RAF Styling

[Kronos]

There was a bit of a hubub a couple of years ago about Pulsar Chronos issued to the RAF and similar "civilian" chronos.

For example:

http://affordablemilwatches.blogspot...watch.html?m=1

I get that a Pulsar chrono seems to have been actually issued to the RAF and I get that there were civilian versions. When folks refer to "RAF styling" are they just making reference to this watch? Or is there something about the configuration of this chrono that recalls the history of other RAF watches?

[Seriously]

Your link needs fixing , there's an extra colonless HTTP snuck its way in

http://affordablemilwatches.blogspot...raf-watch.html

When folks refer to "RAF styling" are they just making reference to this watch?

Bandwagon?... and the jumping on thereof?

[OTGabe]

I always thought RAF styling was anything that resembled these: http://home.earthlink.net/~nederick/...oRevuVulcF.htm

[tribe125]

It's a loose term, and I haven't actually heard it used before.

Strictly speaking, 'RAF style' should apply to watches that meet Defence Standards. DEF-STAN 66-4 (Part 2) defined the requirements in the late 1960s and 1970s. These were the asymmetric two-register chronos made by CWC, Hamilton, Newmark, and Precista. CWC and the Eddie Platts version of Precista still make them -

http://www.cwcwatch.com/1970-chronograph-mechanical.htm

The Seiko and Pulsar models of the 1980s and 1990s met DEF-STAN 66-4 (Part 4)/Issue 4.

The Pulsars were bought because they were cheap, but they were unreliable and unpopular.

I used to have a copy of the DEF-STANs, but can't find it...

[Kronos]

Your link needs fixing , there's an extra colonless HTTP snuck its way in

http://affordablemilwatches.blogspot...raf-watch.html




Bandwagon?... and the jumping on thereof?

Thanks. Fixed now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kronos]

It's a loose term, and I haven't actually heard it used before.

Strictly speaking, 'RAF style' should apply to watches that meet Defence Standards. DEF-STAN 66-4 (Part 2) defined the requirements in the late 1960s and 1970s. These were the asymmetric two-register chronos made by CWC, Hamilton, Newmark, and Precista. CWC and the Eddie Platts version of Precista still make them -

http://www.cwcwatch.com/1970-chronograph-mechanical.htm

The Seiko and Pulsar models of the 1980s and 1990s met DEF-STAN 66-4 (Part 4)/Issue 4.

The Pulsars were bought because they were cheap, but they were unreliable and unpopular.

I used to have a copy of the DEF-STANs, but can't find it...

That is very helpful, thanks. Per the link (now fixed) I posted at the top of the thread and various other sources, it appears there were Pulsar Quartz chronos supplied to the RAF just a few years ago. I assume the earlier Pulsars you mentioned were pre-Seiko?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tribe125]

That's the same old Pulsar, I think. The MoD might have had some in stock until fairly recently. I think I'm right in saying (although I'm relying on memory) that they don't actually comply with DEF-STAN because the large hand is actually sweep seconds, relegating the chrono seconds to a small and difficult-to-read dial.

I had one for a while, bought on impulse. They were sold very cheaply by a discount store in the UK. As it happened, there was a branch of the store close to my office. I went out for a sandwich and came back with one.

Here it is, pictured against the summary of the forensic sections of the Mental Health Act that I was writing at the time.





Sometimes issued watches are cheap rather than good, and the Pulsar is a prime example. The Pulsar is a neat little watch but a poor chronograph. They may have got stuck on the quartermaster's shelves because the aircrew didn't want them...

The classic CWCs and Seikos were better watches, as was/is the Seiko SNDA57P1 that has also been purchased by the MoD. In fact, since the SNDA57P1 popped up in another recent thread, I've been sorely tempted to buy another one of those...

[Kronos]

That's the same old Pulsar, I think. The MoD might have had some in stock until fairly recently. I think I'm right in saying (although I'm relying on memory) that they don't actually comply with DEF-STAN because the large hand is actually sweep seconds, relegating the chrono seconds to a small and difficult-to-read dial.

I had one for a while, bought on impulse. They were sold very cheaply by a discount store in the UK. As it happened, there was a branch of the store close to my office. I went out for a sandwich and came back with one.

Here it is, pictured against the summary of the forensic sections of the Mental Health Act that I was writing at the time.





Sometimes issued watches are cheap rather than good, and the Pulsar is a prime example. The Pulsar is a neat little watch but a poor chronograph. They may have got stuck on the quartermaster's shelves because the aircrew didn't want them...

The classic CWCs and Seikos were better watches, as was/is the Seiko SNDA57P1 that has also been purchased by the MoD. In fact, since the SNDA57P1 popped up in another recent thread, I've been sorely tempted to buy another one of those...

Any sense of the objections likely raised? Was it the relegation of the chrono seconds to the subdial? The length of the of the chrono?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tribe125]

Any sense of the objections likely raised? Was it the relegation of the chrono seconds to the subdial? The length of the of the chrono?

Poor quality plus the odd chrono sub-dial, I think. I know that the hands had a tendency to fall off one issued Pulsar, but I can't now remember if it was this one.

I used to know all this stuff...