh 
19 
9 
1 
1 
81-83 31.9-33.0 
1 
1 
5 
Cm. 
156 
159 
162 
165 
168 
171 
Uh 
177 
180 
I83 
186 
189 
192 
195 198 
158 
161 
16U 
167 
170 
173 
176 
179 
182 
185 
188 
191 
194 
197 
Inche s 
61. k 
62.6 
63.8 
65.0 
66.1 
67.5 68.5 
69.7 
70.9 
72.0 
73.2 
74.4 
75.6 76.8 75.0 
62.5 
63.7 
6I4..9 
66.0 
67.2 
68.14. 69.6 
70.8 
71.9 
73*1 
74.3 
75.5 
76. 
7 77.9 78.2 
Stature 
A close correlation, except for very tall 
men. 
SCATTER DIAGRAM 3 
CORRELATION OF SPAN-AKIMBO Y.'ITH STATURE Sitting Height 
Median 
175-67 
Cm. Inches 
103 1+0.6-1+0.9 
(69.2) 
1 
2 
101-102 1+0.0-1+0.5 
1 
1 
15 
3 1 
99-100 39-0-39.9 
3 
3 
13 
7 
12 
1 1 
97-98 58.2-33.9 
2 
6 15 
hi 
h9 
36 
17 
1 
95-96 37.14,-38.1 
2 
12 
52 105 
115 
100 
29 
7 
1 
93.91* 36.6-37.3 
3 
19 
75 
152 209 
131 
50 
12 
Median 
91-92 35.8-36.5 
2 
22 
95 
171 
250 11+9 
63 
12 
92^TB6.1+) 
89-90 35.0-35.7 
12 
69 
151* 
157 
96 1+0 
6 
1 
1 
87-88 3l*.3-3l*.9 
1 
10 
30 
89 
91 
1*5 
18 2 
85-86 53.5-31+.2 
1 
6 
19 
20 
15 
5 
1 
83-31* 32.7-33.u 
1 
1 
5 
5 
1 
Cm. 
156 
159 
162 
165 
168 
171 
171+ 177 
180 
183 
186 
189 
192 195 198 
158 
161 
161+ 
167 
170 
175 
176 179 
182 
185 
188 
191 
19U 197 
Inches 
6I.I4. 
62.6 
63.8 
65.0 
66.1 
67.3 68.5 £9.7 
70.9 
72.0 
75.2 
7J+.1+ 
75.6 76.8 78.0 
62.5 
63.7 
6U.9 
66.0 
67.2 
68,1+ 69.6 70.8 
71.9 
73.1 
71+.3 
75.5 
76.7 77.9 78.2 
Stature 
A very close 
correlation 
, expected ! 
since : 
sitting height is a 
. component 1 
of stature. 
SCATTER DIAGRAM U 
CORRELATION OF SITTING HEIGHT WITH STATURE Buttock-Knee 
Median 
175.67 
Cm. Inches 
(69.2) 
£9-70 27.2-27.9 
1 
1 
67-68 26.1+-27.1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
3 
1 
1 1 
25.6-26.5 
1 
1 
2 
12 
25 
25 
15 
3 
65f6U 2J+.8-25.5 
1 
7 
29 
75 
79 
38 
16 
3 
61-62 2i+. 0-2/4.7 
6 
59 
ill 
206 
158 
96 
19 
6 
Median 
39-60 23.2-25.9 
2 
12 
79 
171+ 
282 
229 
ill 
21 
3 
2 
59-95 (23.6) 
57-53 *22.44-23.1 
1 
10 
87 
200 
207 
162 
55 
1 
3 
55-56 21.7-22.3 
5 
3U 
9U 
76 
39 
12 
1 
55-5I4 20.9-21.6 
2 
8 
18 
15 
15 
3 
51-52 20.1-20.8 
1 
1 
u 
1 
Il9-50 19.3-20.0 
1 
Cm. 
156 
159 
162 
I65 
168 
171 
171+ 
177 
180 
I83 
186 
I89 
192 
195 198 
158 
161 
161+ 
167 
170 
173 
176 
179 
182 
I85 
188 
191 
19U 
197 
Inche s 
61.1+ 
62.6 
63.8 
65.O 
66.1 
67.3 68.5 
i£.7 
70.9 
72.0 
73.2 
71+.J+ 
75. 
6 76.8 78.0 
62.5 
63.7 
6i4.9 
66.0 
67.2 
65.1+ 69.6 
70.8 
71.9 
73.1 
7h'3 
75.5 
76.7 77-9 78.2 
Stature 
Fairly regi 
jlar and 
close 
corrolation 
1; buttock- 
•knee i s 
a component of stature. 
SCATTER DIAGRAM 5 
CORRELATION OF BUTTOCK-KNEE TE1TH STATURE Patella Height 
Cm. Inches 
6)7-65 25.2-25.9 
62-63 2U.U-25.1 
60-61 23.6-24.3 
58-59 22.3-23.5 
56-57 22.0-22.7 
54-55 21.3-21.9 
52-53 20.5-21.2 
50-51 19.7-20.!+ 
i+8-1+9 18.9-19.6 
1+6-1+7 13.1-18.8 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
8 
6 
23 
57 
7 
1 
23 
116 
67 
1 
7 
lu5 
20l+ 
21 
2 
59 
281+ 
119 
3 
Median 
I75V6T 
(69.2) 
1 
9 
211 
313 
38 
1 
1 
3 
68 
321 
125 
3 
1 
1 
n 37 
151 13U 
176 52 
21 1 
3 
35 
U3 
6 
7 
27 
6 
1 
3 
h 
1 
1 1 
1 
Median 
35.81 (22.0) 
Cm, 
136 
159 
162 
165 
168 
171 
17U 
177 
180 183 
186 
189 
192 
195 198 
158 
160 
16L+ 
167 
170 
175 
176 
179 
182 I85 
183 
191 
19+ 
197 
Inches 
61.1+ 
62.6 
63.8 
65.0 
66.1 
67.3 68.5 
69.7 
70.9 72,0 
73.2 
7+.li 
75.6 
76.8 78.0 
62.5 
4.7 
61+.9 
66.0 
67.2 
68. 
!+ 69.6 
70.8 
71.9 73.1 
7+.3 
75.5 
76.7 
77.9 78.2 
Stature 
Very close 
correlation. 
SCATTER DIAGRAM 6 
CORRELATION OF PATELLA HEIGHT WITH STATURE Shoulder-Elbow Height 
Median 
Cm. 
Inches 
T753T 
(69.2) 
hi 
16.9 
1 
1 
hZ 
16.5 
u 
6 
hi 
16.1 
1 
6 
6 
10 
10 
2 
1 1 
hO 
15.7 
h 
11 
37 
59 
27 
10 
5 
39 
15.1* 
1 
6 
27 
6U 
89 
dh 
26 
12 
58 
15.0 
2 
12 
hB 
82 
175 
119 
62 
12 
1 
Median 
57 
li4.6 
6 
60 
li|0 
226 
173 
78 
29 
5 
1 
37.3U UI.7) 
56 
III. 2 
1 
3 
1|8 
129 
167 
175 
77 
2i| 
5 
2 
35 
13.8 
1* 
22 
76 
115 
90 
52 
21 
3 
1 
3U 
13 .u 
u 
2l| 
67 
52 
16 
9 
2 
33 
15.0 
1 
8 
li+ 
9 
8 
32 
12.6 
1 
5 
31 
12.2 
1 
1 
Cm. 
156 
159 
162 
165 
168 
171 
17U 
177 
180 
I83 
186 
189 
192 
195 198 
188 
161 
l6i| 
167 
170 
173 
176 
179 
182 
I85 
188 
191 
19U 
197 
Inches 
61.U 
62.6 
65.8 
65.0 
66.1 
67.3 68.5 
69.7 
70.9 
72.0 
73.2 
7h.h 
75. 
6 76.8 78.0 
62.5 
65.7 
6U.9 
66.0 
67.2 
68.14. 69.6 
70.8 
71.9 
73.1 
7U.3 
75.5 
76.7 77.9 78.2 
Stature 
A very close correlation 
, lowest in 
very tall 
men. 
SCATTER DIAGRAM 7 
CORRELATION OF SHOULDER-ELBOW HEIGHT WITH STATURE Bi- 
■Deltoid 
Cm, 
Inches 
Median 
52 
20.5 
133*12 
1 
51 
20.1 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
50 
19.7 
2 
3 
h 
9 
9 
3 
6 2 
1+9 
19.3 
1 
3 
8 
21 
28 
ll+ 
12 
12 
1+ 1 
1+8 
I8.9 
2 
1 
5 
9 
19 
36 
hh 
l+o 
29 
17 
7 
1 
hi 
18.5 
1 
10 
2l+ 
59 
77 
87 
66 
1+3 
20 
10 
6 
1 
1+6 
18.1 
1 
2 
20 
1+9 
lh 
120 
100 
80 
50 
29 
8 
7 
bedian 
1+5 
17.7 
6 
17 
56 
10U 
136 
132 
eh 
Uv 
22 
13 
u 
1 
1 
U5.72 
hh 
17.3 
h 
15 
36 
73 
129 
110 
60 
hi 
13 
5 
2 
1 
(18.0) 
1+3 
16.9 
1 
12 
26 
hi 
82 
67 
1+2 
18 
13 
1 
1 
1 
h2 
16.5 
3 
6 
28 
1+3 
hh 
25 
11 
h 
2 
2 
i+i 
16.1 
3 
i* 
13 
10 
10 
6 
5 
1 
h0 
15.7 
2 
1 
3 
3 
39 
15*1+ 
1 
1 
Pounds 
110 
116 
122 
128 
13U 
iho 
1I4.6 
152 
158 
l6h 
170 
1?6 
182 
188 
19U 
200 206 
115 
121 
127 
133 
139 
1U5 
151 
157 
Weight 
165 
169 
175 
181 
187 
195 
199 
205 211 
The correlation 
is moderate. 
with 
the exception.of very heavy men 
The wide 
bi-deItoid 
variability 
in 
most weight classes limits predictability. 
SCATTER DIAGRAM 8 
CORRELATIOB OF BI-DELTOID WITH WEIGHT Bi-Spicondvlar 
hedian 
Cm. 
Inche 
s 
153 
.12 
" 5h 
21.3 
• 
1 
52-53 
20.5 
50-51 
19-7 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1*8-10 
18.9 
1 
1 
k 
15 
8 
7 
6 3 
U6-h7 
18.1 
2 
3 
12 
13 
35 
27 
38 
27 
23 
5 
1 
hh-U5 
17-3 
1 
1 
9 
22 
37 
66 
82 
105 
95 
62 
3U 
19 
9 h 
2 
142-1,3 
16.5 
l 
k 
ih 
hi 
96 
150 
168 
165 
100 
72 
37 
12 
8 
1 
i.o-1,1 
15.7 
l 
20 
52 
128 
168 
172 
133 
69 
53 
12 
6 
3 
30-39 
15.0 
2 
iu 
I46 
6h 
90 
91 
U3 
20 
11 
2 
1 
2 
Median 
56-37 
1U.2 
6 
10 
iU 
25 
18 
10 
2 
h 
1 
U2,L\0 
31+-35 
13. u 
U 
h 
l 
2 
(16.7) 
52-33 
12.6 
1 
1 
Pounds 
3 
110 
116 
122 
128 
13U 
U4O 
II4.6 
152 
158 
16U 
170 
176 
182 
188 
19i+ '200 
206 
115 
121 
127 
133 
139 
11+5 
151 
157 
163 
169 
175 
181 
187 
193 
199 205 
211 
We ight 
Comparatively regular 
correlation. 
though 
not 
very high. 
The heav 
lest 
men a 
re e xce 
ptional. 
SCATTER DIAGRAM 9 
CORRELATION OF BI -E PI CONDYLAR YHTH YflSIGHT Bi-Trochanteric 
Cm. Inches 
276-14-7 i£TTT6.U 
hh~h5 17.5-18-0 
1+2-1+3 16.5-17.2 
i+o-i+i 15.7-16.1+ 
38-39 15.0-15.6 
36-37 11+.2-H+.9 
3I+—35 13.I+-1I+.I 
52-35 12.6-13.3 6 
30-31 11.8-12.5 1+ 
5 
20 
5 
1 
1 
20 
61+ 
5 
1+ 
68 
82 
5 
i+ 
22 
186 
79 
1 
1+ 
68 
276 
hh 
1 
3 
129 
257 
15 
'Median 
153.12 
25 
192 
182 
5 
1 
142 
211 
81 
3 
5 
68 
160 
1+1 
i 
8 
75 
121 
7 
10 
82 
65 
k 
1 2 1 
9 11+ 7 
60 36 21 
16 6 2 
Median 
56.05 (1+.2) 
1 
1 
6 2 
1+ 1 
Pounds 110 
116 
122 
128 
13k 
ll+O 
1I+6 
152 
158 
161+ 
170 
176 
182 
188 19l+ 200 206 
115 
121 
127 
135 
139 
1+5 
151 
157 
I63 
169 
175 
181 
187 
195 
199 205 211 
We ight 
A close correlation. 
SCATTER DIAGRAM 10 
CORRELATION OF BI-TROCHANTERIC WITH WEIGHT Patella Height 
I'edian 
92.55 
Cm. Inches 
(36. k) 
srr-65 25.2-25.9 
- 
1 
1 
62-63 2i4-.i4.-25.1 
3 
k 
6 
1 
2 
60-61 23.6-2U.5 
k 
1U 
27 
36 
20 
11 
k 
2 
58-59 22.8-23.5 
1 
5 
22 
76 
122 
11U 
57 
Ik 
2 
56-57 22.0-22.7 
k 
37 
110 
229 
22i+ 
155 
60 
12 
2 
1 
Median 
3k-35 2i;3-2l.9 
3 
19 
92 
21k 
265 
212 
85 
20 
2 
55.Bl (22.0) 
52-53 20.5-21.2 
7 
26 
102 
139 
1U8 
55 
2i+ 
k 
50-51 19.7-20.u 
l 
15 
i42 
U5 
29 
7 
2 
U8-U9 18.9-19.6 
2 
2 
6 
u 
1 
JL4.6—i+7 18.1-18.8 
1 
Cm. 
83 
85 
87 
89 
91 
93 
95 
97 
99 
101 
103 
8U 
86 
88 
90 
92 
9k 
96 
98 
100 
102 
Inches 
32.7 
33.5 
3k. 3 35.0 
55.8 
36.6 
37.1+ 
38.2 
39.0 
39.8 
JL4O.6 
33.J4 
3k. 2 
3k.9 55-7 
36.5 
37.3 
38.1 
38.9 
39.7 
J40.5 
ij0.8 
* 
Sitting Height 
This correlation 
is close 
enough 
to be 
usefu] 
- • 
SCATTER DIAGRAM? 11 
CORRELATION OF PATELLA HEIGHT WITH SITTING HEIGHT Squatting Diagonal 
Median 
92.55 
Cm. Incho s 
(36. it) 
101-102 39."{£50.5 
1 
99-ico 59.0-59.7 
1 
97-98 58.2-58.9 
1 
1 
1 
1 
95-96 37.U-36.1 
1 
3 
2 
2 
93-9i+ 36.6-57.3 
3 
2 
12 
9 
10 
5 
1 
1 
91-92 55.8-56.5 
2 
12 
33 
35 
23 
6 
1 
89-90 55.0-55.7 
3 
1 
21 
50 
lh 
65 
h3 
5 
h 
1 
87-88 3U.3-5J4.-9 
1 
18 
68 
110 
118 
100 
36 
11 
1 
1 
85-86 55.5-5U.2 
1 
6 
38 
81 
170 
12+6 
85 
22 
6 
83-8li 32.7-33-U 
3 
6 
58 
119 
178 
lijU 
79 
19 
h 
1 
Median 
81-82 51.9-52.6 
1 
16 
71 
113 
131 
81 
32 
7 
8i+.9i+ (33+) 
79-80 51.I-5I.8 
lh 
60 
80 
82 
28 
9 
2 
77-78 30.5-31-0 
2 
13 
25 
36 
22 
11 
h 
75-76' 29.5-30.2 
2 
6 
7 
7 
5 
3 
75-7U 28.8-29.il 
2 
u 
3 
71-72 28.0-28.7 
1 
1 
Cm. 
85 
85 
87 
89 
91 
93 
95 
97 
99 
101 
105 
8l+ 
86 
88 
90 
92 
9h 
96 
98 
100 
102 
Inches 
52.7 
33.5 
31+.3 35.0 
55.8 56.6 
37-u 
38.2 
59.0 
39.8 
1+0,6 
33+ 
3h.z 
3i+-9 35-7 
36.5 37.3 
58.1 
38.9 
39.7 
it0.5 
1+0.8 
Sitting Height 
This is the 
closest 
correlation of those 
calculated for 
squatting diagonal, but is still 
very loose. 
SCATTER DIAGRAM 12 
CORRELATION OF SQUATTING DIAGONAL WITH SITTING HEIGHT Anterior 
Arm Reach 
Median 
Cm, 
Inches 
(37.1) 
102-101+ 
1+0.2-1+1.2 
1 
1 
1 
99-101 
59.0-1+0.1 
3 
12 
11 
2 
1 
96-98 
37-8-38.9 
li+ 
50 
1+2 
21 
I 
1 
95-95 
36.6-37.7 
2 
19 
99 
156 
10l+ 
19 
2 
90-92 
35-4-36.5 
1 
7 
101 
286 
21+0 
82 
17 
Median 
87-89 
34.3-35.3 
7 
80 
261 
312 
118 
142 
5 
89.34 (55.2) 
01+-86 
33.1-34.2 
10 
143 
216 
167 
38 
6 
8I-83 
31.9-53.0 
3 
25 
81+ 
83 
29 
1+ 
78-80 
30.7-31.8 
5 
8 
16 
12 
3 
lb-11 
29.5-30.6 
1 
1 
Cm. 
81 
81+ 
87 
90 
93 
96 
99 
102 
105 
108 
83 
86 
89 
92 
95 
98 
101 
10I+ 
107 
Inches 
31.9 
35.1 
34.3 
35.4 36.6 
37.0 
39.0 
1+0.2, 
41.3 
l\2.6 
33.0 
34.2 
35.3 
36.5 37.7 
58.9 
1+0.1 
1+1.2 
42.5 
1+2.8 
Span-Akimbo 
This 
correlation 
is as 
close 
as would be expected from the 
invoIvement 
of the upper arm 
segment in each measurement. 
SCATTER.DIAGRAM 13 
CORRELATION OF ANTERIOR ARM REACH WITH SPAN-AKIMBO Patella Height 
Median 
Cm. 
Inches 
(37.1) 
6I4.-63 
2572-25.9 
2 
62-65 
21+.1+-25.1 
2 
h 
7 
2 
1 
60-61 
23.6-21+. 3 
7 
26 
55 
27 
2 
1 
58-59 
22.8-23.5 
17 
83 
ll+7 
ll|2 
22 
1 
1 
56-57 
22.0-22.7 
16 
118 
354 
•274 
76 
15 
54-55 
21.3-21.9 
8 
7h 
310 
380 
125 
11 
1 
52-55 
20.5-21.2 
ll+ 
172 
209 
91+ 
15 
1 
Median 
50-51 
19.7-20.ii 
5 
23 
66 
37 
8 
55.81722.0) 
1+6-1+9 
18.9-19.6 
1 
5 
5 
2 
2 
46-47 
18.1-18,8 
1 
Cm, 
81 
81+ 
87 
90 
93 
96 
99 
102 
105 
108 
83 
86 
89 
92 
95 
98 
101 
IOI4 
108 
Inches 
31.9 
35.1 
31+-3 
35. 
h 36.6 
37.8 
39.0 
U0.2 
41.3 
142.6 
33.0 
34.2 
35.3 
36. 
5 37.7 
38.9 
l+o. 1 
41.2 
42.5 
42.8 
Span-Akimbo 
A 
valuable and 
close 
t inte 
r-relationship. 
SCATTER DIAGRAM lh 
CORRELATION OF M TELIA HEIGHT WITH SPAN AKIMBO Shoulder-Elbow Height 
Median 
9^22 
Cm. 
Inches 
(37.1) 
C5 
16.9-17.2 
1 
1 
h2 
16.5-16.8 
1 
5 
2 
2 
l+i 
16.1-16.1+ 
1 
15 
20 
1 
l+o 
15.7-16.0 
3 
22 
79 
28 
1 
39 
15.i4--15.6 
1 
2 
21+ 
138 
129 
15 
38 
15.O-I5.3 
2 
13 
175 
266 
1+9 
1+ 
Hedian 
37 
1I+.6-II+.9 
1 
u 
156 
Jj23 
139 
13 
1 
37.3+ (m.7) 
36 
ll+.2-ll+.l 
1+7 
316 
21+2 
21 
1 
35 
13.8-II+.7 
6 
ll+8 
187 
1+1 
1 
3l+ 
I5.i+-13.7 
21 
113 
37 
3 
33 
13.0-13.3 
3 
20 
17 
32 
12.6-12.9 
3 
2 
1 
31 
12.2-12.5 
1 
1 
Cm. 
81 
81+ 
87 
90 
93 
96 
99 
102 
105 
108 
83 
86 
89 
92 
95 
98 
101 
10i+ 
107 
Inches 
51.9 
33. 
1 33-h 
36.6 
37.8 
59.0 
1+0.2 
ia. 3 
1+2.6 
33.0 
3U.2 35- 
3 36.5 
37.7 
38.9 
l+o.i 
1+1,2 
142.3 
1+2.8 
Span-Akimbo 
A close and utilizable 
correlation, 
as exoected 
from the involvement of the upner arm segr.ent 
in each measurement. 
SCATTER DIAGRAM 15 
CORRELATION OF SHOUIDER-ELBOW HEIGHT WITH SPAN-AKIKBO Buttock-Knee 
Median 
9I+.22T 
Cm. 
Inches 
(37.1) 
69-70 
27.2-27.9 
1 
1 
67-68 
26.1+-27.1 
2 
3 
i+ 
2 
1 
65-66 
25.6-26.3 
1 
8 
20 
31 
20 
1 
1 
63-61+ 
2U.8-25.5 
h 
36 
97 
85 
21+ 
1 
1 
61-62 
2U.0-2U.7 
8 
63 
222 
218 
111+ 
11+ 
1 
59-60 
23.2-25.9 
2 
1+5 
2J1+ 
378 
196 
1+8 
9 
57-58 
22.U-23.1 
11 
ll+2 
276 
231 
58 
5 
2 
Median 
55-56 
21.7-22.3 
1+ 
21 
102 
106 
29 
1 
1 
59.93 (23.6) 
53-5ii 
20.9-21.6 
2 
33 
8 
2 
51-52 
20.1-20.8 
3 
1 
1 
1 
1+9-50 
19.3-20.0 
Cm. 
81 
81+ 
87 
90 
93 
96 
99 
102 
105 
108 
83 
86 
89 
92 
95 
98 
101 
10i+ 
107 
Inches 
31.9 
53.1 
51+.3 
35-1+ 36.6 
37.8 
39.0 
1+0.2 
1+1.3 1+2.6 
33.0 
3I4-.2 
35-3 
36.5 37.7 
38.9 
1*0.1 
1+1.2 
1*2.5 1*2.8 
Span-Akin bo 
A moderately useful 
correlation, 
» 
SCATTER DIAGRAM 16 
CORRELATION OF BUTTOCK-KNEE WITH SPAN-AKIMBO Foot Length 
ledian 
55^r 
Cm. 
Inches 
(22.0) 
310-319 
12.2-12.5 
1 
300-309 
11.8-12.1 
3 
9 
3 
1 
290-299 
n.ii-11.7 
1 
1 
20 
35 
31 
7 
1 
280-289 
11.0-11.3 
2 
31 
105 
138 
1+1 
u 
270-279 
10.6-10.9 
1 
1+1 
209 
350 
156 
26 
2 
260-269 
10.2-10.5 
1 
23 
213 
287 
67 
8 
Median 
250-259 
9.8-10.1 
8 
71 
189 
211 
64 
11 
2 
267.03 (10.5) 
21+0—21+9 
9.1+-9.7 
5 
36 
56 
22 
1+ 
1 
250-239 
9.1-9.3 
1 
1 
6 
2 
1 
2 
220-229 
8,7-9.0 
1 
1 
2 
1 
2 
Cm. 
46 
1+8 
50 
52 
51+ 
56 
58 
60 
62 
64 
1+7 
1+9 
31 
33 
55 
57 
59 
61 
65 
65 
Inches 
18.1 
18.9 
19.7 
20.5 
21.5 
22.0 
22.8 
23.6 
24.lt 
25.2 
18.8 
19.6 
20.1* 
21.2 
21.9 
22.7 
23.5 
2k. 3 
25.1 
25.9 
Patella Height 
A close correlation. 
SCATTER DIAGRAM 1? 
CORRELATION OF FOOT LENGTH WITH PATELLA HEIGHT Buttock- 
-Knee 
Median 
55TST 
Cm, 
Inches 
(22.0) 
W-70 
27.2-27.9 
1 
1 
67-68 
26.1^-27.1 
1 
1 
1 
5 
3 
1 
65-66 
25.6-26.3 
1 
1 
3 
28 
1+2 
6 
63-61+ 
24.8-25.5 
9 
59 
127 
1+9 
1+ 
61-62 
2I4.O-2I4.7 
7 
10I4 
325 
188 
16 
1 
Median 
59-6o 
23.2-23.9 
6 
99 
381 
358 
6I4 
i+ 
59.93 (23.6) 
57-58 
22.14.-25.1 
1 36 
21+1+ 
559 
80 
2 
2 
2 
55-56 
21.7-22.5 
7 60 
135 
52 
6 
53-51+ 
20.9-21.6 
5 33 
17 
2 
2 
51-52 
20.1-20.8 
1 l !+• 
1 
1+9-50 
19.3-20.0 
1 
Cm. 
U6 I48 50 
52 
51+ 
56 
58 
60 
62 
61+ 
1+7 1+9 51 
55 
55 
57 
59 
61 
63 
65 
Inches 
18.1 I8.9 19.7 
20.5 
21.5 
22.0 
22.8 
23.6 
21+.1+ 
25.2 
18.8 19.6 20.14 
21.2 
21.9 
22.7 
23.5 
21+.5 
25.1 
25.9 
Patella Height 
Those are do 
sely correlated. 
SCATTER DIAGRAffi 18 
CORRELATION OF BUTTOCK-KNEE WITH PATELLA HEIGHT 
290, Ij., TECHNIQUES OF FEtiAIE IvEASUREl'ENTS 
(Except for those described below, techniques of Treasurer,ent are the same as for 
ma le s). 
1. Chest Circumference: Maximum circumference over breasts. 
2. 'i"aist Circumference; Jinimum circunferonce around waist. 
3. Hip Circumference: I'aximum circumference around buttocks. 
Shoulder Height: Subject sitting erect, with thighs horizontal. 
Height from surface on which subject sits to a point on shoulder midway between 
the angle of shoulder and arm and angle of shoulder and neck. 
5. Waist Height: Height from floor to natural waistline. 
6. Eye Height: Subject sitting as for sitting height; height from seat 
to pupil of eye. Body Measurements of Female plying Personnel 
Table 1 
Ti eight 
?tromon : 
Pi lots 
Flying Nurses 
aaftd 
AAFSAE 
Pounds 
No. of 
% 
No. of 
% 
Cases 
Case s 
96-99 
1 
0.2 
1 
0.7 
100-103 
7 
1.6 
loU-107 
25 
5.6 
10 
6.7 
108-111 
20 
1+.5 
12 
8.0 
112-115 
37 
8.3 
27 
18.0 
116-119 
28 
6.3 
11+ 
9.3 
120-123 
51 
ll.ii- 
18 
12.0 
12U-127 
58 
13.0 
28 
18.7 
128-131 
1+9 
11.0 
11+ 
9.3 
132-135 
59 
13.2 
19 
12.7 
136-139 
25 
5.6 
5 
2.0 
iiD-il+3 
22 
5.0 
3 
2.0 
HiU-xUT 
18 
l+.o 
1I+8-151 
15 
3-U 
1 
0.7 
152-155 
li+ 
3.1 
156-159 
2 
0.1+ 
160-163 
7 
1.6 
16I+-167 
3 
0.7 
168-171 
h 
0.9 
172-175 
1 
0.2 
Total 
I4I+6 
150 
Kean 
128.6 
pounds 
121.9 pounds 
Rang© 
96-175 pounds 
96-11+8 pounds Table 2 
Stature 
Women Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFTD 
AAFSAE 
Stature in 
No. of 
% 
No. of 
% 
Centimeters 
Case s 
11*6-11)7.9 
1 
0.7 
H*B-U*9.9 
1 
0.7 
150-151.9 
1 
0.2 
5 
2.0 
152-153.9 
2 
o.k 
7 
k.6 
1514-155.9 
9 
2.0 
15 
9.9 
156-157.9 
35 
7.8 
16 10.5 
150-159.9 
37 
8.3 
17 
11.2 
160-161.9 
514 
12.1 
25 
I6.I1 
I62-165.9 
58 
13.0 
18 
11.8 
16I4.-165.9 
60 
13. k 
23 
15.1 
166-167.9 
81 
18.1 
12 
7.9 
168-169.9 
1*2 
9.14 
5 
3.3 
170-171.9 
2k 
5.U 
2 
1.3 
172-173.9 
27 
6.0 
5 
3.3 
17U-175.9 
9 
2.0 
1 
0.7 
176-177.9 
k 
0.9 
1 
0.7 
176-179.9 
2 . 
o.U 
180-161.9 
1 
0.2 
I62-I65.9 
• 
101)-105.9 
1 
0.2 
Total 
kkrJ 
152 
Lean 
I6J4.8 cm. 
161.3 om. 
(6i|.9 inch 
e s) 
(63.5 in che s) 
Ranee 
150—131) cm 
. • 
11*7-176 ora. 
(58.0-72.5 
inches) 
(57-9-69.il 
inches) Table 3 
Biaoromial 
Women Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
Ho. of 
of 
/« 
No. of 
% 
Centimeters 
Case s 
Cases 
29.0-29.3 
29.4-29.7 
2 
1.5 
29.8-30.1 
2 
0.4 
2 
1.3 
30.2-30.5 
30.6-30.9 
2 
0.4 
4 
2.6 
31.0-31.3 
2 
0.4 
5 
3.3 
31.4-31.7 
4 
0.9 
1 
0.7 
31.8-32.1 
12 
2.7 
8 
5.3 
32.2-32.5 
9 
2.0 
10 
6.6 
32.6-32.9 
27 
6.0 
7 
4*6 
33.0-33.3 
19 
4.2 
7 
4*6 
33.4-35.7 
56 
8.0 
15 
9.9 
55.6-34.1 
34 
7.6 
20 
13.2 
34.2-34.5 
35 
7.8 
14 
9.2 
34.6-34.9 
37 
8.3 
18 
11.8 
35.0-35.3 
32 
7.2 
15 
9.9 
35.4-35.7 
44 
9.8 
5 
3.5 
35.8-36.1 
30 
6.7 
5 
3.5 
36.2-36.5 
33 
7.4 
5 
3.3 
36.6-36.9 
34 
7.6 
2 
1.3 
57.0-37.3 
16 
3.6 
4 
2.6 
57.4-37.7 
13 
2.9 
3 
2.0 
37.8-38.1 
16 
3.6 
38.2-38.5 
3 
6.7 
38.6-38.9 
4 
8.9 
59.0-59.3 
1 
0.2 
39.4-39.7 
1 
0.2 
Total 
447 
152 
Mean 
34.96 cm. 
53*99 cm. 
(13.76 inches) 
(13.38 inches) 
Range 
29.8-39.7 
cm. 
29.4-37.7 
cm. 
(II.7-I5.6 inches) 
(11.6-14.8 inches) Table Ij. 
Foot Length 
Women Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
N0, of 
ri 
;0 
No. of 
% 
Ki1limetors 
Cases 
Cases 
208-211 
1 
0.2 
212-215 
1 
0.2 
216-219 
3 
0.7 
1 
0.7 
220-225 
7 
1.6 
h 
2.6 
22l;-227 
16 
5.7 
8 
5.3 
220-231 
37 
8.3 
iu 
9.2 
232-235 
59 
15.5 
10 
6.6 
236-239 
55 
12.1* 
28 
18.1+ 
2I4O-2U5 
67 
15.0 
19 
12.5 
2U+-21+7 
58 
13.0 
19 
12.5 
2i|.8-251 
50 
11.2 
22 
llu5 
252-255 
38 
8.5 
11 
7.2 
256-259 
31 
7.0 
8 
5.3 
260-263 
13 
2.9 
6 
3.9 
26U-267 
5 
1.1 
1 
0.7 
268-271 
2 
0.1+ 
1 
0.7 
272-275 
1 
0.2 
276-279 
1 
0.2 
Total 
Uk3 
152 
Fean 
2l)-3*0 mm. 
2I42.6 mm. 
(9*57 inches) 
(9*55 inche 
s) 
Rang© 
208-276 um. 
216-268 irm. 
(8.9-19.9 
inches) 
(8.5-10.6 inches) Table 3 
Foot Breadth 
V/omon Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
No. of 
% 
No. of 
0/ 
/0 
T i Him© ters 
Oases 
Cases 
76-79 
1 
0.2 
80-83 
18 
I4.O 
7 
ii. 6 
8i*-87 
63 
1U.1 
29 
19.1 
68-91 
159 
55.6 
lh 
28.9 
92.95 
128 
28.6 
U9 
32.2 
96-99 
63 
1U.1 
17 
11.2 
100-103 
11 
2.5 
6 
3.9 
10U-107 
3 
0.7 
108-111 
1 
0.2 
Total 
UU7 
152 
Kean 
91.81 mm. 
91*53 mm. 
(3.61 inches) 
(3.60 inches) 
Ran^e 
76-111 nun. 
80-105 mn. 
(2.99-J+.J7 
inches) 
(3.15-M6 
• inches) Table 6 
Chest Circumference 
Women Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
No. of 
% 
No. of 
% 
Inches 
Case s 
Cases 
29-29.9 
2 
o.U 
50-30.9 
9 
2.0 
2 
1.3 
31-51.9 
10 
2+.0 
10 
6.6 
32-32.9 
hQ 
10.7 
26 
17.1 
33-35.9 
67 
15.0 
37 
2U.3 
314-3U.9 
95 
20.8 
30 
19.7 
35-35.9 
80 
17.9 
27 
17.8 
36-36.9 
59 
15.2 
8 
5.3 
37-37.9 
32 
17.2 
9 
5.9 
38-38.9 
23 
5.2 
3 
2.0 
39-39.9 
9 
2.0 
1*0-1 iO. 9 
5 
1.1 
l+l-i+1.9 
1 
0.2 
142-142.9 
1 
0.2 
Total 
UU7 
152 
Nean 
3U.98 inches 
3U.20 inches 
Range 
29.0-142.9 inches 
3O.O-38.9 inches Table 7* 
T.aist Circumference 
Women 
Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
<^1 
0 
• 
O 
d 
0 
No. of 
% 
Inches 
Cases 
Case s 
22-22.9 
5 
1.2 
23-23.9 
33 
7.U 
9 
5.9 
2U-2lu9 
67 
15.0 
31 
20. k 
25-25.9 
113 
25.5 
37 
214.3 
26-26.9 
87 
19.5 
35 
23.0 
27-27.9 
62 
13.9 
26 
18.U 
28-28.9 
9.U 
5 
3.5 
29-29.9 
20 
h.5 
k 
2.6 
30-50.9 
8 
1.8 
1 
0.7 
31-31.9 
8 
1.8 
32-32.9 
1 
0.2 
1 
0.7 
35-53.9 
1 
0.2 
3U-3U.9 
35-35.9 
1 
0.7 
Total 
Uhl 
152 
lean 
26.33 
inche s 
26.12 inches 
Itenge 
22-33*9 inches 
23-35.9 inches Table 8 
Kip Circumference 
V* orr.e n 
Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAS 
Inches 
No. of 
No. of 
% 
Cases 
Case s 
30-30,9 
31-31.9 
1 
0,2 
32-32.9 
1 
0.7 
33-35.9 
9 
2.0 
2 
1.3 
3^-3i;.9 
17 
3.8 
9 
5.9 
35-35.9 
Uh 
9.8 
20 
13.2 
36-36.9 
70 
15.7 
l+o 
26.3 
37-37.9 
6l+ 
10.8 
38 
25.0 
38-5Q.9 
75 
16.8 
25 
16. U 
39-59.9 
66 
II4.8 
11 
7.2 
ho-ho.9 
1+0 
9.0 
6 
5.9 
U-I4I.9 
15 
3.U 
9 
19 
14.2 
U3-U3.9 
2 
O.Ij. 
I4J1-I4+.9 
5 
1.1 
Total 
1*1+7 
152 
l!ean 
38.12 
inches 
37* ll+ inches 
Range 
31-ljl+*9 inches 
32-I1O.9 inches Table 9 
Shoulder Height 
Women Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAS 
No. of 
0 
VP 
Ch 
0 
• 
0 
Centimeters 
Cases 
Cases 
50-50.9 
1 0.7 
51-51.9 
1 0.7 
52-52.9 
1 0.7 
53-53.9 
1 
0,2 
7 u.6 
5U-51I.9 
1 
0.2 
1+ 2.6 
55-55.9 
7 
1.6 
9 5.9 
56-56.9 
15 
3.U 
lii 9.2 
57-57.9 
32 
7.2 
25 16.u 
56-58.9 
58 
13.0 
17 11.2 
59-59.9 
80 
18.0 
28 18.1+ 
60-60,9 
77 
17.3 
13- 8.6 
61-61.9 
71 
16.0 
13 8.6 
62-62,9 
U5 
10.1 
12 7.9 
65-63.9 
55 
7.9 
5 3.5 
6J4-6J4.9 
12 
2.7 
65-65.9 
7 
1.6 
1 0.7 
66-66.9 
h 
0,9 
1 0.7 
Total 
hh3 
152 
Kean 
60.1+5 cm. 
58.69 cm. 
(25.8 inches) 
(23.I inches) 
Range 
53-66.9 or 
i. 
50-66.9 cm. 
(20.8-26.3 inches) 
(19.7-26.3 inches) 
500 Table 10 
Yfaltft Height 
Women Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
No. of 
/° 
No. of 
fo 
Centimeters 
Case s 
Cases 
91-91.9 
1 
0.7 
92-92.9 
1 
0.7 
93-93.9 
1 
0.7 
9U-9U.9 
8 
1.8 
5 
3.5 
95-95.9 
6 
1.3 
1+ 
2.6 
96-96.9 
9 
2.0 
6 
1+.0 
97-97.9 
22 
1+.9 
13 
8.6 
98-98.9 
22 
1+.9 
12 
7.9 
99-99.9 
22 
1+.9 
15 
9.9 
100-100.9 
33 
7.1+ 
12 
7.9 
101-101.9 
51 
11.1+ 
11 
7.2 
105-102,9 
37 
8.3 
18 
11.8 
IO5-IO3.9 
1+7 
10.5 
18 
11.8 
101+-101+.9 
39 
8.7 
12 
7.9 
IO5-IO5.9 
35 
7.8 
7 
1+.6 
106-106.9 
35 
7.8 
2 
1.3 
107-107.9 
15 
3.1+ 
1+ 
2.6 
108-108.9 
27 
6,0 
2 
1.3 
109-109.9 
16 
3.6 
7 
1+.6 
110-110.9 
12 
2.7 
111-111.9 
3 
0.7 
1 
0.7 
112-112.9 
3 
0.7 
113-113.9 
l 
0.2 
IU4-IIU.9 
115-115.9 
2 
0.1+ 
116-116.9 
1 
0.2 
117-117.9 
1 
0.2 
Total 
U+7 
152 
I’ean 
102.88 cm. 
100.90 cm. 
(1+0.5 inches) 
(39*7 inches) 
9U-117.9 cm. 
91-111*9 crr*. 
(36.9-l46.i-; inches) 
(35.8-1+. 1 
inches) Table 11 
Crotch Height 
Women Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
No. of 
* 
/o 
No, of 
0/ 
/O 
Centimeters 
Cases 
Case s 
66-66.9 
1 
0.7 
67-67.9 
1 
0.7 
68-68.9 
1 
0.2 
3 
2.0 
1 
0.2 
U 
2.6 
70-70.9 
6 
1.3 
8 
5.3 
71-71.9 
19 
1+.2 
12 
7.9 
72-72.9 
23 
5.1 
15 
9.9 
73-75.9 
2i+ 
5.1+ 
15 
9.9 
7U-7U.9 
1+3 
9.6 
17 
11.3 
75-75.9 
1+3 
9.6 
20 
13.2 
76-76.9 
50 
11.2 
21+ 
15.9 
77-77.9 
61+ 
H+.3 
10 
6.6 
78-78.9 
l+l 
9.2 
1+ 
2.6 
79-79.9 
3U 
7.6 
1+ 
2.6 
8O-8O.9 
56 
8.0 
1+ 
2.6 
8I-8I.9 
20 
1+.5 
1+ 
2.6 
82-82.9 
20 
U.5 
1+ 
2.6 
83-83.9 
10 
2.2 
1 
0.7 
8U-8U.9 
7 
1.6 
85-85.9 
1 
0.2 
86-86.9 
3 
0.7 
87-87.9 
88-88.9 
1 
0.2 
Total 
l+i+7 
151 
Mean 
77*28 om. 
71+.90 
cm. 
(3O.5 inches) 
(29.5 inches) 
Range 
68.0-88.9 
cm. 
66.O-83.9 cm. 
(26,8-35*0 inches) 
(26.0- 
■33*0 inches) Table 12 
Arm Length 
'. omen Pilots 
Flying Purses 
AAFFTD 
AAi* S-nE 
TIo. of 
0 
• 
0 
Centimeters 
Cases 
Case s 
6U.8-65.5 
2 
O.I4 
1 
0.7 
65.6-66.3 
h 
0.9 
14 
2.6 
66.1-67.1 
h 
0.9 
3 
2.0 
67.2-67.9 
10 
2.2 
6 
3.9 
68.0-68.7 
13 
2.9 
ll 
7.2 
68.8-69.5 
5U 
7.6 
9 
5.9 
70.3 
I4J4 
9.9 
19 
12.5 
70.1-71.1 
314 
7.6 
13 
8,6 
71.2-71.9 
h3 
9.7 
15 
9.9 
72.0-72.7 
U6 
10.3 
21 
13.8 
72.8-73.5 
hi 
9.2 
18 
11.8 
73.6-7U.3 
h6 
10.3 
7 
I4.6 
7U.14-75.1 
h3 
9.7 
9 
5.9 
75.2-75.9 
25 
5.6 
2 
1.3 
76.0-76.7 
20 
U. 5 
7 
I4.6 
76.8-77.5 
15 
3.U 
1 
0.7 
77.6-78.5 
7 
1.6 
U 
2.6 
73.l4.-79.1 
6 
l.U 
h 
2,6 
79.2-79.9 
5 
l.l 
60.0-80.7 
2 
0.I4 
1 
0.7 
60.3-81.5 
1 
0.2 
1 
0.7 
Total 
Uj-5 
152 
Moan 
72.66 cm. 
71.72 cm. 
(28.6 inches) 
(28,2 inches) 
Rang© 
6I4.8-8I.5 
cm. 
6I4.8-8I.5 
cm. Table 13 
Anterior Arm Reach 
Women Pilots 
Flying 
Nurse s 
AAFTD 
AAFSAE 
No. of 
.7 
/o 
No. of 
% 
Centimeters 
Case s 
Case s 
70-71.9 
h 
2.6 
72-73-9 
2 
.k 
5 
3.5 
7U-75.9 
28 
6.3 
16 
10.5 
76-77.9 
70 
15.7 
39 
25.7 
78-79-9 
81 
18.1 
30 
19.7 
80-81.9 
121 
27.1 
26 
17.1 
82-83.9 
71 
13.9 
20 
13.1 
8U-3U.9 
U5 
10.1 
9 
5.9 
66-87.9 
22 
h*9 
2 
1.3 
88-89.9 
7 
1.6 
1 
.7 
Total 
UU7 
152 
Mean 
80.7k on 
• 
79.05 
cm. 
(31.8 inches) 
(31.1 inches) 
tango 
72-09.9 
cm. 
70.89.9 cm. 
*28.3-35*U inches) 
(27.5- 
35.h inches) Table ]i+ 
Hand Length 
Women Pilots 
Flying 
Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
No. of 
% 
No. of 
•if 
0 
Nillime ters 
Case s 
Cases 
ll+5-ll+8 
1 
.2 
IU9-152 
1 
*7 
153-156 
1 
.2 
157-160 
11 
2*5 
1 
*7 
161-16U 
28 
6.1+ 
8 
5*6 
I65-I68 
1+5 
10.3 
9 
6.3 
I69.172 
56 
12.8 
25 
17.6 
173-V76 
98 
22.1+ 
35 
21+.6 
177-180 
77 
17.6 
26 
18.3 
181-131+ 
62 
Hi. 2 
20 
ll+.l 
135-183 
31 
7*1 
13 
9*2 
189-192 
17 
3*9 
3 
2.1 
193-196 
7 
1.6 
l 
*7 
197-200 
l 
.2 
201-201). 
205-208 
2 
*5 
• 
Total 
1+37 
11+2 
Fean 
175*8 ran. 
175.8 
mm. 
(6.92 inches) 
(6.92 
inches) 
Range 
11+5-207 ran 
• 
152-19 
1+ mm. 
(5*7-8.2 inches) 
(6.0-7 
.6 inches) Table 13 
Hand Breadth 
Women Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
No. of 
No. of 
£ 
Millimeters 
Cases 
Cases 
65-66 
1 
0.2 
1 
0.7 
67-68 
1 
0.2 
1 
0.7 
69.70 
6 
l.U 
6 
k»2 
71-72 
2k 
5.1; 
1h 
9.9 
75-7U 
67 
15.2 
19 
13.U 
75-76 
88 
20.0 
33 
23.2 
77-78 
97 
22.0 
3U 
23.9 
79-80 
91 
20.7 
18 
12.7 
81-82 
36 
8.2 
Ik 
9.9 
83-SU 
22 
5.0 
2 
1.4 
65-86 
6 
l.U 
87-86 
1 
0.2 
Total 
14+0 
ll|2 
Mean 
77.17 mm. 
76.19 mm. 
(3.0l| inches) 
(3.00 inches) 
Range 
66-87 mm* 
66-8!+ mm. 
(2.6-3.)+ 
inches) 
(2.6-3.3 
inches) Table 16 
Head Circumference 
V’onen Pilots 
Flying 
iurs«s 
AiVPi.' T 
Q 
AaFS. 
AR 
l;o. of 
% 
No. of 
% 
Vi 11 ire tors 
Case s 
Cnse s 
511-515 
1 
0.2 
516-520 
5 
1.1 
3 
2.1 
$21-525 
5 
1.1 
U 
2.8 
526-r>50 
15 
3-h 
5 
3.5 
551-535 
37 
Q.h 
20 
14.2 
556-530 
36 
8.2 
15 
10.6 
5UI-5I4.5 
50 
13.2 
18 
12.8 
5U6-550 
59 
13. h 
29 
20.6 
551-555 
h3 
9.3 
19 
13.5 
556-560 
59 
13W 
10 
7.1 
561-565 
h9 
11.1 
6 
h»3 
566-570 
26 
5.9 
5 
3.5 
571-575 
15 
3.U 
1 
0.7 
576-580 
16 
3.6 
U 
2.8 
581-565 
10 
2.3 
2 
i.U 
506-590 
2 
.0.5 
591-595 
3 
0.7 
596-600 
1 
0.2 
Total 
Wo 
ll+l 
Kean 
552.0 mm 
-• 
5U5-9 
mm. 
(21.73 inches) 
(21.14.9 inches) 
Range 
517-501* 
inn. 
512-597 mm. 
(20.JL|.-22.9 inches) 
(20.2-23.5 inches) Table 17 
BideItoid 
Women Pilots 
Flying 
Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
0 
. 
0 
£ 
No. of 
% 
Centime tens 
Cases 
Case s 
53-53.9 
1 
o.l 
5U-51+.9 
35-35.9 
1 
0.2 
1 
0.7 
36-36.9 
9 
2.0 
7 
I4.6 
37-37.9 
17 
5.8 
8 
5.3 
38-38.9 
58 
13*0 
31 
20.1|. 
59-59.9 
£9 
15.U 
U0 
26.3 
Uo-l+o.9 
89 
19.9 
28 
18, I*. 
ia-ia.9 
76 
17.0 
22 
ll4.5 
142-142.9 
59 
13.2 
11 
7.2 
U3-I43.9 
3U 
7.6 
5 
2*0 
I4I4—iii+* 9 
21 
1+.7 
I45-U5.9 
12 
2.7 
I1.6-I46.9 
2 
0.5 
Total 
14U7 
152 
Mean 
I4.O• 89' 01H. 
39.76 
cm.v 
(16.1 inches) 
(15*7 inches) 
Range 
35-146.9 cm. 
3 3—1+3 • 9 °m. 
(13.8-18.5 inches) 
(13.0- 
17«3 inches) Table 
Elbow Breadth 
Women Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
No. of 
ot 
/° 
0 
. 
0 
•-+> 
% 
Centime ters 
Case s 
Case s 
31-31.9 
1 
0.2 
52-32.9 
7 
1.6 
2 
1.3 
33-33.9 
15 
3.14 
3 
2.0 
3U-5U.9 
29 
6.5 
12 
7.9 
35-35.9 
I4I 
9.2 
19 
12.5 
36-56.9 
60 
13.5 
22 
lU.5 
57-57.9 
57 
12.8 
27 
17.8 
38-38.9 
58 
15.0 
21 
13.3 
39-39.9 
U9 
11.0 
18 
11.8 
I4O-I4O.9 
U8 
10.8 
II4 
9.2 
l+l-i+1.9 
25 
5.6 
6 
3.9 
142-1+2.9 
25 
5.6 
14 
2.6 
143-U3.9 
15 
3.14 
3 
2.0 
14+—l+l-i-. 9 
5 
1.1 
U5-U5-9 
5 
1.1 
I+6-I4.6.9 
l 
0.2 
U7-U7.9 
5 
0.7 
148-1+8.9 
1 
0.7 
149^9.9 
50-50.9 
51-51.9 
52-52.9 
53-53.9 
1 
0.2 
Total 
I4I45 
152 
Mean 
38.U3 cm. 
37.86 
cm. 
(15.1 inches) 
(ll4,9 inches) 
Range 
31-53 cm. 
52-I48.9 cm. 
(12,2-20.9 inches) 
(12.6- 
-19.3 inches) Table 19 
Bi-iliao 
Women Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
Stature in 
No. of 
% 
No. of 
a/ 
yo 
Centimeters 
Cases 
Cases 
2U-2U.9 
15 
3-h 
3 
2.0 
25-25.9 
37 
8.5 
5 
3.5 
26-26.9 
77 
17.2 
22 
11+.U 
27-27.9 
96 
21.5 
27 
17.7 
28-28.9 
111 
2U.8 
142 
27.6 
29-29.9 
66 
1U.8 
3h 
22.1+ 
50-50.9 
30 
6.7 
15 
9.9 
31-51.9 
12 
2.7 
5 
2.0 
32-52.9 
1 
.2 
1 
.7 
35-33.9 
2 
•h 
Total 
Uhl 
152 
Mean 
27*95 cm* 
28.56 cm. 
(11.0 inches) 
(ll.2 inches) 
Range 
2I4.—33• 9 cm. 
2I4-52.9 cm. 
(9.U-15.5 inches) 
(9J+-13.0 
inches) Table 20 
B itr oc ban to r i o 
■'/Yemen 
Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
No, of % 
No. of 
% 
Centimeters 
Cases 
Cases 
30-30.9 
1 
0.2 
31-31.9 
1 
0.2 
32-32.9 
5 
0.7 
1 
0.7 
33-33.9 
12 
2.7 
6 
3.9 
3U-31+.9 
30 
6.7 
k 
2,6 
35-35.9 
145 
10.1 
9 
5.9 
36-36.9 
55 
12.3 
H4 
9.2 
37-37.9 
67 
15.0 
36 
23.7 
38-38.9 
76 
17.0 
27 
17.8 
39-39.9 
6I4 
114.3 
19 
12.5 
I4O-I4O.9 
hi 
9.2 
lh 
9.2 
ia-Ui.9 
18 
I4.O 
lh 
9.2 
142-142.9 
11; 
5.1 
6 
5.9 
143-143.9 
8 
1.8 
2 
1*3 
I4I4-I4I4.9 
k 
0.9 
I45-I45.9 
h 
0.9 
I46-U6.9 
3 
0.7 
I47-U7.9 
1 
0.2 
Total 
I4U7 
152 
Mean 
38.18 
cm. 
58,37 om. 
(lp,0 inches) 
(15*1 inches) 
Range 
30-l;7.9 cm* 
32-I43.9 om 
>• 
(11.8 
1-I8.9 inches) 
(12.6-17*3 inches) Tabler 21 
Span - Xkimbo 
Women 
Pi lots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
No. of % 
No. of 
% 
Centimeters 
Cases 
Cases 
75-75.9 
1 
0.7 
76-76.9 
77-77.9 
2 
0.4 
4 
2.7 
78-73.9 
3 
0.7 
5 
3.3 
79-79.9 
5 
1.1 
7 
4.7 
80-80.9 
10 
2.2 
4 
2.7 
81-81.9 
13 
2.9 
3 
2.0 
82-82.9 
16 
3.5 
15 
10.0 
83-83.9 
43 
9.6 
20 
13.3 
81+-8U.9 
48 
10.8 
17 
11.3 
85-85.9 
43 
9.6 
20 
13.3 
86-86.9 
42 
9.4 
16 
10.7 
87-87.9 
44 
9.9 
11 
7.3 
88-88.9 
43 
9.6 
9 
6.0 
89-89.9 
45 
10.1 
6 
4.0 
90-90.9 
28 
6.3 
5 
3.5 
91-91.9 
18 
4.0 
4 
2.7 
92-92.9 
19 
4.3 
1 
0.7 
93-93.9 
10 
2.2 
1 
0.7 
94-94.9 
10 
2.2 
1 
0.7 
95-95.9 
3 
0.7 
96-96.9 
97-97.9 
1 
0.2 
Total 
446 
150 
Wean 
87.02 
cm. 
84.89 cm. 
(34*3 inches) 
(33*4 inches) 
Range 
77-95.9 cm. 
75-94.9 cm 
• 
(50.5-57.8 inches 
(29.5-37.4 inches) Table 22 
Shoulder-Elbow Height 
Women Pilots 
Flying 
; Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAPSAE 
Ho. of % 
No, of 
% 
Centimetors 
Case s 
Cases 
30-30.9 
1 0.2 
1 
0.7 
31-31.9 
12 2.7 
1+ 
2.6 
32-32.9 
1+5 10.1 
11+ 
9.3 
33-33.9 
93 20.8 
31+ 
22.5 
3U-3U-9 
111 21+.8 
1+1+ 
29.1 
35-35.9 
103 23.O 
30 
19.9 
56-36.9 
51 11.1+ 
12 
7.9 
37-37.9 
23 5.1 
9 
6.0 
36-38.9 
6 1.3 
2 
1.3 
39-39.9 
2 0.1+ 
1 
0.7 
Total 
1+1+7 
151 
loan 
3I1.69 cm . 
3I1.60 
cm. 
(13.7 inches) 
(13.6 
inches) 
30-39.9 cm. 
30-39.9 era* 
Range 
(11.8-15.7 inches) 
(11.8- 
■15.7 inches) Table 25 
Eye Height 
Women 
Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
cm 
0 
. 
0 
£ 
No. of % 
Centimeters 
Cases 
Cases 
65-65,9 
1 0.7 
66-66*9 
1 0.7 
67-67.9 
1 0.7 
68-68*9 
1 
0.2 
3 2.0 
69-69.9 
1 
0.2 
5 3.3 
70-70.9 
1+ 
0*9 
8 5.3 
71-71.9 
6 
1.1+ 
11 7.5 
72-72.9 
2U 
5.1+ 
10 6.6 
73-73.9 
57 
12.9 
27 17.9 
7U-71+.9 
51+ 
12.2 
19 12.6 
75-75.9 
71+ 
16.7 
23 15.2 
76-76.9 
71 
16.0 
17 11.3 
77-77.9 
56 
12.6 
15 9.9 
78-78*9 
1# 
11.1 
3 2.0 
79-79.9 
22 
5.0 
1+ 2.6 
8O-8O.9 
13 
2.9 
1 0.7 
81-81*9 
6 
l.U 
1 0.7 
82-82*9 
3 
0.7 
83-83.9 
l 
0.2 
l 0.7 
8I4-8I4.. 9 
l 
0.2 
Total 
14+3 
151 
loan 
76.09 
cm. 
71+.35 ctt. 
(30.0 inches) 
(29.3 inches) 
Range 
66-8l|.,9 cm. 
65-83.9 cm. 
(26.8-33*1+ inches) 
(25.6-33.0 inches) Table 2k 
Sitting Height 
Tromen 
Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAF3AS 
VO 
O 
. 
O 
0 
. 
0 
% 
Centimeters 
Case s 
Casa s 
77-77.9 
1 
0.7 
78-76.9 
1 
0.2 
1 
0.7 
79-79.9 
3 
2.0 
60-80.9 
5 
1.1 
3 
2.0 
81-81.9 
9 
2.0 
10 
6.6 
02-82.9 
28 
6.3 
12 
7.9 
83-83.9 
35 
7.8 
20 
13.2 
oh- 81;. 9 
52 
11.7 
li; 
9.2 
65-85.9 
55 
12.3 
18 
11.0 
66-36.9 
72 
16.1 
2k 
15.8 
87-87.9 
68 
15.2 
13 
8.6 
66-88.9 
5U 
12.1 
12 
7.9 
89-69.9 
28 
6.3 
9 
5.9 
90-90.9 
16 
I4.O 
8 
5.3 
91-91.9 
15 
3.U 
2 
1.3 
92-92.9 
3 
0.7 
1 
0.7 
93-95.9 
2 
o.U 
9i;-9l;.9 
1 
0.2 
1 
0.7 
Total 
1^6 
152 
Kean 
66.56 
cm. 
85.58 cm. 
(31-1.1 inches) 
(35*7 inches) 
Rang© 
78-9 If. 
,9 cm. 
77-9l|.9 cm. 
(3O.7-3l4.l1 inches) 
(50.3-37.l4 inches) T&blo 25 
Buttock-Knee Length 
Y.'omen 
Pilots 
Flying 
Purses 
AAFF'TD 
AAFSAE 
■Mo, of 
/• 
Wo. of 
fo 
Centimeters 
Case s 
Case s 
50-50.9 
2 
0.1+ 
1 
0.7 
51-51.9 
3 
0.7 
h 
2.6 
52-52.9 
h 
0.9 
1 
0.7 
53-53.9 
22 
J+.9 
10 
6.8 
51+-5U.9 
U3 
9.6 
17 
11.2 
55-55.9 
I48 
10.7 
20 
13.2 
56-56.9 
69 
15.U 
31 
20. U 
57-57.9 
62 
13.9 
214 
15.8 
56-58.9 
73 
16.3 
19 
12.5 
59-59.9 
56 
12.5 
11 
7.2 
60-60.9 
33 
7.U 
7 
14.6 
61-61.9 
19 
14.2 
5 
3.3 
62-62.9 
8 
1.8 
1 
0.7 
63-63.9 
2 
0.J4 
1 
0.7 
6I4.-6I4. 9 
2 
O.I4. 
65-65.9 
66-66.9 
67-67.9 
1 
0.2 
Total 
UU7 
152 
tean 
57.50 
cm. 
56.81 
cm. 
(22.6 inches) 
(22.14. inches) 
Range 
50-67.9 om. 
50-63.9 cm* 
(19-7- 
•26.7 inches) 
(19.7-25.2 inches) Table 3S 
Patella Hfight 
Yfomen 
Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
No, of 
% 
No, of % 
Centimeters 
Cases 
Cases 
hk-Uu 9 
2 1.3 
1+5-1+5.9 
1 
0.2 
5 3.5 
'46-J46.9 
7 
1.6 
12 7.9 
47-1+7.9 
25 
5.6 
17 H.2 
48-I4.8.9 
142 
9.4 
27 17.8 
L&~L&»9 
77 
17.3 
31 20.U 
50-50.9 
72 
16.2 
27 17.8 
51-51.9 
86 
15.3 
12 7.9 
52-52.9 
68 
15.5 
12 7.9 
53-55.9 
3i+ 
7.6 
i+ 2.6 
5U-5U.9 
22 
k-9 
3 2.0 
55-55.9 
6 
1.3 
56-56.9 
li 
0.9 
57-57.9 
58-58.9 
1 
0.2 
Total 
1^5 
152 
lean 
50.96 
cm. 
cm. 
(20.1 
inches) 
(19.5 inches) 
Range 
U5-58.9 om. 
i-pLi-—5lf. 9 cm* 
(17.7-25.2 inche.s) 
(17.3-21.6 inches) Table 2? 
Knee Breadth 
Women Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
No, of 
% 
No. of % 
Centimeters 
Cases 
Cases 
13.5-13.9 
1 
0.2 
li4.O-llj.i4 
114.5-1^.9 
15.0-15.U 
15.5-15.9 
1 
0.2 
l6.O-l6.i4 
1 
0.2 
1 0.7 
16.5-16.9 
13 
2.9 
3 2.0 
17.0-17.i| 
25 
5.6 
8 5.3 
17.5-17.9 
1+7 
10.6 
16 10.5 
18.0-18.i| 
53 
11.9 
21 I5.8 
18.5-18.9 
75 
16.9 
29 19.1 
19.0-19.ii 
70 
15.8 
22 li|. 5 
19.5-19.9 
1+5 
10.1 
11+ 9.2 
20.0-20.i| 
37 
a.3 
11 7.2 
20.5-20.9 
25 
5.6 
16 10.5 
21.0-21.ii 
22 
5.0 
5 3.3 
21.5-21.9 
9 
2.0 
2 1.3 
22.0-22.Ii 
6 
1.1+ 
1 0.7 
22.5-22.9 
5 
1.1 
23.0-23.i| 
3 
0.7 
23.5-23.9 
1 
0.2 
1 0.7 
2i|.0-2i|.i| 
1 
0.2 
2 1.3 
2ij.5-2i|.9 
2 
0.5 
25.0-25.ii 
25.5-25.9 
2 
0.5 
Total 
1M 
152 
Mean 
19*18 cm. 
19.12 cm. 
(7*55 inches) 
(7*53 inches) 
Range 
13.5-25.9 
cm. 
l6.O-2i1.i4 cm. 
(5.3-10.2 
inches) 
(6.3-9*6 inches) Table 28 
Forearm Circumference 
Women Pilots 
Flying 
Nurse s 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
No. of 
% 
No. of 
% 
Inches 
Cases 
Cases 
6.3-6.4 
6 
1.3 
1 
0.7 
6*5-6.6 
13 
2.9 
4 
2.7 
6.7-6*8 
20 
4.5 
6 
4.0 
6.9-7.0 
6l 
13.7 
19 
12.8 
7.1-7.2 
6o 
13.5 
22 
14.8 
7*5-7.4 
56 
12.6 
15 
10.1 
7.5-7.6 
58 
13.0 
15 
10.1 
7.7-7.8 
49 
11.0 
14 
9.4 
7*9-8.0 
67 
15.1 
28 
18.8 
8.1-8.2 
28 
6.3 
12 
8.0 
8.3-8*4 
10 
2.2 
3 
2.0 
8.5-8.6 
10 
2.2 
7 
4.7 
8.7-8.8 
4 
0.9 
1 
0.7 
8.9-9.0 
i 
0.2 
2 
1.3 
9.1-9.2 
i 
0.2 
9.3-9.4 
9.5-9.6 
i 
0.2 
Total 
1i45 
149 
l?ean 
7.49 inches 
7.56 inches 
Range 
6.3-9*6 inches 
6.3-9.0 
inches Table 29 
Upper Am Circumference 
TYomen Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AaFFTD 
AAFSAE 
No. of 
% 
No. of 
% 
Inches 
Case s 
Case s 
7.5 
1 
0.7 
7.9-8.0 
2 
0.5 
8.1-8.2 
h 
0.9 
1 
0.7 
8.3-8.1+ 
6 
1.U 
3 
2.0 
8.5-8.6 
6 
i.U 
2 
1.3 
8.7-8.8 
21+ 
5.U 
10 
6.7 
8.9-9.0 
$9 
8.8 
15 
10.1 
9.1-9.2 
36 
8.1 
16 
10.7 
9.3-9.U 
36 
8.1 
1k 
9.U 
9.5-9.6 
i+o 
9.0 
21 
li+,1 
9.7-9.8 
57 
12.8 
17 
11.1+ 
9.9-IO.O 
hi 
9.2 
15 
10.0 
10.1-10.2 
38 
8.6 
8 
5.U 
10.3-10.U 
21 
h*7 
9 
6.0 
IO.5-IO.6 
23 
5.2 
5 
3-h 
10.7-10.8 
20 
h.5 
3 
2.0 
10.9-11.0 
23 
5.2 
7 
U.7 
11.1-11.2 
8 
1.8 
2 
1.3 
11.3-11.1+ 
5 
1.1 
11.5-11.6 
7 
1.6 
11.7-11.8 
2 
0.5 
11.9-12.0 
2 
0.5 
12.1-12.2 
2 
0.5 
12.3-12.1+ 
1 
0.2 
12.5-12.6 
1 
0.2 
Total 
hhh 
li+9 
Moan 
9.81 inches 
9.60 inches 
Range 
7*9-12.6 inches 
7.5-11*2 
inches Table 30 
Calf Circumference 
Women Pilots 
Flying Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
TCo. of 
% 
No, of 
/» 
Inch© s 
Cases 
Case s 
10.5-10.9 
1 
0.7 
11.0-11.U 
1 
0.2 
II.5-II.9 
5 
1.1 
1 
0.7 
12.0-12.i| 
20 
U.5 
9 
6.0 
12.5-12.9 
i+6 
10.i| 
20 
13. U 
13.0-15.i| 
90 
20.5 
39 
26.2 
13.5-13.9 
99 
22.3 
31 
20.8 
lii.O-li1.i4 
89 
20.0 
51 
20.8 
liT.5-lit,9 
U8 
10.8 
11 
7.U 
15.0-I5.i4 
33 
7. i+ 
5 
3-U 
15.5-15.9 
9 
2,0 
1 
0.7 
16.0-16.i| 
h 
0.9 
■ 
Total 
IMr 
119 
Moan 
13.78 inches 
13*55 inches 
Rang;© 
11.0-l6.ii inches 
IO.5-I5.9 
inche s Table 31 
Thigh Circumference 
Women Pilots 
Flying 
Nurses 
AAFFTD 
AAFSAE 
Ho. of 
% 
No. of 
% 
Inches 
Cases 
Case s 
15.5-15.9 
1 
0.2 
l6.O-l6.i4 
1 
0.2 
16.5-16.9 
5 
1.1 
1 
0.7 
17.0-17.u 
13 
2.9 
5 
3.3 
17.5-17.9 
37 
8.3 
lU 
9.2 
18.0-18.k 
55 
12.3 
15 
9.9 
I8.5-I8.9 
60 
13.5 
21 
13.8 
19.0-19.k 
67 
15.0 
21 
13.8 
19.5-19.9 
52 
11.7 
21 
13.8 
20.0-20.i4 
55 
12.3 
25 
16.5 
20.5-20.9 
Uo 
9.0 
10 
6.6 
21.0-21.-U 
31 
7.0 
9 
5.9 
21.5-21.9 
7 
1.6 
6 
3.9 
22.0-22.U 
10 
2.2 
h 
2.6 
22.5-22.9 
6 
1.3 
25.0-23.It 
3 
0.7 
23.5-23.9 
1 
0.2 
2I4.O-2l1.i4 
1 
0.2 
214.5-2U.9 
l 
0.2 
Total 
UU6 
152 
loan 
19.1t5 inches 
19. UU 
inches 
Range 
15.5-21+. 9 
inches 
l6.5-22.It inches 5. References 
Chapter II - The Functional Man, 
EXP-M-1+9-695-15 
9 September 191+2 
Facial Types Among Aviation Cadet's. 
EXP-M-1+9-695-19A 
21 December 191+2 
Coordination of Winter Helmets rd.th Head Size and 
Flying Equipment. 
Chapter III - Personal Equipment. 
EXP-M-1+9-695-1+ 
7 July 191+2 
Anthropometric Facial Survey at Wilberforce 
University. 
EXP-M-1+9-695-1+A 
5 August 191+2 
Anthropological Survey of AAF Cadets. 
EXP-M-1+9-695-15 
9 September 191+2 
Facial Types Among Aviation Cadets. 
EXP-M-1+9-695-19A 
21 December 191+2 
Coordination of Winter Helmets with Head Size and 
Flying Equipment. 
ENG-M-1+9-695-22A 
12 February 191+5 
Demand Oxygen Mask. 
ENG-1+9-695-52 
IS August 191+3 
Effect of Flying Clothing on Body Measurements of 
AAF Flyers. 
ENG-1+9-695-52A 
1 September 191+3 
Body Measurements of Female Flying Personnel. 
ENG-1+9-695-52B 
20 September 191+3 
Body Sizes of Pursuit Pilots, 
ENG-1+9-695-52 C 
20 October 191+3 
Head, Face and Hand Measurements of Flying Nursee 
and Female Pilots. 
ENG-1+9-695-52D 
23 October 191+5 
Siting of AAF Clothing (Jackets and Trousers). 
ENG-1+9-695-52E 
5 November 191+5 
Hand Size and Required Glove Size Jfor Flying 
Personnel. 
ENQ-1+9-695-52F 
12 November 19^5 
Steel Helmets for Aircrew. 
ENO-1+9-695-52G 
12 November 191+5 
Sizfe Tests of A-ll Helmets. ENG-1i9-659-32H 
1? November 19^5 
Head and Face Measurements of Fighter Pilots and 
Heavy Bombardment Crews. 
ENG-U9-695-52I 
22 November 19^3 
Switlik 2l|-Foot Seat-Type Parachute - Suitability 
for Wear in Turrets. 
ENG-1i9-695-32J 
1 December I9U3 
Size Test of Model Helmets (Spec Ho. AN-H-15). 
ENG-i;9-695-32K 
11 December 19h3 
Size Test of Model Helmets (Spec No. AN-H-13). 
ENG-149-693-32M 
17 February 19-^+ 
Sizing of Army-Navy Shearling. 
ENG-U9-695-52N 
I4 March 19Wi 
V/omen's Flying Clothing. 
ENG4i9-695-2G 
26 January 19144- 
Hand Wear. 
ENG-J.9-693-22B 
26 February 194U+ 
Mask, Oxygen, Pressure-Demand, 
ENG-1+9-695-52R 
7 May I9I4I4 
Head Size Standards. 
ENG-i49-695-32S 
31 May 19)4^ 
Size Testing of Gloves. 
ENG-14.9-695-52T 
31 May 19144- 
Size of Clothing for Female Flying Personnel. 
ENG-149-693-52V 
20 June I9I4I4. 
Tailor's Dimensions of AAF Flying Personnel, 
ENG-i;9-695-52W 
7 July 19Ui 
/ 
Sizing of Intermediate Suits, 
ENG-149-695-52T 
6 August I9J4U 
Shoe Size Among Flying Personnel, 
ENG-J(9-695-52Z 
11 August 1914-1 
Size Scheduling of the F-$ Electrically Heated Suit. 
ENG-U9-693-32AA 
16 August 19hh 
Memorandum Report on "Flak Suit Extensions Preliminary 
Combat Test." TSEAL-5-695-32JJ 
21 December 19i4^ 
nomparison of Variability in Flying Clothing, 
TSEAL-3-695-32MM 
12 January 19U5 
Master Charts for Distribution of Clothing Sizes 
for Female Personnel. 
TSEAL-3-695-32W 
15 May 19h5 
Glove Size Gauge. 
TSEAL-5-695-32XX 
38 May 19U5 
Tailor's Dimensions and Head and Face Measurements 
of V, H. 3, Personnel, 
TSEAL-3-695-52GGG 
J4 August 19U3 
Comparison of Variability in Flying Clothing, 
TSEAL-5-693-52HHH 
S August 19U5 
Comparison of Variability in Flying Clothing 
Chapter IV - Aircrew Positioning. 
EXP-M-695-J4A 
5 August 19h2. 
Anthropological Survey of AAF Cadets. 
EXP-M-1+9-695-U) 
1)4 October 19^2 
Anthropological Analysis oi\ Martin Upper Local 
Turret. 
EXP-M-U9-695-i+F 
II4 November 19U2 
Anthropological Analysis of the Consolidated Tail 
Turret. 
EXP-M-U9-695-1+G 
16 November 19l\2 
Anthropological Analysis of the Emerson Tail Turret. 
EXP-M-149-695-UH 
IS November 19U2 
Anthropological Analysis of the Emerson 6i4M Pres- 
surized Ball Turret. 
EXP-M-U9-695-UI 
111 December 19h? 
Anthropological Analysis of. the Motor Products 
Tail Turret, 
EXP-M-149-695-U 
2S December 19ij2 
Upper Local Control Turrets - Visibility 
EXP-M-l|9-693-i|K 
7 January 19^4-3 
Anthropological Analysis of the Briggs l\.6" Ball 
Turret. 
EXP-M-U9-695-I4M 
19 January 19U5 
Consolidated Tail Turret - Scanning Visibility. 
EXP-M4;9-695-9'N 
13 February 19^5 
Inch Ball Turret - Scanning Visibility. EXP-M-1+9-695-1+Q 
15 February 19h3 
Gunner1s Comfort, Efficiency and Safety in the 
Sperry Upper Turret. 
£XP-M4i9-695-iiH 
15 March l9h3 
Gunner's Comfort, Efficiency and Safety in the 
Bendix Upper Turret. 
ENG-U9-695-26 
5 June 19h3 
Articulated Plastic Manikin Standards. 
ENG-J+9-695-52 
IS August 19 
Effect of Flying Clothing on Body Measurements of 
AAF Flyers. 
ENG-k9-695-52B 
20 September 19^5 
Body Sizes of Pursuit Pilots, 
ENG-U9-695-32F 
12 November 19U? 
Steel Helmets for Aircrew. 
ENG-i49-695-52P 
25 February 19^ 
Prone Position. 
ENG-U9-695-3S 
k November 
Pilot’s Head Support, 
ENG-i+9-6954;0 
1 December 19h3 
Pilot’s Hold-Down Harness, 
TR # h990 
17 August 
Eye Movement in Sighting. 
ENG-l*9-695-52Q 
17 April 19U* 
Forty-eight Inch Upper Ball Turret. 
ENG-U9-695-32U 
6 June 19hh 
Emerson Electric Company Turret Inspection Visit. 
TSEAL-5-695-52HH 
h December 19i4v 
The Center of Gravity of the Seated Fighter Pilot, 
TSEAL-5-695-32LL 
5 January 19U5 
Gunners’ Provisions in Proposed Martin "Streamlined” 
Turrets for the B-52. 
TSEA1,-3-695-32 RR 
H[ March 19h3 
Universal Test Seat and Cockpit Mock-up 
TSEAL-3-695-32TT 
29 April 19h5 
Cockpit Dimensions in Relation to Human Body Size, 
TSEAL-5-695-52YY 
30 May 19U5 
Navy Experimental Molded Combination Seat and Back 
Cushion. TSSAL-3-695-52AAA 
50 June 19145 
B-29 Side Sighting Station-Travel Report. 
TSEAL-5-693-32CCC 
12 July 19i43 
Pulsating Parachute Seat Cushion Report No, 1, 
TSEAL-J-695-32DDD 
11+ July 19U5 
Head Movement in Standard AAF Turrets. 
TSEAL-5-695-32EEE 
20 July 19^5 
Comfort Evaluation of the Hammock Type Fighter Seat. 
TSEAL-3-695-56 
?5 September 19^5 
Principles of Seating in Fighter Type Aircraft, 
TSEAL-3-695-53A 
6 September 191+5 
Body Size Requirements in Bombardier-Navigator 
Seating, 
T3EAL-3-695-5SB 
50 October 191+5 
Pulsating Parachute Seat Cushion Report No. 2, 
Chapter V - Aircraft Clearances. 
TSEAL-5-695-52II 
27 January 191+5 
Physical Requirements for Size and Shape of Escape 
Hatches, Bombardment and Attack, 
TSEAL-5-695-32SS 
$0 April 191+5 
Optimum Shape and Minimum Size of Catwalks in 
Bombardment Aircraft. 
Chapter VII - Head and Eye Movement in Sighting. 
TR # U990 
17 August 19i+5 
Eye Movement in Sighting, 
TR § UZS7 
L February 19ii3 
The Design of Turret Sighting Panels. CHAPTER IX 
List of Photographs 
Chapter II - The Functional Man 
Page 
Figure II, 1 - Variation of body size in male flying personnel 7 
Figure II, 2 - Bulk added to nude man by standard flying clothing S 
Chapter III - Personal Equipment. 
Figure III, 1 - Standard head personal equipment Ill 
Figure III, 2 - Standard pressure-demand oxygen personal equipment 13 
Figure III, 3 - Distribution chart of head circumferences 17 
Figure III, - Inspection measurements for helemt inspection IS 
Figure ITT, 5 - Desired dimensions for AN-H-16 helmet 19 
Figure III, 6 - Desired dimensions for A-ll helmet 20 
Figure I]I, 7 - Desired dimensions for AN-H-13 helmet, 21 
Figure III, S - Dimensions of AML head size standards 22 
Figure III, 9 - Small size AML head size standard 23 
Figure III, 10 - AML head size standards 2l\. 
Figure III, 11 - AAF face size standards 2S 
Figure III, 12 - Distribution of AAF face sizes 29 
Figure III, 13 - Frequency distribution chart of AAF male face sizes.,, 51 
Figure III, II4 - Percentage distribution stature and chest 
total bombardment 57 
Figure III, 15 - Percentage distribution stature and chest 
total issue 5^ 
Figure III, 16 - Percentage distribution stature and chest 
very heavy bombardment 59 
Figure III, 17 - Percentage distribution stature and torso 
total bombardment i^O Page 
Figure III* IS - Percentage distribution stature and torso 
total issue•••..••••••.. 1*1 
Figure III, 19 - Percentage distribution chest and sleeve 
heavy bombardment UP 
Figure III, 20 - Percentage distribution chest and sleeve 
total issue 1*5 
Figure III, 21 - Percentage distribution chest and sleeve 
very heavy bombardment 1*1* 
Figure III, 22 - Percentage distribution waist and inseam 
heavy bombardment................. 1*3 
Figure III, 23 - Percentage distribution waist and inseam 
total issue . 1*6 
Figure III, 2i* - Percentage distribution waist and inseam 
very heavy bombardment 1*7 
Figure III, 25 - Glove sir.e gauge 1*9 
Figure III, 26 - Glove size gauge, method of use, 50 
Figure III, 2? - Correlation chart, hand breadth and circumference..., 51 
Figure III, 2S - Percentage distribution shoe size 
fighter pilots 55 
Figure III, 29 - Percentage distribution shoe size 
heavy bombardment $6 
Figure III, 30 - Percentage distribution shoe size 
total issue. 57 
Figure III, 31 - Percentage distribution shoe size 
very heavy bombardment 5& 
Figure III, 5? - Percentage distribution chest and arm length 
VAS? 67 
Figure III, 35 - Percentage distribution chest and arm length 
Plying Nurses 66 
Figure III, 3h - Percentage distribution waist height and waist 
WASP 69 
Figure III, 55 - Percentage distribution waist height and waist 
Flying Nurses., 70 Page 
Figure III, 56 “ Percentage distribution hip circumference and 
waist height. WASP 71 
Figure III, 37 - Percentage distribution hip circumference and 
wa5st height. Flying Nurses 72 
Figure III, - Percentage distribution stature and waist 
total male issue., 77 
Chapter IV - Aircrew Positioning. 
Figure IV, 1 - Universal Test seat go 
Figure IV, 2 - German Air Force cockpit dimensions S6 
Figure IV, 5 - German Air Force standard cockpit S7 
Figure IV, 1* - AML 55 inch cockpit gg 
Figure IV, 5 - Seat contour, 55 inch cockpit g9 
Figure IV, 6 - AML 57 inch cockpit 92 
Figure IV, 7 - Seat contour, 57 inch cockpit 9$ 
Figure IV, S - AHL 59 inch cockpit .... 9^ 
Figure IV, 9 - Seat contour, 59 inch cockpit 95 
Figure IV, 10 - AML I4I inch cockpit 96 
Figure IV, 11 - Seat contour, Ip. inch cockpit 97 
Figure IV, 12 - AML 1*3 inch cockpit 99 
Figure IV, 15 - Seat contour, JLj.5 inch cockpit 100 
Figure IV, ll* - AML Wheel-type 57 inch cockpit,.,. 10l* 
Figure IV, 15 - Seat contour. Wheel-type 57 inch cockpit 105 
Figure IV, 16 - AML Wheel-type 59 inch cockpit 106 
Figure IV, 17 Seat contour, 7/heel-type 59 inch cockpit.,.,.,,. 107 
Figure IV, IS - AML Wheel-type 1*1 inch cockpit 10S Figure IV, 19 - Seat contour Y/heel-type 1*1 inch cockpit 109 
Page 
Figure IV, 20 - AML Wheel-type inch cockpit 110 
Figure IV, 21 - Seat contour Wheel-type U3 inch cockpit.. Ill 
Figure IV, 22 - AML Wheel type i;5 inch cockpit.. 112 
Figure IV, 23 - Seat contour V/heel-type U5 inch cockpit.. 113 
Figure IV, 2U - AML cockpits, dimensional requirements 115 
Figure IV, 25 - Dimensions, mock-up for center of gravity 117 
Figure IV, 26 - Method for determining center of gravity 118 
Figure IV, 2? - Frontal body areas for different ejection angles 121 
Figure IV, 28 - Body size requirements for ejection seats 122 
Figure IV, 29 - Body position for ejection at 105°. ... 125 
Figure IV, 50 - Frontal view of bocty- for ejection at 105° 121| 
Figure IV, 51 - Body position for ejection at 100° 125 
Figure IV, 32 - Frontal view of body for ejection at 100° 126 
Figure IV, 53 - Body position for ejection at 110°,,.., 12? 
Figure IV, 3h - Frontal view of body for ejection at 110° 128 
Figure IV, 35 - Body position for ejection at 120°,,,.,.., 129 
Figure IV, $6 - Frontal view of body for ejection at 120° 150 
Figure IV, 57 - Schematic drawing of prone position 152 
Figure IV, 5& - Visibility areas for various prone positions 155 
Figure IV, 39 - Normal foot motion in prone position 13U 
Figure IV, U0 - Waist windows, B-l? 15^ 
Figure IV, £4! - Staggered waist windows, B-17 139 
Figure IV, U2 - Staggered gun mounts, B-2i; 12*0 
Figure IV, U5 - Turret gunner with heavy winter clothing lU5 
Figure IV, UU - F-l electrically heated suit 1^6 Page 
Figure IV, l\5 - F-? electrically heated suit lij? 
Figure IV, Ij6 - Dimensions added by clothing to the nude man li*8 
Figure IV, Ltf - Dimensions of turret test subjects ll|9 
Figure IV, - Bendix upper turret 151 
Figure IV, h9 - Consolidated tail turret 15$ 
Figure IV, 50 - Range pedal, ball turret 155 
Figure IV, 51 - Range pedal, ball turret, external view.,.,, 156 
Figure IV, 52 - Charging handle, Sperry upper turret 157 
Figure IV, 5$ - Head cramping, Sperry upper turret.... 159 
Figure IV, 5i+ - Perspective view. Consolidated tail turret 161 
Figure IV, 55 - Visual field. Consolidated tail turret... 162 
Figure IV, 56 - Emerson tail turret, external view 16U 
Figure IV, 57 - Qnerson tail turret, internal view 165 
Figure IV, 58 - Bendix lower turret 181 
Figure IV, 59 - Top sighting station, B-29...... 182 
Figure IV, 60 - Side sighting station, 13-29 18U 
Figure IV, 61 - Hear pressure bulkhead, B-29. 185 
Figure IV, 6? - Method for removing injured tail gunner, B-29 186 
Figure IV, 6$ - l/$0th Scale AAF manikins 19i* 
Figure IV, 6U - Manikin dimensions 195 
Figure IV, 65 - Full scale AAF plastic manikins 196 
Figure IV, 66 - Three views, full scale AAF manikin 197 
Figure IV, 67 - Full scale plastic manikin seated 198 
Figure IV, 68 - Female manikin dimensions 199 
Figure IV, 69 - Full scale AAF female manikins 200 Chapter V - Aircraft Clearances. 
Page 
Figure V, 1 - Minimum dimensions of escape hatches 2Qli 
Figure V, 2 - Mock-up for determining catwalk dimensions 20? 
Chapter VII - Head and Eye Movement in Sighting. 
Figure VII, 1 - Arc of head and eye movement •••••••••.•••• 212 
Figure VII, 2 - Schematic drawing of optional eye positions 215 
Figure VII, 5 - Mechanism for planning gun-sights with eye movement.. 215 
Figure VII, h - Method for design of elliptical sighting panel 217 
Chapter VIII - Appendices. 
Figure VII1, 1, 1 - Anthropometric instruments 222 
Figure VIII, 2, 1 - Dimensions of the face, frontal view 22S 
Figure VIII, 2, 2 - Dimensions of the face, lateral view 229 
Figure VIII, 2, 5 - Data sheet for face measurements., 250 
Figure VIII, 5> 1 - Data sheet for body measurements 257 
Figure VIII, 5> 2 - Body measurement locations 25# 
Figure VIII, 5> 3 - Body measurement locations 259 
Figure VIII, 3* h ~ Body measurement locations.•••••••. 2i+0 
Figure VIII, 5> 5 - Body measurement locations. 2l|l 
533