[ARC5] Black radios

[Mike Hanz]

douglas10driver at aol.com wrote:
> I am an absolute neophyte when comes to your radios but I've found the "black wrinkle" vs "unpainted" finish discussions interesting. The one possibilty no one seems to have adavanced is the the situation where on some Navy Fighters the radios were exposed to the sunlight under the rear canopies on shelves. Might the absorption of too much heat on a black surface have entered into the equation?
>   

There have always been contract specifications describing the 
temperature ranges required for operation as far back as I have 
documents for, Grant - though I think you would have to change the focus 
from Navy to Army fighters, since that's where the majority of bare 
aluminum equipment was installed.  If it were a significant factor, it 
would seem that the Navy would have followed the USAAF lead, but they 
didn't.  Intent is always more difficult to prove since contract 
documents rarely tell the story behind the bare specification, but there 
are some clues in *operational* records that may have a bearing on all 
this conjecture, at least for the Navy practice.  For example, the Navy 
Airborne Radio Maintenance Notes dated November 1945 specifically 
mentions that *corrosion* "has been a problem in airplanes such as the 
F4U and SC-1, in which the radio gear is so placed that spray and rain 
can gain access to the radio installation and the connecting cables."  
The requirement for so many stainless steel parts in Navy aircraft 
radios and avionics is legion when compared with USAAF equipment on 
which I have documentation, and I'm not so sure the Navy did it for 
looks, given that stainless was a strategic material and drove the cost 
up as well.  I have no doubt that there was also an element of 
non-reflective surface concern, and simple appearance over time that 
drove black wrinkle (the Navy obsession for painting anything that 
doesn't move to keep everything "shipshape" comes to mind), so it was 
probably a confluence of factors. However, that may not be enough to 
sway some folks' beliefs, so your question and its implications are as 
good as any.  After all, faith is assurance of things hoped for, a 
conviction of things not seen... :-)

73,
Mike  KC4TOS