Ju 290A-4, W.Nr. 165

[ju55dk]

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

Junker

[Kaiyan]

Hi,
Junker you got my vote
kaiyan

[Richard T. Eger]

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

[Kaiyan]

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

[RolandF]

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 IMO this book is absolutely reliable, though some details may be outdated because of its publication year 1993.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

[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

[Peter Achs]

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.

Originally Posted by Nick Beale

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."

Credible sources, indeed. I miss the ultra decryption.
Regards
Peter

[Richard T. Eger]

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

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Peter Achs

I miss the ultra decryption.
Regards
Peter

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.

[edNorth]

Originally Posted by Richard T. Eger

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.

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