Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Dear All,

This was the Ju 290 flown back to the U.S. by Col. Harold E. Watson and his men, July 28-31, 1945. I'm trying to ascertain the correct callout of the Werknummer. In a June 26, 1945 document prepared by Hauptmann Heinz Braun, Braun note it as serial No. 165. In William Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich, Green has added a zero, making it W.Nr. 0165. But, still further, Phil Butler in his War Prizes has given it a 6-digit W.Nr., 110165. Yes, I understand that 3 and 4-digit W.Nrn. from earlier in the war were expanded to the 6-digit norm later on, but I'm trying to get a confirmation as to the situation in this specific case. I'd rather not quote facts not in evidence.

Regards,
Richard

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Hi,
I assume you are talking about the Ju.290 marked as FE-3400 I have this aircraft as Ju.290A-7 J 290 011 0196 PI+PS (OR PJ+PS apparently the aircraft was 'mis'-painted at some stage and the code stuck) with a bulbous turret on the nose. Was there another aircraft flown over??
The serial / works number 'style' comes from a plate taken from AM-57 there was a pic of this over at LEMB. (I tried to copy it here but don't work)
regards
kaiyan

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

According to Kössler/Ott: "Die Grossen Dessauer" the complete WNr is 290110165, "0165" and "165" being abbreviations. "290" designating the type and "110165" the standard 6-digit WNr.
PI+PS was a standard Ju 290A-4 having received the A-7 nose turret as a "Musterflugzeug" for the A-7 version. Btw, the nose unit was easily detachable. The mis-lettering PI+PS/PJ+PS is explainable because written letters I/J are not distinguishable in written German. This means when changing the KG 200 code A3+HB to "PJ+PS" for a proposed Spain flight the painter took out the code from the pilot´s hand-written logbook.
WNr 110196 is wrong (KR+MU, 9V+IH from 1./FAGr 5, presumably destroyed at Rechlin-Roggenthin in April 10th 1945 during a bomb raid).

Regards

Roland

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Hi. many thanks for that it clears up a couple of small errors in my list.
regards

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Dear RolandF and Kaiyan,

My gut feel is that the initial W.Nr. was 165 or 0165, as William Green claimed, rather than this being a pilot's Flugbuch shorthand. All entries for the type in Green's book are 4-digit. As I recall, some aircraft that had only 3- or 4-digit Werknummern early on were converted to 6-digit Werknummern as the war progressed, but not necessarily all. Thus, I'd like to have a source that is either original documentation or at least a secondary source that acknowledges the change.

I've been down this road before with the Me 262. Jurleit tacked on "10" to the front of some 4-digit numbers in a flight log pertaining to Me 262's constructed at Kahla. I believe that the flight log is all he had to work with and he elected to just tack on the "10" to make the number conform to the 6-digit standard. So, I am skittish to make the same mistake here without corroboration.

Adding to my suspicion is, according to Green, the fact that so few Ju 290's were ever built or laid down:

Ju 290 V1
Ju 290A-0 W.Nr. 0150
Ju 290A-1 W.Nrn. 0152-0156
Ju 290A-2 W.Nrn. 0157-0159
Ju 290A-3 W.Nrn. 0160-0164
Ju 290A-4 W.Nrn. 0165-0169
Ju 290A-5 W.Nrn. 0170-0180
Ju 290A-6 W.Nr. 0185
Ju 290A-7 W.Nrn. 0181 & 0186 with 24 more planned, but only a small number were completed
Ju 290A-8 W.Nrn. 0211-0220, but only 2 or 3 built
Ju 290A-9 W.Nrn. 0182-0184
Ju 290B-1 - only 1 built

Now, whether Green had a predilection for short W.Nrn., I can't tell. The Me 209 prototypes have 4-digit numbers, Me 210's had 3-digit W.Nrn., and an Me 410A-1 had a 5-digit W.Nr. In a postwar report on the Ju 290, one of its pilots gives a short history of the type only quoting 3-digit W.Nrn., so this makes me very cautious.

Regards,
Richard

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Hi,
Don't know if this helps it's an extract from a post over on LEMB the post relates to the serials of Ju.290A2 AM-57 (Captured aircraft AIR MINISTRY No.57)

"The WNr. is in fact in the JFM / RLM ´ten digit´ serial system used by JFM in the 1941/1943 period. However when delivered to the Luftwaffe in mid/late 1943 period the ´secret code´system with ´ammunition code´ indentifying the maker had taken effect - hence ´h.w.u.´ as bottom line."
regards

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Hi Richard,

If Kössler/Ott have stated that the W.Nr. is written 290110165 then that is the official way to write it (they are meticulous in their research). You will undoubtly find abbreviated references to the W.Nr. in both Junkers, RLM and Luftwaffe documents as well as in loggbooks etc. but that is of course due to need to saving time/space when writing such a leangthy W.Nr.

It is reasonable to assume that Green had a need to save space in his large publication and therefore shortened W.Nr. to only for digits irrespectively of their original leangth and for the average readers who doesn't make his own W.Nr. lists that would have been ok, also making the text more readable to the reader.

Green didn't get the overall W.Nr. list correct as shown in the list presented by Kössler/Ott.
/Mike

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

The Monogram Close Up on the Ju 290 (by Thomas H. Hitchcock) uses four-digit Werk Nummern throughout.

An RAF list of captured aircraft refers to A3+OB (at Flensburg) as "110/186."

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

According to the RLM Flugzeug-Programm Nr. 227 of 15.12.1944, the total
production of Ju 290 (excluding prototypes and possible conversions) was
as follows:
Ju 290A-1 8 aircraft
Ju 290A-3 5 aircraft
Ju 290A-4 5 aircraft
Ju 290A-5 11 aircraft
Ju 290A-7 19 aircraft
Ju 290A-9 3 aircraft
Apparently these numbers included 6 aircraft destroyed before RLM
acceptance. No mention of a Ju 290A-2, A-6 or A-8.
The LP 227 give updated figures up to 30.11.1944 and I believe the
Ju 290 production had ended long before this date.

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Dear All,

I appreciate everyone's input on this. A vote of confidence in Kössler/Ott helps. The contradictory evidence from Hitchcock doesn't and suggests that the issue isn't nailed down. Perhaps Green and Hitchcock were using the same sources, or worse, one quoting from the other. Anyone have some tie-breaker original documentation? A Werknummer allocation list would be lovely.

Regards,
Richard

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Kössler/Ott is by far the best book on this subject. Forget both Green and Hitccock in this matter.

Junker

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Hi,
Junker you got my vote
kaiyan

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Dear All,

History is not a voting contest. If it were, getting to the "facts" would be ever so easy, even if those "facts" are wrong.

I do hear the ground swell support for Kössler and Ott. I've now had an indirect look into their book, which uses both the 9-digit W.Nrn. in tabulated form and the shorthand 4-digit W.Nrn. in discussion. The RLM standardized on the 6-digit W.Nr., which implies that the 9-digit W.Nr. is an internal Junkers number, not an official RLM approved W.Nr.

My specialty, as all know, is the Me 262. Messerschmitt used a similar 9-digit W.Nr. for the first 5 prototypes, i.e., W.Nr. 262000001, etc., but this was dropped with the sixth prototype.

Through my contact in Germany, we'll attempt to get the supporting evidence from Kössler, himself.

Regards,
Richard

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Hi,
I got involved in this topic because I had a reference that said the Ju.290 in questiom was '0196' the discussion here has cleared up that error.

I was not voting on history but on an opinion, as I found too many errors in Greens study of the Ju.90/290/390 series.

But thanks for helping to clear up the 0165 / 0196 error in my files.
Regards

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

According to the appendices, Kössler/Ott are using original Junkers, RLM and other original sources in their 260p opus in collaboration with the Hugo-Junkers-society. IMO this book is absolutely reliable, though some details may be outdated because of its publication year 1993. The 9-digit WNr seems to have been used only in official documents (this WNr ought to be expanded by an additional 8-290110xxx, to be honest).
The abbreviated 4-digit WNr seems to have been quite common. Even Junkers Dessau used painted WNr during construction such as 290-0159 or 290/0160. A complete 6-digit WNr is not necessary because only 47 Ju 290 have been built only at one pruduction site. Me 262 jets oftenly were designated by a 3 -digit abbreviated WNr which makes it difficult to distinguish the 170 block from the 110 block e.g.

Regards

Roland

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Dear RolandF,

Thanks for a look at Kössler's references. Your comment about there being only some 47 Ju 290's coincides with my feeling that the 3- or 4-digit W.Nrn. may have had some validity. I'm also agreed that use of the 290 prefix, or 8-290, may well have been gilding the lily. Obviously, looking at the aircraft, it was a Ju 290, so putting 290 on the aircraft would have been redundant.

Sorting out what was the accepted RLM W.Nr. is, I guess, what I am after. It would appear that the records were a mixed bag, possibly open to interpretation as to what should be used, i.e., a Junkers 9-digit number, an RLM 6-digit number, or a 3- or 4-digit number of unknown provenance. Since Kössler has the original documentation, hopefully this can be easily sorted out.

As for the use of 3-digit final numbers on Me 262's, this can prove to be a real headache, especially if those numbers fall outside of known W.Nr. blocks. The W.Nr. allocations for Messerschmitt and Regensburg administered production are known, but there may be other, smaller allocation blocks that have yet to see the light of day. For instance, 2 Me 262B-1a/U1's found at Schleswig carried the 3-digit numbers 305 and 306 on their noses. Yet, these simply don't fall into any known block. Capt. Eric Brown has claimed that at least one of these began with 110 and both have been put into this category, but without a known W.Nr. block to authenticate them.

Worse, still, is that 3 different transfer pilots for Kahla constructed Me 262's claimed completely different 3- or 4-digit number series for the aircraft they flew out. Was one set actually Laufende Nrn. while another W.Nrn.? So little is known about these aircraft that the mystery remains unresolved.

These only serve to show caution when interpreting or hazarding a "best guess", as such can become indelible in the literature, as bad data dies hard. Thus, my very cautious take on this.

Regards,
Richard

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

The Ju 290 as most of the Junkers aircraft built at the Stammwerk at Dessau had 10-digit-W-Nrn. See enclosed photo of a data plate of one Ju 290 (source: LEMB or TOCH). In original documents you can find similar WNr. for Ju 252, Ju 352 or Ju 288.
Credible sources, indeed. I miss the ultra decryption.:D
Regards
Peter

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Dear Peter,

Thanks for the photo of the Ju 290 W.Nr. plate. That's pretty solid evidence. And, on top of that, we see the W.Nr. was 10 digits, not 9. Isn't it really interesting how this whole discussion has evolved?

Regards,
Richard

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

If you have some time to spare, there's only a few hundred thousand pages of ULTRA material to read through!

From brief notes I made in 1987 … The RAF Intelligence file on the Ju 290 (National Archives AIR40/177) mentions, SB+QB, W.Nr. 0152 and J4+AH, 0156 (captured in North Africa in 1943). Also on that file is USSStAFE Technical Intelligence Report A-454 (dated 26 June 1945) which refers to Ju 290 A-4 "serial no. 165."

The trouble is that capture reports are not consistent in explaining where they found the number. Sometimes they will say "painted on fin" or "from fuselage plate" but usually they don't say where it was.

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Seeing the most power is already out of the discussion, so here´s some last two pennies.

Writing styles and application in the factories varied, even main dataplates had variations, the great many part-plates had also variations, I am also fairly certain even the employees sometimes made mistakes in application, but also we perhaps do not know why they used the number, we find evedence of today..

Giving the "short" answer: The Luftwaffe (RLM) "used" two, three, four, six, seven, eight, nine and ten digit numbers.

And W.Nrs (serials) were changed. Whole blocks of numbers were changed from (on) some prewar type batches.

Because many documents (including the famous GQM loss lists) only give four or six digit numbers, this conflicts with others, because full number is not given. Six digit numbers were used for some in loss listings by taking part of designator, 88, but correct (for Ju 88) was 088 xxxx (and here 290) for Ju 290. The breakdown of that W.Nr. is 290 011 0157.

This here is clear case of understanding there were changes in German W.Nr. useage that followed certain paths ("rules"), ordering and periods (1915 to 1934, 1935 to 1945). Having studied Junkers, W.Nr. and their parts and main dataplates for some time now, one begins to understand.

I have draft for document of mine that lists all Junkers W.Nrs from the beginning, but of course, there still are some gaps or unknowns.

Here one must also realise all W.Nr. are not just plain W.Nr., some are following "tradition" like Junkers using basically the same nummerical range from year 1915, finising it on Ju 52/3m (after beginning of WW2).

I think Junkers were also first German firm to use type designator (086 0xxx) from year 1936, and the W.Nr.s used on Ju 88 Grossserien were "new decicion" made in about October 1939, and behind them some are "real" factory numbers, simple numbering (1, 2, 3, 4 etc), Factory/Line-Numbers and Batches. Some of these "other" numbers I have come across, baffling to those that do not know, but a few have been answers in disguise.

Research is still ongoing on my favourite subject, Junkers W.Nr´s usage and ordering, particularily as the newest Ju 88 type book(s) to hit the book-store has dismal errors (failures) in this regard.

BTW, owner of that Ju 290 plate posted photo of it at LMB many years ago (31.08.2008) but there is also other plate from this same aircraft that supports this "usage form" of the W.Nr., and this plate (the one posted by Peter Achs) has combo of mid/early-war number "system" (practice) and "secret code" three digit lower case letters (effective after April 1943) that combined with the final six digit "secret code system" was used to the end in 1945 (but sometime in logbooks and other material designator was added like "088/xxxxxx"). Other cases are known of ten digit numbers, had appears shortened to six digits, but basic W.Nr. range was the same!

The difference here, on this Ju 290 aircraft, is that it was ordered and construction started on, before the secret code system came into effect, April 1943, but it was first flown (29.05.43) and delivered after "secret code system" was introduced. I have suspicion (but no prove of) that this plate may be non-standard, because it lacks the delivery date, that (supposably) was the standard.

I am however not surprised that Peter Achs does not mention that this style of ten-digit W.Nr. (usage) style was also used on all makers Ju 88 A-4, C-6 and D-1´s during specific period of their construction (October 1941 to April 1943) and were NOT bonded to just FSD (Dessau).

I hope most understand this.

Regards
Ed

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

That´s really interesting. One sees how easy a "0" can be lost - many of us will have experienced this with the new European SEPA banking system. Especially on Ju 290s there are photographs of two-digit WNrn painted on the completely camouflaged fuselage on the port side beneath the cockpit.
And not to forget the peculiar application of 6-digit WNrn on the tailfins of the Ar 234. The first three digits written small (thus obvoiously the "unimportant" part) and the last three digits with large numbers - obvioulsly the "important" digits.

Regards

Roland

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

@ednorth
Interesting mix of truth and assumptions.

What I mean is this kind of designation of Junkers airplanes with the "0" in front.
Ju 252: 0252000001 for the first Ju 252
Ju 288: 0288000014 for the 14th Ju 288 etc.

But what is more important: How fast does an airplane fly? How many bombs it can carry? Or a "0" more or less on the plate? :)

Regards
Peter

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

@PeterAchs

No, its defenately who shot down who. Only ask them thousands of Luftwaffe fighter fans (and hundreds of authors will likely support that opinion too).
Or them in that are still fighting The War and insist its their victors rights to write that dreadful (English style) "JU-88" like none other existed.

Regards
Ed

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Dear Ed,

Thank you for presenting a very enlightening commentary on the Werknummer system. You mention that the 6-digit secret code system for Werknummern went into effect in April 1943. If Ju 290 A-4, W.Nr. 165 was produced after this, would it have still had the 10-digit W.Nr. or something else and, if so, what would it have been and did Junkers adopt it?

Regards,
Richard

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

"The RLM standardized on the 6-digit W.Nr., which implies that the 9-digit W.Nr. is an internal Junkers number, not an official RLM approved W.Nr."

Here I think I will say the question is wrong. It was 10-digit number (290 011 0165) that was the full W.Nr. and the number Junkers and RLM used. "Short hand version" (0165) was safe to use as so few had been built and not conflicting with others.
So, Yes, this aircraft still carried older number.

Other (part) plate, belived from AirMin57, shows that fuselage component (90.143) was made in October 1942, before introduction of "Secret code system", and note here: it has history back to Ju 90, despite having "Serie" 22900301 on it too.

Regards
Ed

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Well, Peter Achs asked for something from ULTRA and here I can oblige. I have a number of instances where individual Ar 234s are referred to by the final three figures only. This was sometimes done with other types when a list was being given: they would state the first aircraft as a six-digit number and then, if the others were in the same series (say 110 ...), they would give just their final three digits.

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Dear Ed,

Thank you for the follow-up on W.Nr. 290 011 0165. So, what you are saying is that, at least for the Ju 290, Junkers stuck with its previous W.Nr. numbering and did not convert to the 6-digit version when the new W.Nr. requirements were issued in Apr. 1943.

Regards,
Richard

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Dear all,

I am not in a position to give comments about the Ju252 nor Ju352, though very interesting but to understand when/why and how the old numbering of Werkenummer changed to the 6-digit Werkenummer and - later - to the last 3 digits of that 6-digit number is most interesting.

At the end of WW-2 several He219's were found on airfields with a 3-digit number, I remember Lech, Eder/Cheb and a few others. Combined with info from flight logs, it seems to me that these 3-digit numbers were indeed referring to the (former) 6-digit Werkenummer.

Love to hear/read more about this subject, perhaps other specific aircraft experts can join this thread with their expertise?

All the best, Marcel

Re: Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165
 

Richard,
Yes and No. Hard for me to explain, and research on this is not over.
Some apparently did but I think Ju 290 A series did "not change".
I at least use longer version in my research.
Other views on this are welcome.

Many Junkers aircraft ranges produced from April 1943 onwards got the "new" six digit numbers, only this (it appears) the Ju 290 (0110xxx) and Ju 88 D-1 (0430xxx) retained the older style, likely there were more, but it appears - according the evedence I already have - that 0430xxx changed to just "430xxx", as D-1 production was over in just two-three months time, so why bother change it?

Other Junkers ranges, like Ju 88 C-6 changed from "0360xxx" to new "750xxx" (and "720xxx") series. In case of Ju 188 E-1/F-1 this changed from "188/100xx" (five digit) to "188/260xxx" & "280xxx" (six digit). Previous Ju 88´s had usually used four digit numbers (like 088/0001).
Only Ju 88 B V series had used longer version (long before October 1941).

I have not found evidence of there was any 0188/xxxxxx serials. RAF source state serial as 188/xxxxx (five digit) on one wreck. Known Ju 188 dataplates all say only six digits.

Serials, as W.Nr. did not always equal c/n. (or s/n.) as used then or today. Many British and US manufacturers had (have) independant c/n or s/n apart from RAF or USAAC/USAAF/BuAer etc. serials.

But as in case of Ju 88 series, components from many factories came togeather in one airplane, so better have unified serial systems for such.

Maybe also its better talk only of the number of serial digits coming after the type designator. My conclution (as of this moment) be that aircraft already built retained their old serial, whatever long, only these built / delivered after April 1943 got "new secret code serials" (six digits). The secret code serials dataplates contained the three digit lower case (ammunition code), not old factory address that was eazily found and bombed.

Regards
Ed