R-1830 engine identification

[emate]

Dear forum members,

I need your help about two Pratt & Whitney radial engines, an R-1830-92, and an R-1830-90D engine, I have acquired recently.

The -92 engine was produced by the Australian Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, the -90D missing its manufacturer's plate. I would be happy for some help identifying both engines, when they were made and what type of aircraft they were used in.

A picture of the CAC -92 dataplate, and the serials I found on the -90D are attached.

On the -90D I found the following markings:

SAD 4.4.44.

1830 90D 42 61268


Thank you for help in advance

 

[cvairwerks]

Both series were fitted to the DC-3, Grumman Wildcat and the B-24. The 90D was also used on the Shorts Sunderland

 

[bauple58]

CAC Boomerang and DAP Beaufort

 

[SaparotRob]

That's way cooler than any of my recent acquisitions.

 

[MiTasol]

The CAC -92 was definitely one of the options for the Beaufort and Boomerang tho they usually had the S1C3G data plates because they were not built for the USAAF. Both used the

.

Given the two engines are the same yours may be for a USAAF or RAAF C-47 or other aircraft that used that submodel. If the serial starts with a two digit year followed by a space or dash that would strongly suggest the particular engine was built under a USAAF contract - which was done.

USAAF aircraft that used those two models are below. Your 90D has a USAAF serial number (42 61268) that shows it was built under a 1942 fiscal year contract. I do not have a USN equivalent list. My memory is that the PBY-5 series had a -92 and the Sunderland a -90B but I may be wrong.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

See the files at Pratt & Whitney

 

[emate]

The CAC -92 was definitely one of the options for the Beaufort and Boomerang tho they usually had the S1C3G data plates because they were not built for the USAAF. Both used the View attachment 816867.

Given the two engines are the same yours may be for a USAAF or RAAF C-47 or other aircraft that used that submodel. If the serial starts with a two digit year followed by a space or dash that would strongly suggest the particular engine was built under a USAAF contract - which was done.

USAAF aircraft that used those two models are below. Your 90D has a USAAF serial number (42 61268) that shows it was built under a 1942 fiscal year contract. I do not have a USN equivalent list. My memory is that the PBY-5 series had a -92 and the Sunderland a -90B but I may be wrong.

View attachment 816868

Thank you for your reply.

I'm not sure if the -90D was used by the RAAF, both engines were found in europe.

I found more markings on the CAC -92, maybe these could help with the identification:

Furthermore, I attached some pictures of the two engines in full view. The CAC -92 has Woodward governor, and a unique exhaust system. Its exit consists of 8 pipes on the left of the engine, if it could help with identification of the aircraft.

 

[MiTasol]

Thank you for your reply.

I'm not sure if the -90D was used by the RAAF, both engines were found in europe.

I found more markings on the CAC -92, maybe these could help with the identification:View attachment 816906View attachment 816905

Furthermore, I attached some pictures of the two engines in full view. The CAC -92 has Woodward governor, and a unique exhaust system. Its exit consists of 8 pipes on the left of the engine, if it could help with identification of the aircraft.

Many thanks for the additional info. Because one engine was CAC I made the mistaken assumption both were in Aus.

I am trying to think of a twin with R-1830 that would have such an exhaust but I am limited by those that I worked on. I cannot think of a 4 engined aircraft that used those engines.

From that I can rule out the USAAF and USN DC-3 derivatives which included not just C-47 but also a number of other USAAF aircraft in the C-33 to C-53 and C-1nn designations as it is unlikely that they had a different exhaust system to the Pratt powered DC-3/C-47. If it aint broke why change it.

Same with the Pratt powered Lockheed 18 variants - Hudson, Lodestar. Again all the Lockheed aircraft, and the British Beaufort II (and Aus Beauforts V to IX) which used a large number of Hudson parts in their power plants, had a common exhaust system with a single outlet. Again, if it aint broke why change it. Post war conversions of those aircraft may have had a different exhaust as part of improving the aircraft performance but I know nothing of them.

Catalina and Sunderland had overhead exhausts so that rules them out.

From memory the Douglas DB-7 aircraft sold to France pre war had R-1830 but again, being export engines, they should have had civil designation plates.

That said, post war there were many surplus engines that were sold for civil use so your -92 could have been used in any civil aircraft that had a S1C3G, any military aircraft that had -92, any of a number of post war conversions of military aircraft and any post war design that used the S1C3G. Add to that there were a number of Supplemental type certificates to change engines models in various aircraft. There may also have been an STC (or european equivalent) to modify exhausts on DC-3 or Lockheed 18/Hudson/Loadstar aircraft.

That exhaust system should provide the answer. All the outlets being on one side indicate a twin (so the pilot is not "blinded" by the exhaust at night.

We have a lot of very knowledgeable people on this site so I do not expect the answer will take long to be found.

 

[Big Jake]

R1830s were used on 4 engined aircraft - B24, C87 and Privateers

 

[MiTasol]

Sorry - by those engines I meant the -90D and the -92.