Ar 240 loss information

[Pawel Burchard]

Could anyone supply information on recorded Ar 240 losses?

best regards,
Pawel

[thenelm]

This all I have - just from the Gen.Qu. and Schulen losses (so far) -
Ar 240, 0011, n.n., , , 3.(F), 100, , , , , 16-Feb-43, Crashed due to technical failure., , Lw.Kdo.Ost/Eins.Osten, Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #8)-Vol.14, , Poltawa-Seschtschinskaja, 100%, H, Bf Ofw. Heinz Felleckner, ,
Ar 240, 0010, n.n., , , 1.(F), 100, , , , , 03-Aug-43, Notlandung due to technical failure., , Lfl.6/Eins.Osten, Gen.Qu.6.Abt. (mfm #11)-Vol.20, , Fl.Pl. Orscha-Süd, 15%, F, , ,
Ar 240A, 100012, n.n., , , , Vers.St.f.Höhenflüge, , , , , 24-Jan-44, Bauchlandung due to technical failure., , Lfl.Reich, BA-MA Signatur RL 2 III/784, Flzg.-Unfälle bei Schulen usw., p.54, , bei Prenzlau, 25%, H, , ,

[Graham Boak]

The item of 0010 is very interesting, as this is one of the aircraft not readily (or even with difficulty!) identified in listings of the type. As you are probably aware, listings do tend to be contradictory.

I have information on the losses of 0013 (A-03) lost after crash landing in Northern Italy in early 1943 and A-04 (presumably 0014) lost in a crash landing on the Eastern Front in mid 1944, but they may need some digging out. The data for A-03 can be found in the Flugzeug/Schiffer Profile on the type.

0010 will need identifying as this may mean that photographs of the type have been misidentified. It may be a reference to the V-10, perhaps, but this has been linked to 0018 (if I remember correctly).

0011 and 0012 are the well-known A-01 and A-02.

Unidentified numbers are 007, 008, 009, 0010, 0015 and any higher.
Unidentified aircraft are the V7, V8, V9 and V10. V11 and V12 are not believed to have been built.

I have a pet theory that V7 was 0015, which would make V8 0016 and so on to V10 at 0018. This requires the numbers 007 to 0010 to be unused, earlier cancelled aircraft perhaps; a theory which cannot be correct if 0010 can be positively identified.

[Pawel Burchard]

According to Mankau/Petrick 110/210/410 - probably the best source to date on Ar 240 development -
0011 would be Ar 240 A-01 (DB 601 E) GL+QA
0010 would be Ar 240 V8 (DB 605A)
0012 would be Ar 240 A-02 (DB 601 E) GL+QB

This does match the data on 1./100 from www.ww2.dk as V8 is mentioned as Abgang o.F. in August 1943, another DB 605 A prototype (V7) is also listed with 1./100 about that time.

[Pawel Burchard]

According to abovementioned book Ar 240 A-03, 0013 (DB 603 A) was lost while with 2./122 in Italy on 14-Jul-1943, as this does not fall into 1944-gap it should be recorded in GQM files.

[Graham Boak]

If V-7 = 009, then which aircraft was A-05 that visited DB, in one source? (DB have no record.) And which was 007/008?

There are a number of contradictory pieces of information published - were there originally 10 airframes ordered or 6? If it was ten then reduced to six, that explains why four numbers may be missing before we get the development batch A-0s. It seems entirely logical that the DB605 prototypes, like the true DB603 prototypes, should follow the short batch of A-0, or even be conversions as the hybrid A-03/4 were. Logic may well be a weak reed in this case.

If we accept Dr. Mankau's selection of the evidence (reasonably enough) then which aircraft were 007, 008, 0015 and 0016? Perhaps the latter were "cancelled" A-05 and A-06, both of which appear in some sources but not in others?

Some time I had considerable correspondence with Dr. Mankau, and I agree that he is the most reliable source, though I would turn to his articles in Flugzeug which are much fuller than the comments in the Petrick book. I think he would agree that the full history of the aircraft has not yet surfaced - unless of course he has since obtained more!

PS Eric Brown claimed to have flown an Ar240 with DB605 engines postwar, from a French (or French-occupied) airfield. Does your available information help to identify which this could have been?

[Pawel Burchard]

According to Mankau/Petrick 0007/0008 were at first assigned to V7/V8 but eventually never completed and two a/c from A-0 batch were reassigned as V7/V8 (0009/0010 with DB 605 A). Thus there should not be A-05 and A-06.
0015/16 could be assigned to B-0 a/c - DB 605 A engined series that was cancelled.

So it seems that the only Arados with DB 605 A were V7 and V8 (and could be 0015/16 if built).

I do not know the articles in Flugzeug, but Petrick's book was published in 2001 so maybe there really was some new information available.

p.

[Pawel Burchard]

Originally Posted by Pawel Burchard

According to abovementioned book Ar 240 A-03, 0013 (DB 603 A) was lost while with 2./122 in Italy on 14-Jul-1943, as this does not fall into 1944-gap it should be recorded in GQM files.

Just found this on the Andy Mitchell's site -
12 Jul 1943 - An Ar 240 belong to (F)/122 arrived at Villacidro on Sardinia.[10] This Ar 240 was to fly reconnaissance of Bizerta.[11]

http://luftwaffedata.co.uk/wiki/inde...._122_Jul_1943

[Graham Boak]

Accepting this logic, the question that now arises is how the original V7 and V8 differed from the ones eventually built, for it seems wasteful and illogical to cancel earlier airframes just to repeat the same work on the next two along. And then shuffling along the "A-01" title to the third airframe? Odd.

A-03 and A-04 were more severely modified, yet didn't get V-numbers but only suffix modifiers (A-03/U, if I recall correctly). More inconsistency.

As for 0015/16, "could be" B-0s or could be anything - is there the slightest suggestion of any order for B-0s?

I hope you see that what I am saying is not that the current description is necessarily wrong, but that it raises more questions than answers.

[Pawel Burchard]

Mankau does not give any clue about 0015/16 - that they could be assigned to B-0s was only my guess

That V8 was indeed 0010 is indirectly confirmed by 3./100 Bestands-Mldg. and GQM loss report.

My understanding is that original V7/8 build was not cancelled, only W.Nrn. were reassigned. Maybe there was no logic involved, only bureaucracy.

p.