Brewster B-239 Buffalo Manuals

[Elvis]

It's always been my understanding that "B239" is Brewster's ID for the airplane the US Navy accepted and called the F2A-1.
This is why the planes that went to Finland are referred to by the Brewster factory model number. Because they were no longer US Naval aircraft, thus they were no longer "F2A-1".
The planes that had been already delivered were modified from their US Navy spec's to the export spec's. The rest of the planes were either also moded to export specs, or spec'd and delivered as such.

 

[jimmaas]

It's always been my understanding that "B239" is Brewster's ID for the airplane the US Navy accepted as the F2A-1.
This is why the planes that went to Finland are referred to by the Brewster factory model number. Because they were no longer US Naval aircraft, thus they were no longer "F2A-1".
The planes that had been already delivered were modified from their US Navy spec's to the export spec's. The rest of the planes were either also moded to export specs, or spec'd and delivered as such.

It's a little more complicated. The prototype Buffalo was not the 139, and the Navy F2A's never carried the 239, 339 or 339-23 type designations. In every Brewster document I have, the Navy types are only identified by their Navy designations like XF2A-1 etc.

The x39 type Export Model Numbers only are used for export models and may have been assigned by Brewster Export, a company set up separately from Brewster Aeronautical Corp. While Brewster Aeronautical used the Export Model Numbers, no Brewster document explaining this Export Model Number system appears to have survived, so we can only infer its structure from the way it was used.

Apparently, the Export Model Number consisted of the last two numbers of the year, with a prefix number that identified the specific product being offered for sale (NOT when the Navy equivalent first flew). For example, Brewster had built a two-seat scout-bomber for the Navy, the XSBA-1. The Navy allowed Brewster to solicit export orders for this aircraft in 1938 (even though the XSBA-1 had been flying since 1936). The Export Model Number used by the sales force was Brewster Model 138, the first type offered for sale during 1938 (read '1-38'). A revised design of the two-seater, now described as a scout fighter, was first offered in 1939, as the Model 139. Neither model was ever built.

Brewster sought export orders for an F2A-1 equivalent, the Export Model 239 (second export Model offered in 1939) and it was under this designation that 44 were sold to Finland. The next 1939 Export Model Number, 339, was used to identify export versions of the re-engined Navy fighter, the F2A-2, even though only the XF2A-2 had flown at that point.

As we all know, the 339 quickly grew suffix letters which many (me included) once assumed related to the country involved - B for Belgium, D for Dutch, E for England. However, the suffix letters were simply in series, since some of the Dutch aircraft were specifically identified as 339Cs. The missing 339A designation was the initial offering to Belgium; a Brewster document indicates changes incorporated to the 339A, resulting in the 339B configuration, which "supersedes [sic] Model 339A of 12-11-39". The one outlier is the last Export Model Number, the 339-23, built for the Dutch as a lower powered (read cheaper engine!) fighter trainer, but which ended up serving in Australia with the RAAF. As you can see from the listing of Type Numbers in my previous post, this was Type 23. The change in the way it was identified may have coincided with the U.S. directing companies to use 'block numbers' to identify subtypes. No Brewster document I've seen mentions a Model 439 (which many older sources used to describe the 339-23).

I haven't found any description of a Export Model 140, though there must have been one. There is a spec sheet for a proposed Export Model 240, a dive bomber version of the Buffalo with a rear gunner. Although the fuselage was stretched to the length of the F2A-3, that would still have been a tight fit. The 240 was evidently offered to France and Turkey but never built. No drawings are known. The 340, of course, was the export version of the SB2A, for the British and Netherlands East Indies.

 

[Elvis]

No, its not more complicated.
If "239" is "Second Export model of 1939", what was the first?
The B239 is not noted as such, under Naval service, because the Navy would've only used their own classification for it, which was F2A-(number).
The reason the export planes didn't use that ID, was because those planes never served in the US Navy.
With "F2A-1" now being an obsolete designation, the ID for the plane goes back to Brewster's factory ID for that plane, "B239". Brewster, Second Variation, Model of 1939.
The reason you have no record of a 139 is because it never made it past the design stage.

 

[buffnut453]

No, its not more complicated.
If "239" is "Second Export model of 1939", what was the first?
The B239 is not noted as such, under Naval service, because the Navy would've only used their own classification for it, which was F2A-(number).
The reason the export planes didn't use that ID, was because those planes never served in the US Navy.
With "F2A-1" now being an obsolete designation, the ID for the plane goes back to Brewster's factory ID for that plane, "B239". Brewster, Second Variation, Model of 1939.
The reason you have no record of a 139 is because it never made it past the design stage.

Wow...have you dug into the Brewster archives to the extent that Jim has? If not, I suggest you moderate your attitude a bit, mate. He's spent decades ploughing through this stuff, trying to make sense of contradictory and fragmentary evidence. If Jim says "it's more complicated" then that's good enough for me.

Per your statement "The reason you have no record of a 139 is because it never made it past the design stage." Jim stated that he had information about the Model 139, that it was a 2-seat scout fighter, and he notes that it didn't get beyond the design stage. What he couldn't find was any evidence for a Model 140 and, yes, it's probable that it was another failed paper design....but the complete lack of any record for it is surprising. I'd expect there to be something identifying what it was and for whom it was intended.

Again, Jim's been through the archives. He knows this stuff cold. He's also very particular about noting where doubts or gaps remain, and acknowledging where he'd made false assumptions in the past.

 

[Elvis]

No attitude. I just know about this story, too.
Sorry if you disagree. You are free to do so, however.