Dornier Do 24 Units

[Rudi Penker]

Osprey Combat Aircraft No.110

de Jong , 96 pages , 30 colour profiles , 76 photos

http://www.sound-bm.com/de/combat-ai...-24-units.html

[Juha]

Thanks for the tip!
I have always been fan of Do 24.

Juha

[INM@RLM]

This is a very nicely put together title, well worth buying, reading and keeping to re-read. Recent research has clarified a number of points though, so for those that bought this title these new ‘learns’ may hold some interest.

These first six points all relate to the text on p.15.

1. D-AEAV was Avio 75, the second machine to be completed under the occupation, not the first. Similarly the second example released for service with the Seenotdienst in summer 1940, D-APDA, was Avio 77, the fourth machine to be completed under the occupation, not the second.
Avio 74 & 75 were delivered in June 1940 and Avio 77 & 78 in July. Avio 76 (the later RLM WNr. 3) was held back as the Erprobungsträger Do 24 T mit deutschen Treibwerk (Bramo 323) so was not delivered until September 1940.

Initially, just six of the Dutch Do 24 K-2s were completed for the Germans, all purposed for assessment by E-Stelle Travemünde.
(The WNr./Avio construction numbers of both Avio 75 & 77 are explicitly confirmed as the Werk-Nummern of these August and October 1940 losses when reported in the Kriegstagebuch Oberquartiermeister: Band 12 (1. - 31. Aug. 1940) & Band 14 (1. - 31. Okt. 1940); BA-MA RM 6/181 & /183 respectively.) Karl Born stated very clearly that these were the first two Do 24s to see Luftwaffe service with the Seenotdienst; Born never stated that these were the first and second Do 24s delivered during the German occupation. It would appear those embroideries were merely the erroneous assumptions of later writers.
The information on the timing and purpose of these early Do 24 deliveries to the Germans comes from a status report dated 2-Aug-40 issued by the Verbindungsstelle des Generalluftzeugmeisters Holland, co-located with Aviolanda Papendrecht. This can be found in BA-MA RL 3/1638.


2. What these same sources show is that X-38 was not flown to Travemünde on 21 June 1940 “for outfitting as an unarmed rescue aircraft”, but rather for assessment of the design in a future transport role. In fact each of the first six Do 24 K-2s went first to Travemünde for assessment. Only later were these aircraft progressively released to be converted into ASR aircraft for the Seenotdienst.
Thus, in fact, it was X-39, Avio 75/D-AEAV that became the first example to be outfitted as a rescue aircraft, for which purpose it was flown from Travemünde to Luftpark Holtenau on 23-Jul-40 “,… zur Übernahme See- und Rettungsausrüstung übergeführt.” (… transferred to be fitted with sea and rescue equipment.)


3. The correct designation of the first German adaptation of the Do 24 K-2 was Do 24 N, not Do 24 N-1. (A dash-number was unnecessary for a mere twelve aircraft, and there were only ever twelve, not the total of thirteen stated on this page. As well as in other documents, this shorter designation is directly evidenced in the RLM Baureihenübersichten dated 10 March and 1 November 1942, BA-MA RL 3/952 & /948 respectively. Although the latter of these documents state that all 13 of these aircraft were Do 24 Ns, this is actually shorthand for 12 Ns plus the singleton WNr.(000)3 that began life (as mentioned above) as the Erprobungsträger Do 24 T mit Bramo 323s, so was never fitted with Wright Cyclones. Once in service WNr. (000)3 was simply referred to as the Do 24 T.)

4. KD+GJ was not sent to the Weserflug company at Einswarden to serve as the prototype for the definitive Do 24T. It was Dornier, the design authority for the Do 24, that was responsible for all development of the design including the initial adaptation of the Do 24 T with Bramo 323s. (Confirmed by the V-Muster sheets of Lieferplan 18 issues 2 & 3 during the second half of 1940.)
Weser’s actual involvement in the Do 24 program was confined to converting six of the Do 24 K-2s into Do 24 Ns, and then in 1942 Weser began the repair of damaged Do 24s.


5. The Bramo 323 Fafnir was never fitted with water-methanol injection. (This was a technology only introduced on German single-engine fighters in the autumn of 1944. Unrelated and well after the publication of this title this myth has been thoroughly explored elsewhere in these pages http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showth...ight=Bramo+323.)


6. According to SNCA-N’s own listing of individual aircraft identities by construction number that company delivered a total of 52 Do 24s to the Germans, not 47. (CIOS Report ‘Production of D.O. 24 Flying Boat, Item No. 25, File No. XII-5, and the same total is corroborated in the French ministry file Indaero: L’industrie aéronautique sous l’occupation allemande: Production de matériel aéronautique de 1940-1944, livraisons de cellules à l’Allemagne de 1940 à 1944, SHAA Z.11609, Doss. 7.)


Photo captions do not always come from the pen of the author, so I’ll put the comments on those in a separate post.

[leonventer]

Originally Posted by INM@RLM

This is a very nicely put together title, well worth buying, reading and keeping to re-read. Recent research has clarified a number of points though, so for those that bought this title these new ‘learns’ may hold some interest.

Thanks for your corrections and clarifications, Nigel. They're always appreciated.

Regards,
Leon Venter

[INM@RLM]

A pleasure, Leon.


Here are some additional thoughts on a few of the photo captions in this title:

p.14 (bottom caption)
The statement “Seen here with Cyclone engines” is incorrect. As can be immediately seen by comparing this photo with that of X-21 at the foot of p.18, KD+GJ is fitted with Bramo 323s. The reality was that this airframe was never ever fitted with Wright Cyclones, it being the “Erprobungsträger Do 24 T mit Bramo 323s” from the very beginning.
As already mentioned Dornier and not the Weserflug company was responsible for the development of the Do 24 T powered by Bramo 323 engines. (Confirmed by the V-Muster sheets of Lieferplan 18 issues 2 & 3 during the second half of 1940.) One of a number of myths attached to Weser post-war; supposed series production of the He 115 and also the He 114 whose production had actually ended well before the outbreak of WW2.

p.57 KD+GA, later WNr. 0001, was formerly D-AFBT (not D-AEAV). The Aviolanda construction number of this aircraft was Avio 74, and thus this was in fact the first Do 24 completed under the German occupation.

p.58 It is no longer the case that Do 24 N, KD+BH “is unaccounted for in the records.” This was the first Do 24 transferred to the Mediterranean, arriving at Syracuse from Brest in late-January 1941. Specifically in regard to this transfer it was identified in several places in the BA-MA Kriegstagebuch Oberquartiermeister series as WNr. 8, which was undoubtedly how this aircraft was referred to during its service with 1.Seenotstaffel alongside that unit’s Breguet Bizerte’s, each of which also carried low serial numbers (4, 6, 7, 24, 26 & 27, and were also assigned Stkz. in the KD+B_ sequence, becoming A to G and I). WNr. 8 was however, a contraction of Avio 78 and the Avio number in this period was still that most frequently used as the German Werk-Nummer. (The reassignment of RLM Werk-Nummern in a new series commencing with WNr.(000)1 was not standardized across all the surviving Do 24 airframes until around March 1941. Again the evidence lies in the Kriegstagebuch Oberquartiermeister series.) After its arrival and through 1941, there are then plentiful further reports of this aircraft in service in the Mediterranean with its subsequently assigned RLM Werk-Nummer of (000)5.

p.60 This is more of an observation. The type of mid-fuselage turret fitted to this aircraft confirms it to be a Do 24 T-3 and it is always captioned as being delivered from French production by SNCA-N at Sartrouville. I think this can also be positively proved by this photograph because the aircraft is fitted with a bulge having a rearward-sloping antenna immediately behind the nacelle of the central engine. That configuration indicates the fitting of Peil G V, standardized in the upgraded avionics fit of the Do 24 T-2. The usual texts state that for the Do 24 T-3 this was replaced by Peil G 6, having a flush, ribbed and considerably different installation.
All except for the first of the Do 24s delivered by SNCA-N were T-3s. However photographs of French-built Do 24s including the early portion of the resumed French production for the Aéronavale consistently show the continued presence of Peil G V. Hence it seems that in practice Peil G 6 was never fitted to any Do 24 from SNCA-N.
The situation at Aviolanda is more complicated. The very full delivery documents of September 1943 for WNr. 3268 record this aircraft fitted with Peil G 6. However, photos of T-3s from Aviolanda up to at least/around WNr. 0100 all evidence the continued fitting of Peil G V. Always something new to discover with this design.

[INM@RLM]

Regarding the identification above of Do 24 N KD+BH as RLM WNr. 5, for anyone wishing to follow the trail through the primary sources, herewith the key references.
It is a story in three parts, all elements coming from the KTB series of the Oberquartiermeister, General der Luftwaffe beim Oberbefehlshaber der Kriegsmarine.

Part One is the four references to KD+BH as WNr. 8, all found in the January 1941 KTB (Bundesarchiv, BArch RM 6/186 Kriegstagebuch Oberquartiermeister: Bd. 17)

KTB ---# -KTB -----KTB Entry --KTB -----WNr. ----Stkz.
----------Page No. Date -------Entry Time
Jan-41 1 -35 ------ 18-Jan-41 --1000 -----8 --No mention
Jan-41 2 -37 ------ 19-Jan-41 --1200 -----8 --No mention
Jan-41 3 -42 ------ 20-Jan-41 --1600 -----8 -- KD+BH
Jan-41 4 -45 ------ 23-Jan-41 --1450 -----8 --No mention
[N.B. Dashes inserted only to produce the correct column alignments.]

The reason no credibility can be attached to these erroneous linkages of KD+BH and WNr. 8 is because the real Do 24 WNr. 8 was not one of the first six Do 24 K-2s delivered to the Germans in the summer of 1940. Consequently it was actually assigned a Stkz. in the KK+UL to KK+UR sequence spanning WNrn. 7 to 13.
And since the regulations introducing the Stkz. system in October 1939 mandated that a single Stkz. be uniquely assigned to each airframe, and remain with it through out its life, there never was any case of two Stkz. assigned to the same airframe either sequentially or simultaneously.

[INM@RLM]

Part Two is the two references to KD+BH as WNr. 5, both found in the February 1941 KTB (Bundesarchiv, BArch RM 6/187 Kriegstagebuch Oberquartiermeister: Bd. 18)
[There being no other Do 24s in the Mediterranean until the very end of February 1941, and KD+BH being evidenced independently in Flugbuch Tretter by a Platzflug at Syracuse on 24-Feb-41.]


KTB ---# -KTB -----KTB Entry --KTB -----WNr. ----Stkz.
----------Page No. --Date ----Entry Time
Feb-41 -5 -41 -----27-Feb-41 --0900 ----5 ----No mention
Feb-41 -6 -45 -----28-Feb-41 --1645 --- 5 ----KD+DE
The second record here lists the names of the crew i.e it came from the personnel side of the business, not the side that dealt with aircraft.

The reason that WNr. 5 is linked here with Stkz. KD+DE though can be quickly deduced.
This is another case of a contracted WNr. since this had been the Stkz. assigned to Avio 75 (which would have become RLM WNr. 2 had it survived long enough to make the transition, instead of becoming a total loss with 4.Seenotflugkdo on 28-Oct-1940).

[INM@RLM]

Part Three is the 'wild card' because - not content with the confusion already created - in the March 1941 OQu. KTB, there is a single report of another completely different Do 24 being despatched to the Mediterranean as RLM WNr. 5.

Since we are dealing with only a very few aircraft though, by process of elimination this second iteration of a Do 24 N assigned RLM WNr. 5 can be deduced with almost total certainty to have actually been RLM WNr. 8, KK+UM, for which there are several BA photographs showing it on the water at Syracuse.

So Part Three is this single reference in the March 1941 KTB (Bundesarchiv, BArch RM 6/188 Kriegstagebuch Oberquartiermeister: Bd. 19)
KTB ----# ---KTB -----KTB Entry --KTB -----WNr. ----Stkz.
------------Page No. --Date -------Entry Time
Mar-41 -7 --- 8 -------06-Mar-41 --0945 --- 5 -----No mention

and the elimination table identifying WNr. 8 as the most likely actual candidate for the Do 24 N now being transferred to Syracuse is below:

Status 6-Mar-41
12 Do 24 N delivered by end-Feb'41 (BA-MA RL 3/534 - Jan to Nov 1941 C-Amts-Monatmeldungen)
# Avio c/n RLM WNr. "D-Kennz. -- Date Lost OR Date Arrived at Syracuse, Sicily
--------------------/Stkz."
A. Already lost (chronological order of loss)
1 Avio 75 (WNr. 2) KD+GE 28-Oct-40
2 Avio 77 (WNr. 4) D-APDA 15-Aug-40
3 Avio 82 WNr. 9 KK+UN 04-Jan-41
4 Avio 79 WNr. 6 KD+GF 21-Feb-41

B. Already assigned to 6.Seenotstaffel before end Feb'41
5 Avio 78 WNr. 5 KD+BH Late-Jan-41
6 Avio 80 WNr. 7 KK+UL 27-Feb-41
7 Avio 84 WNr. 11 KK+UP 27-Feb-41

C. Assigned to 1.Seenotstaffel at this date
8 Avio 83 WNr. 10 KK+UO Lost on 14-Mar-41

D. Disqualified from consideration for use by 6.SNS by engine fit (Bramo 323s - no other Seenot aircraft fitted with this engine yet)
9 Avio 76 WNr. 3 KD+GJ Probably still at E-Stelle Travemünde

E. Available
10 Avio 74 WNr. 1 KD+GA Photographed at Syracuse painted with Balkan Campaign Tactical Identification Markings (so most likely arrived after 6-Apr-41)
11 Avio 81 WNr. 8 KK+UM
12 Avio 85 WNr. 12 KK+UQ Delivered Feb-41 and probably not yet in front-line service.

N.B. Consistent use of RLM Werk-Nummern instead of using the Avio c/n as the WNr. seems only to happen in the March/April 1941 period.

[INM@RLM]

It is only fair to point out that, if, alternatively, this March 1941 mention of another WNr. 5 was actually to represent the contracted form of Avio 85 (last item in the 6-Mar-41 status list above), then this also makes WNr. 12, KK+UQ, delivered Feb-41, a strong and particularly relevant contender.

It is certain that KK+UQ did go to the Mediterranean since it is recorded flown from Rome Ostia to the Eastern Mediterranean in July 1941. (Although shown as KK+UO in Horst Thürling's history of 7.Seenotstaffel, the real KK+UO being reported in the OQu. KTB as lost with 1.Seenostaffel on 14-Mar-41 - as also noted in the table above).

For the moment though I have not found anything that will definitively resolve which is correct, but someone else may have.

[INM@RLM]

Originally Posted by INM@RLM

The reason that WNr. 5 is linked here with Stkz. KD+DE though can be quickly deduced.
This is another case of a contracted WNr. since this had been the Stkz. assigned to Avio 75 (which would have become RLM WNr. 2 had it survived long enough to make the transition, instead of becoming a total loss with 4.Seenotflugkdo on 28-Oct-1940).

In post #7, I forgot to also point out that Stkz. KD+DE was itself an error/typo for KD+GE, and it was KD+GE that was actually the Stkz. for Avio 75 at the date of its loss.
Plus, to correct my slip, Avio 75 was actually lost with 1.Seenotflugkdo at Brest.