Deucedly clever Nick :->.  Great catalog, that!  Thank you.

 

So … my assuming that the mechanism of a “Twist-Lock” related to that of the earlier “Twist-Tite” was wrong.  And my assumption that the mechanism of the “Twist-Tite” was polarized was also wrong.  And it’s assuredly the case that the term “cap” being synonymous with the term “plug” in this usage was unknown to me.  Three strikes?

 

Findings:

 

  1. Both polarized and non-polarized two-blade plugs can be fit into the receptacle, in either direction and equally easily.  I had to search for a while to find a polarized two-blade plug until I realized that my Ryobi drill had one (which surprised me then, and still does now … IMO it should be three-blade/prong).

 

  1. The correct insertion is fully CCW (oriented 215-135 degrees in the photo).  Assuming that the plug has a rectangular body then the long axis aligns with the dog-leg.

 

  1. Twisting the plug CW ~45 degrees results in a satisfying click; the orientation is then 0-180 degrees in the photo.

 

  1. After the click the plug basically can’t be removed with reasonable force, apparently due to a tight friction-grip.  I didn’t try to force it, but the pull that I did try definitely was well beyond what might be caused by a hanging cord, including a trip over said cord.  Expect to smack the floor with a body-part and/or move the equipment position.  “Tite” it is.  (OT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atBVm7IYHas)

 

  1. I find the instructions (see photo) on the identification-plate inscrutable.  IMO a left-pointing arrow doesn’t mean CW without an implicit understanding that because the arrow is _below_ the receptable therefore the _lower_ margin/edge/circumference of the plug/cap should “move leftwards” to lock the plug into place.  Is this typical “plate jargon” in the military?  “CW” is to … short?  Cryptic?  Circumferentially-oriented arrow wouldn’t fit on the plate?  Something like the following:

 

 

Anyway, I guess that the corresponding plugs/caps from that era (see attached catalog excerpt) would be the #9754, #9756, #7057, or #7184 (all parallel, non-polarized), or the #9755, #9757, #7059, or #7185 (all parallel, polarized).  Does anyone have any plugs/caps like these “going spare”?

 

From: Nick England <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2022 10:22 AM
To: Paul Birkel <[email protected]>
Cc: Greenkeys <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [GreenKeys] Hubbell Twist-Lock Help (evidently "Twist-Tite")

 

I found a 1949 electrical supply catalog with the 9213 "Twist-Tite" receptacle.

https://archive.org/details/MadisonElectricCo/page/n175/mode/2up?q=%22twist+tite%22

 

The catalog included several other styles of Twist-Tite receptacles (pages 174-175) but NO PLUGS. It says that these take standard parallel blade plugs/caps and provide greater retention. Weird - have you tried a standard parallel-blade plug?

Photos from the catalog are attached -

Nick England K4NYW
www.navy-radio.com

 

On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 5:09 AM <[email protected]> wrote:

I have an RA-87 loop supply that I’d like to resurrect but am having difficulty with the DC loop power connectors.  They are Hubbell “Twist-Tite” female receptacles as seen in the attached photo.  The diameter across the outer edge of the prongs is exactly 5/8”.  I’m not a “Hubbell guy” … but I’m trying to learn!

 

TT 11-957 documents the RA-87 (see: https://archive.org/download/TM11-957/TM11-957.pdf), where Section V “Supplementary Data” references Stock No. 6Z7815, described as “Hubbell #9213 Twist-Tite”.

 

<snip>