Fw 190 D-9 WNr. 211251 or 210251

[PhilippeDM]

Dear friends,

Browsing through Eric Larger, Marc Deboeck and Tomas Poruba's volume 2 covering the Fw 190 D, I came across Dora pictures of what is referred to be WNr 211251. See page 467 upper right and left.

The tables in the same books indicate that no Dora's were built in that block of WNrs. The closiest match is block 210901-211200 (Fw Sorau (Cotbuss)(FW)). The next block is 211901-211950 (Gerhard fieseler Werke (GFW)). No other "211" blocks are mentionned. Obviously there seems to be a WNr. gap between 211200 and 211900.

A quick look through my picture index from volume 1 does not clarify the situation either: no match. This WNr seems not to exist.

According to me this is a type mismatch. Should it be possible this plane to be 210251, plane which fits perfectly in the described WNr. blocks? This plane is part of a JG6 (?) machines captured by the Soviets and put into action with the "Baltic Fleet Air Force".
Some pictures of this plane appears also in: Fw 190D - Focke Wulf Fw 190D Dora - Modeller's Eye 4 (Koichiro Abe é& Co, 2003) p70 to 74.

What is bothering me, besides the WNr. story, is that the pictures (excerpts?) of JaPo's book do not match any picture of the "Modeller's Eye" book.

Here thus the questions:

1. Is my assumption correct that "JaPo" printed a type mismatch? (they are herewith immediately forgiven, as their work is tremendously fabulous)

2. Do other pictures of WNr 210251 exist than the standard serie of pictures published in "Modeller's Eye"?
If yes, - where to find them?
- Do they match the pictures in the "JaPo" book?

Many thanks in advance for all informations!

(Is there still hope for volume 3 of this epos after the sudden disparition of Eric and the problems the authors encountered with their publishers?)

[Franek Grabowski]

Those aircraft were not flown by naval aviation, but rather used at an evaluation centre.

[PhilippeDM]

Thanks Franek for this info, it suites my further research. And like used, part of the answers were just under my nose. In the same Modeller's Eye I found the pictures I was looking for: just the same, but uncropped as those in the JaPo book (both references mentionned in my previous input).

Strange however: the WNr mentionned in the Modelle's Eye book is 210185.

In the WNr list of JaPo's volume 1, both planes are mentionned to be part of the Soviet AF Scientific Research Institute (see also http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.p...40&page=fw190d)

This leaves me with another problem: I have now 3 WNrs possible for those pictures: WNr. 211251 - the most improbable
WNr. 210251 and WNr. 210185.

Is there someone who can clarify this situation???

[Seaplanes]

The Werk-Nummer series beginning with 21 was assigned to a batch of FW 190D-9 produced by Focke-Wulf, Sorau (Factory code: ncc). Deliveries began in September 1944 with Werk-Nummern running from 21 0001 to about 21 0299, 21 0901 to about 21 1150, from about 21 1901 to about 21 1940 and finally from about 21 2120 to about 21 2156.

Gerhard Fieseler Werke only delivered D-9 aircraft with Werk-Nummern beginning with 60.

The first two digits in the six digit Werk-Nummer series identified the factory and type of aircraft built. The remaining four digits was the actual Werk-Nummer.

[PhilippeDM]

Seaplanes,

I completely agree with your list of WNr in the 21 NCC actory range, This still leaves me with the primary question: which plane is shown in JaPo's book. They mention 211251, which does not fit your list.
The pictures of Modeller's Eye refer to 210185. So which plane was photographed in detail in the "Soviet AF Scientific Research Institute"? WNr 210185 or 210251??

WNr. 21 1251 mentionned is JaPo is thus definitely a type mismatch...

[Keizer Cali]

Dear Philippe,

Thank you for pointing out this anomaly, which is a typographic error. Indeed, as far as we know, no W.Nr. 211251 has existed. I will ensure that an erratum is posted on the JaPo web site, and also included in the overall list of errata in Vol. III.

While I do not have all my references at hand, the photographs on page 467 of Part II that you refer to are in all likelihood of W.Nr. 210185 as tested at the Soviet Air Forces Scientific Research Institute - please compare them with the second picture of W.Nr. 210251 on page 71 of the "Modeler's Eye 4". The differences between the paint scheme on the engine section and the application of the date on the starboard side of the radiator cowling of both aircraft are minimal, but sufficiently different to conclude that we are looking at two different aircraft.

You mention that W.Nr. 210251 may have been a JG 6 aircraft, but that is highly doubtful. As far as can be verified, JG 6 received its first D-9 on 20 January 1945 at FW Sorau, the majority stemming from the W.Nr. 2111xx batch, plus deliveries from the series W.Nr. 2119xx and 212xxx. Only a limited number of the Geschwader's D-9s came from WFG, MME and GFW, and in most cases these were repaired aircraft. In addition, W.Nr. 210251 does not show any traces of previous ownership, such as a spiral on the spinner or a II. Gruppe bar.

Exactly why W.Nr. 210185 and 210251 were captured at Marienburg remains controversial, since their production date would presuppose a delivery to a frontline unit some time in January 1945 - we have always felt that they were actually repaired aircraft, which would also explain e.g., their bulged canopies.

That said, you will undoubtedly want to hear about the next volumes of the Fw 190D-9 camouflage & markings books.
The passing of Eric has come as a complete and terrible shock to me, in the first place because Eric and I were very close friends, but also because we had made good progress in the preparation of Volume III. The only “positive” thing that I can say is that I will definitely continue the work that we started, utilising all the material that we have gathered. I will be travelling to his home town in Normandy in December, and assist his wife Pascale in clearing and organising his entire archive – that is what Eric wished to happen to his material and I will respect that unconditionally, so that the research can go on, and hopefully his memory and spirit will allow me to bring our project to a good end. I know that Eric would have done exactly the same thing for me, and continuing the work will be a way of paying tribute to him, both as a friend and a dedicated researcher.

I regret that I cannot be more precise at this moment. It will only be near the end of this year – when having had the time to analyse Eric’s archive – that I will be able to realistically re-schedule the edition of Volume III. Once that is done, I can again look into the very initial plan that we had for a possible Volume IV and a similar project on the He 162.

I hope this clarifies your questions, but do not hesitate to refer back to me for further information.

Marc

[Franek Grabowski]

Well, perhaps they were not captured at Marienburg?

[Seaplanes]

Although I do not have any information about W.Nr. 210251, most other aircraft around this W.Nr. went to J.G.2.

[PhilippeDM]

Marc,

Thank you for the update! It is a pleasure to read that Eric's and your work will be pursued and further expanded. Count me in as being one of your readers!
I'll continue to scrutinise your book to my pleasure and am very glad to get the answers to the questions which may raise. I have to confess that I'm not so used to study every detail of pictures published in a book as many details are lost while magnifying them according to the printers rasters. I have deep respect for those who can determine such details as colorshades (take RLM81 83) on black and white pictures, without having the original print.
I will try to better my life in that aspect of our Luftwaffe fun!

[Jerry Crandall]

Hello all;
I am convinced that the Dora 9 in question is not 210251, with all due respect to my dear friend Marc. This is most difficult at this time as we are all still mourning the loss of Eric Larger.
1. This cannot be a 210 series aircraft for the following reasons:
The basic camouflage is not the typical early Focke-Wulf Sorau pattern. 210251 was manufactured and delivered in November/December 1944; however, it does match the 211 series camouflage pattern.
This D-9 has the late three-piece gun cowl with the small round bulge on the rear of the cowling in the low position, No. 2. If this a/c was 210251 it would have had the early five-piece gun cowl with the small round bulge in the high position to allow for the additional panel line that is known to have been installed in a/c up until about 210300.
It has a blown canopy, although the rear metal portion is unpainted typical of D-9s found at Marienburg.
2. It has all the characteristics of 211 a/c, such as the heavy mottling on the tail, the partially painted landing gear doors, and typical 211 series prepainted upper camouflage on the engine cowling which does not match up with the fuselage camouflage.

This D-9 in question matches very well with a known Dora 9 found at Marienburg at the same time, W. Nr. 211133. Yes it is hard to explain how it could be 211251 as the accepted Werknummer block ends at 211200. We know for sure from the photos that the Werknummer starts with a '2' and appears to end with a '1'. Recently I contacted the authors of the Modeler's Eye monograph asking them for the source of this Werknummer 210251. They were unable to supply any physical proof of this number they published. Interesting also that none of these Focke-Wulf Dora 9s and A-8s found at Marienburg have spiral spinners.
Now, after having said all that, it is possible, I suppose, that this Dora 9 could have been completely rebuilt at the Marienburg facility, although I believe this is very unlikely. These Fw 190s found at this facility after the war do appear to be unissued but have seen moderate use, noted by the exhaust staining on the side of the fuselage.
It could be in the range of 211133 and not 210251 or 211251.
Cheers,
Jerry