He 219 found in Denmark !!!

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Hello Ed,

At least lxx is pointing to Land- und See-Leichtbau GmbH, work Kiel, Kolonnenweg (Schleswig-Holstein), see posting #77, one of the many subcontractors who produced parts for the Rostock He219's. Unfortunately, this landing flap was not typical for the A-7, the DB 603 E1 is quite conclusive.

I have no experience with the wing numbers, perhaps somebody else does.

All the best, Marcel

[edNorth]

Hello Marcel/all,

Ok. I understand; same flaps/ailerons for A-0, A-2, A-7 and D-1. Engines be the decisive thing for He 219 A-7.

#1, we perhaps need know if similar numbers can be found on wings of 290202 in NASM - as that be same factory (Rostock) as "our" (Danish) He 219 A-7 with likely W.Nr. in 310xxx block, possibly produced a little bit earlier, so should have lower number than "122" or "123" (if the 290202 has similar numbers at all).

#2, what is known of wing manufacturers in Czech Republic (Letov?) making main wings units, only for Heinkel in Wien, or also for Rostock? How many wings made there?

#3, List of users. I belive many (21) He 219 A-7 were sent to OKL-Reserve in February, March and April 1945. Are these same as NJG 3 aircraft?

#4, Find the day RAF (Allied) soldiers first arrived Westerland/Sylt. Find the day orders were issued (by RAF) that all propellers be removed, so them aircraft captured in Denmark, could not be flown. (In context: whould it have been tempting for a RAF pilot fly a airworthy He 219 just to try out the ejector seat, or a RAF Mosquito pilot fly a captured He 219 to see if he could evade a fellow RAF Mosquito? - Note: No info on this has been found, only speculation on my part, and them He 219 moved from Denmark were flown out.)

Many questions remain. Likely there will not be final answer untill all stones be turned over.

Best regards
ed

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Hello Ed,

To be more precise: the He219 production in Vienna/Schwechat had its own subcontractors with their own ID-codes. There are more distinctions between A-0, A-2, A-7 and D-1 subtypes, which can be seen in the so called 'Bauausführungs Übersicht He219' of the Ersatzteilliste. This shows lots of similar (standarized) parts with the same construction group number for all He219 subtypesing (the de-icing equipment for instance had main constrution number 950, regardless the He219 subtypes).

However, as advised in a very early stage when the He219 was still on the seabed, the salvage/restauration team should look for construction numbers which are distinctive for each subtype. In this case the wing would be the best chance, because the wing for He219A-0 had main construction number 501, the wing of a He219A-2 had 506 and the He219A-7 had 512. But now we know of the found DB603 E-1 engine, we already know that it was an A-7. It is a fair assumption, that the wing - if it has 512 somewhere painted/stencilled - will finally confirm this.

Now your questions:
#1: I have no knowledge whether the NASM actually had 506 somewhere but if it has, that would support my strong believe that the NASM is actually Wnr.290202 and not 290060 as rumoured elsewhere.
#2: There is some data for the Czech produced fuselages (in Mielec) but I have no info yet about the number of produced wings so far
#3: No, they are not the same and so far I haven't found any indications for an airfield full of new He219's. OKL Reserve could perhaps mean, that aircraft stayed with units without official acceptance by these units, this is still an issue to be researched.
#4: several contacts with historians of R(C)AF Squadron Associations have resulted in new, never published He219 photo's

Turning all stones over is exactly the purpose of the He219 Project I am working on (:-).

All the best, Marcel

[MrZaggy]

GDay All - FINALLY approved for posting on here!

As Marcel will know, I was one of those who 'questioned' the NASM WNr (and I honestly still do not know exactly what I beleive on that subject) and I do tend to lean towards the 'Black Blocks' theory also (but thats another story all together); now with my 'biases' fully disclosed, some of my thoughts.... To be honest, its a facinating discovery and I too would LOVE to see an identity discovered

My first comment is directed at the engines (and sorry if this sounds negative, because its not); we must be careful when defining a variant by 'consumable items' such a engines and tyres. The He219 had a quick release engine mount system, so dropping an engine out was not a big deal; additionally we know the earlier DB603's that powered the A-0 and A-2 series eventually went out of production - so what happens then when you have an a/c that needs new engines (and you can no longer 'juggle' servicable early engines across the fleet)? I feel that I just need to explicitly state that the finding of E-series engines on the a/c isn't a definitive clue to the variant.

(For example, across the current RAAF FA-18 fleet, the original engines were constantly cycled through the fleet; when the engine hours were up, it was pulled from the jet and sent off to be serviced and another engine (that would have been pulled from a different jet) was dropped back into the a/c. Then later the engines were upgraded (as engine life was nearing an end). So we had a case were (depending upon fleet mgmt and R3 scheduling) the LATE build a/c may have had early engines and EARLY build a/c may have had new engines. Just pointing out that engines are cycled through the fleet and unless you have the full Fleet Mgmt Documentation, its very difficult to assign an identity based upon a consumable component...)

My second comment is directed at thoughts that were contained much earlier in the thread about parts of the WNr being painted on the insides of variouos components. People often point to '202' being painted on the rear fuselage door of the NASM a/c as the last three digits of its ID - but there are also components on this machine that have '201' and '264' and other three and four numeral codes.

So, where does that leave us? Marcel has (a number of times) explained that the best plan of attack is to look for numbers from the 'Bauausführungs Übersicht He219' Ersatzteilliste. Yes, the E-Series Engine HINTS at an A-7, but again Marcel has pointed out, the Wing Sub-Assembly number would be the clincher (He219A-0 - 501, He219A-2 - 506, He219A-7 - 512) - also, if I remember correctly, Marcel also posted a link to the Bauausführungs Übersicht He219 Liste earlier in the thread, which shows that there are other distictive sub-assemblies to look for: Hydraulics (which if I remember right, the pumps are located in the wings/nacelles); Fuel and Cooling Systems can help define an A-0 or A-2 also, if the earlier systems are still in place, but because these systems were upgradable to the same system as used on the A-7, it also can't be used as a definitive means of ID.

Marcel, do you know exactly what the differences are between the 501, 506 and 512 wing? My thinking is, we may NOT need a Baugruppe number if there is a distinctive, structural difference that can uniquely ID the wing and this can be matched to the recovered wing-set. For example, the Steel Spar was a different internal shape or there was additional bracing structure or even just different holes/vents/panels?

As for the NASM machine again, I too have not seen a 'wing number' in any photos - LOTS of other number, from 'R30' to '130 00' and '130 00.4' to '27' and etc...

Oh and the Black paint on the lower FUSELAGE is REALLY interesting and very relevant to the 'Black Blocks' theory - if we find A-7 structures (ie, WING), this really does call for a revision of this theory.


Just my 2c worth


Dan

[SES]

Hi Dan,
Thanks for your thoughts. I have asked Kim for photographic proof of the black under surface, but we are still awaiting a response.
bregds
SES

[MrZaggy]

GDay SES

Best place to look will be ON the lower fuselague, between it and the front of the gun-pack. Fuselage and Gun-pack appear to have been painted separately; the Radiator cowling was also painted separately (probably by DB). I also suspect the Wing and tail surfaces also, with the final disruptive overspray applied just before (or part way through) final assembly...

If any of the fuselage sides UNDER the wing fairing has also been recovered, that will show signs of the original scheme too.


Dan

[SES]

bregds
SES

[Marcel Hogenhuis]

Hello Dan,

Recent attempts to find (the) other Ersatzteilliste have been fruitless so far but I am not giving up all hope. I am still hoping that constructional differences between the wings of an A-0, A-2 or A-7 can be found when we were able to compare the drawings of the wings.

In advance of that, we should ask ourselves what could have provoked Heinkel to redesign the wings each time? For the A-7 we have one major difference with the older A-0 and A-2: the wish to power the A-7 with a so called Einheitstriebwerk, whether that be the ill fated Jumo222, DB603 E or G or the Jumo213.
We further know that in many - if not most - German aircraft the engines were mounted between two strong bearers but not the He219: here the engines were attached to several attachment points as part of the skin. An interchangable Einheitstriebwerk (DB or Jumo213) could mean, that the construction of the engine gondolas as part of the wing had to be redesigned and perhaps strengthened.

This is just brainstorming: same construction numbers for each subtype at least suggests that these lived on with minor to no alterations (the modified air intakes for example); different construction numbers however strongly suggest that a redesign was neccessary for some important reason and new types of engines could be such reasons. Yet, the exact differences between the designs must still be found.

All the best, Marcel

[MrZaggy]

@Marcel, I generally agree with your thoughts regarding the wings. But just to be clear, I'll start from the top

Why would there be revisions? There are TWO major reasons that this would be the case; the first would be correcting structural weaknesses or suspected points of concern that have arisen during the operational testing and initial deployment of the a/c, while the second is (as you rightly point out) the need to include upgraded components.

To look at the second point, the desire to fit the Jumo 213 and 222 engines came about after the initial design was completed, so its quite logical to expect that the 512 wing in particular, featured changes in order to cope with the forces involved from (at least) the Jumo 213E and the more powerful DB603's - I suspect the Jumo222 would have required another redesign again due to the very different shape and weight distributions.

Another factor that may have brought about a change in wing designation, would have been the shift to a single conductor wiring layout and possibly the change in fuel system (which would have required modifying the 501 and 506 wings in order to retrofit the A-7 fuel system). BUT hopefully its not something as subtle as thing; hopefully it is a structural change!

Now to the first point - all manner of forces act upon an a/c that can go unnoticed or unappreciated for a considerable time - the best example I can think of off the top of my head (again) relates to the FA-18 fleet. The a/c very early in there career's were fitted with fin reinforcements and a small Vortex generating blade on the LERX in order to stiffen the fin and change the vorticies striking the upper parts of the fin in high energy/high alpha flight. These changes were subsequently incorporated into the basic design.

It is more than likely the He 219 also experienced such design changes - and for the sake of IDENTIFICATION, I hope i) the changes are structural (and not just wiring or something small) and ii) the changes were not retrofitted to the fleet. If the changes were retrofitted to the fleet, that will suck

As for parts of the a/c that remained the same, that makes sense as well - as they say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!". I can see this being true for the engine covers, access doors, whatever.

As for the He 219 engine bearer design, its quite elegant actually, how parts of the load bearing members essentially form the aerodynamic structure and skin, YET still is a quick release 'power egg' type design. Not only does it save weight, but also saves complexity.

Good luck with examining the wing drawings BTW

[Tony Kambic]

Unfortunately I have no news to offer Kim. Just a short note about the NASM He219. Found in the left wing heater compartment during restoration was some penciled writing on the spar, hand written in Cyrillic ( Museum experts say a blend of Russian-Urkanian ). The author wrote "This aircraft is clean, therefore there is little more work to be done".

Presents the possibliity that conscripted laborers worked on this aircraft.

Tony