[ARC5] [Milsurplus] ARC-5 Receiver Question

[J. Forster]

I'm not so sure about your theory. ARC-5 were not really designed for
local operation, but were designed to operate remotely, hence the control
boxes and spline cables. Could someone flying the plane even see the sets?

-John

===========

> On 18 Feb 2010 at 10:35, Mike Morrow wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not a subscriber to the protective paint theory, at least
>> as it applies to the aluminum which comprised most of the
>> structure of almost all aircraft radio sets (connectors often
>> being a notable exception).
>
> I don't either, nor do I believe the paint was applied to make them look
> pretty.
>
> If I had to guess, (which I am doing now!) I would suggest that they were
> painted for useability reasons, that being that the black wrinkle paint is
> non-
> reflective, mostly, and the white-on-black lettering is easy on the eyes
> in a
> darkened aircraft.
>
> So, why were some plain aluminum? If I had to guess (again!) I would
> suggest that some were left unpainted so that the contract could be filled
> in a
> more timely manner. A "G.I. Joe needs his radios, and if we can convice
> the
> govmint to take 'em without paint, we can get them out a week earlier, AND
> we make an extra half a buck on each one" sorta thing.
>
> All pure conjecture, I know NOTHING about this, just trying to work
> through a
> "what would I do if..." scenario.
>
> Marvin
> KA7TPH
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>