Brewster B-239 Buffalo Manuals (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Make sure (if possible) to list the fuel some of the engines used.

Listing the rpm of the engines is a very good clue.

The "G" engines were rated a 2200rpm for take-off and 2100rpm for max continuous.
Take-off power, even at the same RPM varied from 700hp to 1000hp. The lower power figures may have been from rarely used versions using high supercharger gears or engines that were tested and cataloged but never sold.
The Military "G" engines varied from 875hp (3 engines?) to 1000hp for take-off and none of them used the high supercharger gears that the low powered "civilian" models did.

The G100s ran at 2350rpm for take off (with very few exceptions) and 2200-2300rpm for max continuous. The were rated on 90 octane (rarely) 91 octane, 95 octane and 100 octane fuel.
Just about all were rated as 1100hp for take-off.

The G-200s ran at 2500rpm for take-off at 1200hp with a single exception. they built 462 (?) down rated G-200 engines to use in the last version of the Grumman J2F-6 Duck.
The older engines (the G and G 100 ) may have been out of production at the time.

A lot of times the engines can be identified as to series just by the RPM and/or the power or at least come close unless you are dealing with the odd-balls.

The CW-21 engines were "rated" at 1000hp for take-off and 850hp max continuous in just about all articles about it. Many articles only list one power or the other but it was the same engine. Again, there was no "Military" rating for the version of the engine they used.
Basically it was the same engine that the early Buffaloes/239 used. The Difference between 950 and 1000hp may due to different fuel and/or different carb or????
 
I need to check sources but I think it was a Wright Cyclone Model R1820-22 which generated 950hp as opposed to the -34 used in production F2A-1 airframes which only gave 940. Seems odd that a prototype would have more power than a production variant but, hey, it's Brewster so anything could happen! :)
-22 rings a familiar bell.
Thanks.
Why would the "X" engine make more HP than the production engine?
Maybe they were trying to "hot rod" the plane a little, to make a better impression on the brass?
Remember, its 1938. Most of the generals they're trying to impress probably started their careers on sailing ships, so they likely still have certain reservations about implementing these "new fangled flying machines" into their fleet of war ships, even though aircraft carriers had already been a part of the fleet for about 16 years at that point.
They're still an "unproven commodity" at that point. It would be the upcoming war that would really showcase their value.
 
Make sure (if possible) to list the fuel some of the engines used.

Listing the rpm of the engines is a very good clue.

The "G" engines were rated a 2200rpm for take-off and 2100rpm for max continuous.
Take-off power, even at the same RPM varied from 700hp to 1000hp. The lower power figures may have been from rarely used versions using high supercharger gears or engines that were tested and cataloged but never sold.
The Military "G" engines varied from 875hp (3 engines?) to 1000hp for take-off and none of them used the high supercharger gears that the low powered "civilian" models did.

The G100s ran at 2350rpm for take off (with very few exceptions) and 2200-2300rpm for max continuous. The were rated on 90 octane (rarely) 91 octane, 95 octane and 100 octane fuel.
Just about all were rated as 1100hp for take-off.

The G-200s ran at 2500rpm for take-off at 1200hp with a single exception. they built 462 (?) down rated G-200 engines to use in the last version of the Grumman J2F-6 Duck.
The older engines (the G and G 100 ) may have been out of production at the time.

A lot of times the engines can be identified as to series just by the RPM and/or the power or at least come close unless you are dealing with the odd-balls.

The CW-21 engines were "rated" at 1000hp for take-off and 850hp max continuous in just about all articles about it. Many articles only list one power or the other but it was the same engine. Again, there was no "Military" rating for the version of the engine they used.
Basically it was the same engine that the early Buffaloes/239 used. The Difference between 950 and 1000hp may due to different fuel and/or different carb or????
I once read that the "G" in the G engine designation meant it was a geared.
Anyone know if that's true?
 
Bottom line - the Finns did not get F2A-1s, their model 239s had many differences than the F2A-1 to include the engine (if the details can ever be accurately be sorted out). As much as I would like to see an F2A of any version restored, I think it's terribly wrong to have BW-372 identified as an "F2A-1" and displayed as an American asset at Pensacola. The aircraft belongs in Finland and I hope it stays there forever!
I must've missed that part of the conversation, but as far as I can remember, the Finn's did get the F2A1's.
It was the crafty sales staff at Brewster that convinced the Navy to supplant the F2A1's, who's order hadn't even been completely filled yet, with the new and exciting F2A2, pretty much sight unseen.
When faced with what to do with the now "obsolete" F2A1's, it was Brewster who was notified about the Finn's wanting updated fighter planes and they informed the Navy, who put things into motion.
I think there were only like 36 planes completed and delivered at that time and the remaining 8 or so "planes" (pieces yet to be assembled was more like it) were boxed up at the factory and sent off as part of the order.
There were changes made to the planes before they were shipped out, like the radio (maybe that was just the antenna), the gun sight and the engine (among other things), but it was those planes.
Because they were struck from the registry, they couldn't be identified as "F2A1" anymore, so they went back to the factory designation of B239.
That's how I've always understood the story.
 
I must've missed that part of the conversation, but as far as I can remember, the Finn's did get the F2A1's.
It was the crafty sales staff at Brewster that convinced the Navy to supplant the F2A1's, who's order hadn't even been completely filled yet, with the new and exciting F2A2, pretty much sight unseen.
When faced with what to do with the now "obsolete" F2A1's, it was Brewster who was notified about the Finn's wanting updated fighter planes and they informed the Navy, who put things into motion.
I think there were only like 36 planes completed and delivered at that time and the remaining 8 or so "planes" (pieces yet to be assembled was more like it) were boxed up at the factory and sent off as part of the order.
There were changes made to the planes before they were shipped out, like the radio (maybe that was just the antenna), the gun sight and the engine (among other things), but it was those planes.
Because they were struck from the registry, they couldn't be identified as "F2A1" anymore, so they went back to the factory designation of B239.
That's how I've always understood the story.
11 F2A-1s were delivered to the US Navy. 43 Brewster 239s went to Finland IIRC
 
-22 rings a familiar bell.
Thanks.
Why would the "X" engine make more HP than the production engine?
Maybe they were trying to "hot rod" the plane a little, to make a better impression on the brass?
Remember, its 1938. Most of the generals they're trying to impress probably started their careers on sailing ships, so they likely still have certain reservations about implementing these "new fangled flying machines" into their fleet of war ships, even though aircraft carriers had already been a part of the fleet for about 16 years at that point.
They're still an "unproven commodity" at that point. It would be the upcoming war that would really showcase their value.

Aircraft may have been unproven in the USN in 1938 but not elsewhere. Virtually every doctrinal category of air combat operation had already been developed an implemented by 1918: defensive counter air, offensive counter air, escort, close air support, ground attack, reconnaissance, intel collection, strategic bombing.

Most of the generals of the 1930s had combat experience from the Great War…at least, that was the case in the UK. I think the utility of air power was well established by 1938…but the impact of strategic bombing was overstated until the advent of nuclear weapons.

I suspect the difference in engine is down to something more mundane. Perhaps Brewster managed to acquire a slightly better performing version of the Cyclone because they were buying a one-off for the prototype, whereas the USN was tied to contracts for the 940hp power plant.
 
Aircraft may have been unproven in the USN in 1938 but not elsewhere. Virtually every doctrinal category of air combat operation had already been developed an implemented by 1918: defensive counter air, offensive counter air, escort, close air support, ground attack, reconnaissance, intel collection, strategic bombing.

Most of the generals of the 1930s had combat experience from the Great War…at least, that was the case in the UK. I think the utility of air power was well established by 1938…but the impact of strategic bombing was overstated until the advent of nuclear weapons.

I suspect the difference in engine is down to something more mundane. Perhaps Brewster managed to acquire a slightly better performing version of the Cyclone because they were buying a one-off for the prototype, whereas the USN was tied to contracts for the 940hp power plant.
Well every increasing sub number of a model is an upgrade to the engine, so the -34 would've been "better" than the -22, despite the slightly lower power rating.
It could be, also, that at 950HP, Wright may have been biting off a bit more than it could chew, so to speak, by trying to increase power at the sacrifice of reliability.
The -34 could've been (and probably was) a change for better reliability and the power could've been pulled back because they learned from earlier models.
Lots of head development in those days, especially concerning efficiency of cooling.
As for the state of air warfare in those days, I get what you're saying and you're not wrong, but The Great War had a greater impact with our cousins over in Europe than it did here in the United States.
Sure, we were aware of what was going on and it effected us, too, but not nearly to the degree it would've to someone who had it going on, literally, in their back yard and for 3 years more than we experienced it (remember, the US didn't get involved until almost the end, 1917).
Look at the P-26, America's "front line fighter", in the early-mid 1930's. Boeing wanted to build it with a one-piece wing and retractable landing gear, but the Army brass didn't have faith in these "fancy new appointments" and relegated the pea shooter to fixed landing gear and a two-piece wing with wire bracing.
...in 1933!
Look at Billy Mitchell, who had to prove to the Army and Navy brass that airplanes were a viable weapon against battle ships, when he demonstrated the effect of aerial bombing on ships at sea, after seeing that most of the money going towards building new war ships was being spent on Battleships, as opposed to Aircraft Carriers.
...in 1921!
So here in the states, it was more of an uphill battle to sell aerial warfare than it sounds like it would've been in Europe, thus my remarks.
 
11 F2A-1s were delivered to the US Navy. 43 Brewster 239s went to Finland IIRC
Thanks Flyboy.
It's been almost 15 years since I lost that issue of the magazine I mentioned earlier and I'm doing this all from memory, so some of the numbers have ebbed away over time.
...I should probably look into getting that issue back, for the next time we have this conversation.
 
R-1820G5/Model 286T______________1000@2200 TO ___850@2100 SL______geared, 2-speed_____87 grade____ 1210 lbs
R-1830G5/R-1820-34/Model N548A __ 950@2200 TO ___850@2100 SL_______ direct, 2-speed____ 92 grade_____1105 lbs
R-1830G71/R1820-53/Model 496A___1000@2200 TO ___850@2100 SL______ geared, 2-speed___ 100 grade_____1210 lbs
C9CC1/R-1830-71/Model 702_______ 1200@2500 TO__ 1000@2300 SL______ geared, 1-speed____ 91/96 grade__1305 lbs

🤔 I am officially confused
 
I once read that the "G" in the G engine designation meant it was a geared.
Anyone know if that's true?
yes and no. :)

It was true at certain points in Wrights history, It wasn't true at other points.

the Cyclone started as the R-1750 in 1927 and was made in geared and direct drive versions.
The R-1820E started shipping in July of 1930 and also came geared and direct drive and was followed by the R-1820F and the R-1820F-50 series (note the potential for confusion here)


However the G would come first, Like GR-1820E-2 or GR-1820-11.

They actually kept the GR all through the G-200 series so the correct designation might be GR-1820G205B for one engine.

Now in this case the first G stands for gear drive propeller, the R stands for radial the 1820 shows the size, the 2nd G combines with the 20 to show it is a G200 engine, the 5 tells you that is a two speed supercharger (a G202 would be a single speed supercharger with a certain gear ratio) and in our case the B at end tells you the engine was rated on 87 octane fuel. If it had been a GR-1820G202A for instance it would have had a single speed supercharger and have been rated on 100 octane fuel.

However many writers skip the first G, especially on the later engines where the direct drive versions disappeared and the letter at the end also tended to get left off.
 
yes and no. :)

It was true at certain points in Wrights history, It wasn't true at other points.

the Cyclone started as the R-1750 in 1927 and was made in geared and direct drive versions.
The R-1820E started shipping in July of 1930 and also came geared and direct drive and was followed by the R-1820F and the R-1820F-50 series (note the potential for confusion here)


However the G would come first, Like GR-1820E-2 or GR-1820-11.

They actually kept the GR all through the G-200 series so the correct designation might be GR-1820G205B for one engine.

Now in this case the first G stands for gear drive propeller, the R stands for radial the 1820 shows the size, the 2nd G combines with the 20 to show it is a G200 engine, the 5 tells you that is a two speed supercharger (a G202 would be a single speed supercharger with a certain gear ratio) and in our case the B at end tells you the engine was rated on 87 octane fuel. If it had been a GR-1820G202A for instance it would have had a single speed supercharger and have been rated on 100 octane fuel.

However many writers skip the first G, especially on the later engines where the direct drive versions disappeared and the letter at the end also tended to get left off.
Ok, so its the "G" at the beginning.
Thanks. :thumbright:
 
Well every increasing sub number of a model is an upgrade to the engine, so the -34 would've been "better" than the -22, despite the slightly lower power rating.
It could be, also, that at 950HP, Wright may have been biting off a bit more than it could chew, so to speak, by trying to increase power at the sacrifice of reliability.
The -34 could've been (and probably was) a change for better reliability and the power could've been pulled back because they learned from earlier models.
Lots of head development in those days, especially concerning efficiency of cooling.
As for the state of air warfare in those days, I get what you're saying and you're not wrong, but The Great War had a greater impact with our cousins over in Europe than it did here in the United States.
Sure, we were aware of what was going on and it effected us, too, but not nearly to the degree it would've to someone who had it going on, literally, in their back yard and for 3 years more than we experienced it (remember, the US didn't get involved until almost the end, 1917).
Look at the P-26, America's "front line fighter", in the early-mid 1930's. Boeing wanted to build it with a one-piece wing and retractable landing gear, but the Army brass didn't have faith in these "fancy new appointments" and relegated the pea shooter to fixed landing gear and a two-piece wing with wire bracing.
...in 1933!
Look at Billy Mitchell, who had to prove to the Army and Navy brass that airplanes were a viable weapon against battle ships, when he demonstrated the effect of aerial bombing on ships at sea, after seeing that most of the money going towards building new war ships was being spent on Battleships, as opposed to Aircraft Carriers.
...in 1921!
So here in the states, it was more of an uphill battle to sell aerial warfare than it sounds like it would've been in Europe, thus my remarks.

I guess that's the difference between the UK having an independent air force in April 1918 vs the US which didn't get an independent air force until 1947.

When US defence budgets were tight in the 1920s and 1930s, the cavalry, artillery, tank, and infantry generals all wanted more of what they knew and understood, while the admirals all wanted battleships. It's tough to compete with another service. Having to compete within your service for funding adds a whole new level of complexity, particularly if the thing you do isn't considered by most other generals to be a mainstream task of the service.
 
However the G would come first, Like GR-1820E-2 or GR-1820-11.

However many writers skip the first G, especially on the later engines where the direct drive versions disappeared and the letter at the end also tended to get left off.
For the military models, there is no 'G' prefix even if it is geared. i.e. R-1820-11, not GR-1820-11.

If the civil F or G series ends in '2', it has a single speed supercharger and the blower ratio is 7:1.
If the civil F or G series ends in '3' it is single speed and supercharger and blower ratio is 8.3:1 (I have also seen 8.31:1 and 8.34:1)
If the civil F or G series ends in '5' it has a two speed and supercharger and blower ratios are 7.14:1 and 10.0:1

I'm slowly getting a spreadsheet together, which will have all the civil models. Hopefully all the obscure details will fall out.
 
I totally agree. I am trying to figure out which 1820 model would have been in use in the DC-2 early 1935, so I can compare the performance graphs against the Bristol Pegasus VI (which was the III.M2) in the DC-2B. Seems it would have been one of either GR-1820-F1, SGR-1820-F2 or SGR-1820-F3. There was also F2A and F3A, which was the F2 or F3 with the F50 style cylinder.
I am slowly putting together a sheet with the different F series models and I am starting to see a pattern in model numbers and design parameters.
If I ever finish the F series, I may tread very gently into the G series - if I don't go mad in the process...
I will stay away from the military models - that is just asking for trouble.
From Janes
1651957433167.png
 
For the military models, there is no 'G' prefix even if it is geared. i.e. R-1820-11, not GR-1820-11.

If the civil F or G series ends in '2', it has a single speed supercharger and the blower ratio is 7:1.
If the civil F or G series ends in '3' it is single speed and supercharger and blower ratio is 8.3:1 (I have also seen 8.31:1 and 8.34:1)
If the civil F or G series ends in '5' it has a two speed and supercharger and blower ratios are 7.14:1 and 10.0:1

I'm slowly getting a spreadsheet together, which will have all the civil models. Hopefully all the obscure details will fall out.
I am just going by

 
The SGR-1820F-52 first received its type certificate on 15 May 1935. The DC-2 first flight was 11 May 1934, and according to wiki, it entered service with TWA on May 18, 1934. Douglas must have been rather confident that all was well! The F-50 series appear to differ only in the cylinders, as the FAA type certificates have -F2A and -F3A engines with the same ratings as the F-52 and F-53 respectively with a note that they use the F-50 cylinder.

I also found that the Douglas DST was certified with the GR-1820G-5 on 21 May 1936 on TC 607. (Per Air Commerce Bulletin June 15, 1936 Vol 7, No. 12)

I am finding that the type certificates and that C-WSpec's document list the model number in two formats.
Civil (and foreign military prior to ~1940) use [S ][G]R-1820[E/F/G]-[X][Y][Z][MOD] where the XYZ determine the series (F, F-50, G-100, G-200) and the mod identifies an oddball.
Military use R-1820-[number]
Some FAA type certificates allow military models to be used as-is or with nominated modifications to be used as an equivalent civil model engine.
The R-1750 was the first of the Cyclone 9s. It came in models R-1750, R-1750A, R-1750B, R-1750C, R-1750CE, R-1750D and R-1750E.
 
My reaction is the same as Mark's.....the Brewster 239 was the export designation for the F2A-1 equivalent, as offered by the Brewster Export Co., a separate entity form the Brewster Aeronautical Corp. (and run by some fun guys named Miranda!). The actual Brewster factory model numbers were (Buffaloish variants shown in bold type):
1 XSBA-1 Scout Bomber
2 XSBA-2 Scout Bomber [never built]
3 XF2A-1 Navy Fighter
4 XT3D-2 Douglas Torpedo [subcontract work?]
5 F2A-1 Navy Fighter
6 XF2A-2 Navy Fighter

7 XSB2A-1 Scout Bomber
8 XNR-1 Target Plane
9 Fleet B-1 Fleet Trainer
10 339-10 Belgian Fighter
11 239-11 Finnish Fighter
12 F2A-2 Navy Fighter
13 339-13 English Fighter (339E)

14 340-14 English Dive Bomber
15 no entry this line
16 339-16 Dutch Fighter (339D)
17 340-17 Dutch Dive Bomber
18 339-18 Dutch Fighter (339C)
19 no entry this line
20 SB2A-1 Navy Dive Bomber
21 339-21 English Fighter
22 F2A-3 Navy Fighter
23 339-23 Dutch Fighter

24 RESERVED FOR NEW DESIGN
25 XA-32 Army Bomber
Oddly, no Brewster model number for the proposed Turner racer.

Most of the Model 239's were in fact hastily modified F2A-1's, as evidenced by the fact that, while painted in overall aluminum lacquer before being boxed and sent to Sweden, and then camouflaged upon the outbreak of the Continuation War, weathering on the upper surface of the wings eventually revealed Orange Yellow paint, as prescribed for the F2A-1. The modifications were as noted above plus relocation of the compass from top center of the control panel to a 'doghouse' on the upper right. I've got some papers that seem to suggest Brewster expected to make 66 Type 11/239's, but the end of the Winter War cut production to the 43 ex-F2A-1's plus one more for a total of 44.

As far as engines, here are the types as posted to the Brewster spec sheets (usually accurate except where performance claims are made)
Characteristics Characteristics

Type>XF2A-1F2A-1239 FinnishXF2A-2F2A-2339B Belgian339C Dutch339D Dutch339E BritishF2A-3339-23 Dutch
EngineWAC 1820-G-22WAC 1820-34WAC 1820-G-5WAC 1820-40WAC 1820-40WAC 1820-G105WAC 1820-G105WAC 1820-205WAC 1820-105WAC 1820-40WAC 1820-G5E
Hope this helps...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back