Some thoughts on the puzzles posted in #35 & #36:
YES - 420323 was actually the V41 and served as the testbed for the Jumo 213E-powered He 219; trials that resulted in the procurement from EHFW of a small series production batch of just five D-1 examples.
YES - 420325 was a standard production D-1 (the first such example since WNr. 420 324 is a confirmed A-2 identity - see Ron (2020) Loss Table p.188 06-Feb-45).
You next listed all the places where Ron associated the He 219 V41 with WNr. 420325, and then where he went on further to link these to the entry into service of He 219 A-2 G9+BL with 3./NJG 1 during Feb-45, plus its subsequent loss on the night of 20/1-Mar-45. The reported WNr. of that lost machine was 190014 and apparently it was identified as the V14.
All of that cat's cradle constructed by Ron hangs on deriving a link between the V14 as the V41, and since the loss was reported as an A-2 then it has to be the loss of the V41 Versuchsträger converted to a D-series configuration from an A-2.
This picture definitely needs a critical re-examination and I'm sure Marcel will be doing this. Until then I'd suggest the jury remains out.
I have not seen the document recording the March'45 loss as yet but, absent that, my own thoughts are running along these lines:
- The V14 association with this loss could be no more than a misread or embroidery of an annotation that this aircraft had been fitted with a FuG 220 using the Streuwelle VI frequency band.
- Looking at the number of A-2s delivered by each of Wien and Rostock, the probability is greatly in favour of this A-2 having carried a Rostock Werk-Nummer beginning with 290. So could the reported 190 have actually been a mis-read/mis-type of what was actually 290? In short there is in my personal view a considerably greater probability that what was reported as A-2 190014 had actually been in the flesh EHFR He 219 A-2 WNr. 290014. That is one digit different to what was reported, not six digits different.
- WNr. 420323 was listed as a He 219 V-Muster located at Wien on 02-Feb-45. In the Bemerkungen column of this document there is only the statement 'Versuchsträger für Jumo 213 E'. There is no indication here that it is going anywhere else. Indeed, in this manually amended document it is the only one of the eight He 219s listed that is not marked as "z.Zt. abgestellt". So, whilst it's not impossible that it was issued to a front-line Staffel in Feb-45, there is absolutely nothing here to indicate that this was intended to happen, or was even being considered. Quite the opposite in fact because its the only He 219 V-Muster example still being kept active as a He 219 trials machine.
- In sum then, I personally am wholly unconvinced that it was the V41 that was assigned to 3./NJG1 in Feb'45 and lost in Mar'45. To me the odds are definitely weighted in favour of this aircraft more probably being A-2 WNr. 290014.
To your "The above assume the total figure of six D-1 produced is correct."
To be very precise only five series production D-1 were ever planned and built/delivered. This sub-type was only first documented in LP 227/1, issued 15-Dec-44, where all five were shown to be delivered AFTER 30-Nov-1944. Planned D-1 deliveries were all in Dec-44 from EHFW; actual deliveries were four in December and one in Jan-45.
Hence there was no sixth D-1; the only other D-related example was the V41 Versuchsträger used to trial the Jumo 213E installation and converted from a He 219 A-2. However, the V41 was reported and counted as an A-2 delivery.
To your "regarding the 11 (of 15 planned) A-2 from Schwechat".
My apologies for being picky, but there never ever were 15 A-2 planned from Schwechat. Planned A-2 quantities from Schwechat were just these:
LP 226/1 (15-May-44) First mention of the A-2 sub-type in a formal production plan = Total 54, first 4 in July'44 and last 30 in Sep'44
LP 226/2 (15-Jul-44) Now no mention of any A-2 from EHFW; all to come from EHFR mostly with the DB 603 Aa but later the DB 603 E was to be substituted.
So the reality of what happened at EHFW with the A-2 bore almost no resemblance to what had been planned. Rather people were now making it up as they went along, grabbing whatever was available in terms of resources and sub-assemblies already built (or mostly built) and using those to the best effect still possible.
Forgive me please if I don't go into the matter of individual A-2 and D-1 identities. Marcel has worked long and hard on this and we should wait to see what he has to say. It has no direct relevance anyway to the very commendable task of listing out all He 219 examples still surviving at war's end.