Fw190D-11 - info/help needed pls

[Werdna]

Hi all

 

I'll be making a start shortly on the Hobbyboss 1/48 D-11 kit and yet again, I'm asking for some input from those with the answers  

 

The kit provides two decal options, one for the relatively well documented (ie there are pics available) '<61' (aka <81) - and the other for '<II', WNr 170526 - which is the scheme I'd like to represent.

 

I've yet to find a period photo of (or indeed any further info on) '<II', which is supposedly a staff Major's a/c from JV44, according to the one profile I can find online.  

 

So, the question is, can anyone shed any further light on this particular aircraft in terms of references or profiles?  I can probably get by with the info already available - and make the rest up based on pics of other late war Doras, but I'd rather work from actual valid source material if possible.

 

Thanks in advance  

[dov]

Well, I have many infos.

Engine and propeller? Pictures available.

Handling, infos available.

Operational quests, much available.

If you like it, tell me. At the evening I can respond.

[Werdna]

2 hours ago, dov said:

Well, I have many infos.

Engine and propeller? Pictures available.

Handling, infos available.

Operational quests, much available.

If you like it, tell me. At the evening I can respond.

 

Hi dov - any pictures you have relating to 170526 would be great  

[Troy Smith]

6 hours ago, Werdna said:

and the other for '<II', WNr 170526 - which is the scheme I'd like to represent.

 

I've yet to find a period photo of (or indeed any further info on) '<II', which is supposedly a staff Major's a/c from JV44, according to the one profile I can find online.  

 

So, the question is, can anyone shed any further light on this particular aircraft in terms of references or profiles? 

Try @SafetyDad,  my JaPo are not too hand.   

There maybe something in the Crandall books, but I don't have those, but @Jerry Crandall does on occasion post here.

@tank152 may also have some info.

HTH

[JasonC]

The W.Nr of 170526 is not from the range assigned to production D-11's, according to Japo these are W.Nr. 220001-220017.

 

Again, from Japo, the 170xxx numbers were used for 190D prototypes, known airframes as follows:

170003 - V53,V68, D-9 prototype

170923 - V55, D-11 prototype

170924 - V56, D-11 prototype

170926 - V57, D-11 prototype

170933 - V58, D-11 prototype

174024 - V54, D-9 prototype

 

None of the above appear to have served operationally.

 

In the list of airframes, there is a <II, W.Nr.210194 a D-9 shot down during Bodenplatte.

 

HTH,

Jason

[Werdna]

Thanks Jason  

 

I'm wondering if Hobbyboss have got this wrong and have incorrectly given the W.Nr as 170526 - when it should perhaps be 170926 .... which would make it the V57 prototype from that list.  Otherwise, there's no trace of a D-11 with that first W.Nr, a far as I can tell..

 

 

[dov]

The Dora versions are quite interesting by itself. The D-9 version is the most common one. The D-11 background of this version:

From German Wiki a summary

 

Despite the good performance of the Fw 190 D-9 with the Junkers Jumo 213 A, the RLM demanded the installation of the high-altitude engine Jumo 213 E in 1944. Due to the lack of space in the nose of the D variant, the required intercooler could not be used, related Jumo 213 F was installed and the charge air was cooled by means of MW-50 injection. By autumn 1944, Focke-Wulf carried out extensive tests with six test models of the D-11 sub-variant with the new engine, but these were stopped by the RLM for unknown reasons. As a result, the development focused on the sub-variants D-12 and D-13, which should differ in terms of armament. Since the Jumo 213 F allowed the assembly of a motor cannon, the D-12 should be equipped with a central 30 mm MK 108, the D-13 with a 20 mm MG 151/20 motor cannon. With both machines, the further armament was limited to the MG 151/20 E mounted in the wing roots, as the undercarriage could no longer cope with further loads from fuselage-mounted MGs or automatic cannons mounted in the outer wings.

Focke-Wulf provided five test machines for testing the D-12 / D-13 series: V62, V63 and V64 for the D-12 series, V65 (W No. 732053) and V71 (W No. 732054) for the D-13 series. In addition, Focke-Wulf used the test machines of the planned D-11 series, which had been stopped after a few aircraft were built, for further testing of the Jumo 213 F, although the installation of a motor cannon was omitted. Like the newly built test machines of the D-12 / D-13 series, these machines were converted from Fw-190-A-8 series machines. One focus was on the tests with the central cannon arrangement, which is why the prototypes V63 and V65 were handed over to the weapons testing center in Tarnewitz.

 

Hardly you may find a proofed picture of the variant D-11. Here good luck!

The general painting at this time was standard mottling with RLM 80+ colors, underside 76 or unpainted.

Look for photos you like.

If you want to show the engine, I am not sure if you find an F version.

Do you have any idea about the details required for the MW-50 installation there?

And the control units? Uuups, I think this starts to be a little bit grotesque.

 

Take it easy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Werdna]

Thanks dov, those are great pics of the Jumo there  

 

Just found another link to a slightly different colour profile on '<II', which seems to suggest that it is indeed ex V57 and that it ended up with JV44 at Munchen Riem, so the Hobbyboss W.Nr may very likely be a misprint or a plain old mistake.  Interestingly, the caption says '170526' while the W.Nr on the tail looks more like '170926'.  

 

[SafetyDad]

Hi there Werdna

 

No books with me at the moment (just about to sit down to supper) but that profile has cowl guns, so it's not a 190D-11. And it has also outer wing 30mm cannon so what does that make it?

I think @Troy Smith has a saying for this moment about profiles... 

 

I've just read the Classic Volume 1 on JV44 from cover to cover and I can confidently say that there's no mention of this airframe. The airfield protection flight of JV44 had 2 190D-11s on strength - one is Red 4 aka V58 (well documented from pics) and the other seems to be Red 2 (covered in the Crandall volumes on the 190D -slightly more speculative in that the photo evidence is less than definitive, but Jerry makes a pretty good case for it).

 

Jut to deepen the mystery, from memory the Crandall books refer to TWO V57 190D-11s - one carrying R4M rockets and the second without. I can find and post pics if you want to pursue either airframe as your subject? But neither are JV44 - both seem to be aircraft of the Flight Leaders School run by Gunther Rall before disbandment in April 1945

 

HTH

 

SD

[Werdna]

Hi SD - thanks for that, I hadn't noticed the cowl guns, but that might be just a mistake on the profile, perhaps?  There's also some confusion over the W.Nr, so there is a pattern forming here..  

 

Yes please - if you have info on either or both of the V57s I'd be keen to see it  

[SafetyDad]

OK, so supper over & Saturday chores complete, so now I have a little time. All pictures and information is from here:

 

 

The first of the two Fw 190D-11s is this one

 

 

and a profile derived from these pictures (there are more pictures in the book)

 

 

Decals are available from Eaglecals for this airframe (together with 'Yellow 10'.

 

The second of the D-11s marked as <57 is here

 

 

And a profile (extremely similar to the first airframe). Amazingly, these two extremely rare aircraft, so similar in their markings, were found only 30km apart.

 

 

 

And finally, what may be the origin of your <II profile

 

 

No Major Beim Stab chevron and bars, but a D-11 prototype that appears to have cowl gun troughs and a similar Wk. Nr.

 

HTH

 

SD

 

By the way, the distortion in the images is intentional - I prefer to use my phone to photograph any illustrations - this prevents the spines of my books being strained in a scanner, but, more importantly, makes the images less attractive for reproduction for any financial gain. All images posted for the purpose of discussion.

[MDriskill]

Not sure how much this will add to what's already been posted! But, after a quick look at the Classic and JaPo books...

 

+ "17" was the serial prefix assigned to Fw 190A-8's built by Focke-Wulf at Cottbus. The early D-11 prototypes were converted A-8 airframes, and retained the serials. 

+ "22" was the serial prefix for production D-11's, also FW Cottbus products.

+ Neither book mentions serial 170526 in connection with D-11 prototypes (or indeed, at all).

+ As mentioned above, it doesn't appear any of the D-11 prototypes were assigned to operational units.

+ Neither book shows a D-11 with markings "<||."

+ Both books show a D-11 with markings "<<," serial 220009.

+ Both books show a D-11 with markings "<<-," serial 220012.

 

Perhaps you could massage the kit decals to do one of those last two, or just mask and paint the simple chevrons? Won't help with the serial though... 🙁

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by MDriskill

[Werdna]

Thanks everyone, there's more options here than I expected  

 

But........I have a bit of a confession....

 

I've now pulled the decals out of the box and had a look - I'd previously only looked at the colour guide.  The W.Nr decals for '<II' are not 107526 - they are actually 170926.  So the error (apart from being my own lack of study before asking the question), is purely on the colour guide.  So we have to assume that Hobbyboss' intention has always been to represent the V57 prototype.  Sorry about that 😕

 

I suppose one question still remains though - how on earth was '<II' derived from V57..??  Presumably Hobbyboss has based it on the profile posted earlier in the thread, as the schemes are almost identical - which must have originated somehow?

[SafetyDad]

14 hours ago, Werdna said:

Thanks everyone, there's more options here than I expected  

 

I suppose one question still remains though - how on earth was '<II' derived from V57..??  Presumably Hobbyboss has based it on the profile posted earlier in the thread, as the schemes are almost identical - which must have originated somehow?

Martin Pegg in his re-issued volume on the Hs129 published by Charndos earlier this year also poses this question.

 

Although a little off-direct-topic I think its worth exploring his thoughts (admittedly about the Hs129 rather than the Fw190D-11) . As always, this is posted in the interests of research and discussion. 

 

 

In summary Pegg proposes that many profiles published in the past have, ahem, shall we say, an inadequate basis in photographic fact. These profiles then acquire credibility on account of their being repeatedly published over many years in normally authoritative sources. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

 

He also mentions the possibility of genuine error - absolutely.  New evidence continues to emerge from veteran's albums and challenges accepted belief (even where photos exist). An example would be the Fw190D-9 marked <-+- found at Frankfurt with the black-white-black RVD bands of JG4. This was accepted as the Gescwader Kommodore's aircraft, more so as it has very neat pinstriping on the tail bands. Only relatively recently, with the appearance of additional photos, has it become apparent that it is actually marked <1-+- and carries a JG4 cowling badge. There are lots of other examples...

 

As @Troy Smith would say...

 

SD

 

 

[dov]

Just to add on:

 

http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/search/label/Fw 190 Dora

 

At the very end of this page, you find some interesting pictures about surface finishing on Doras.

Highly polished, just to think about................

[Werdna]

3 hours ago, SafetyDad said:

In summary Pegg proposes that many profiles published in the past have, ahem, shall we say, an inadequate basis in photographic fact. These profiles then acquire credibility on account of their being repeatedly published over many years in normally authoritative sources. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

 

Agreed - and I guess it's perfectly possible that it might be the case with this particular D-11 scheme as well.  I just don't get why someone would go to all the trouble of representing a 'bogus' scheme for an aircraft when it would be significantly easier to represent it in its original prototype scheme, given that it was likely very similar in appearance to the other 'V' prototypes, for which pics do exist.

 

I suppose the other possibility is that there may be - somewhere - a proposition in favour of the conversion from 'V57' to '<II', but beyond the scheme itself, there doesn't seem to be anything to support it.  

 

This is why I'm a fan of the late war stuff - - fascinating, puzzling and frustrating in equal measure...