[Richard T. Eger]

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