# FW-290?



## Bucksnort101 (Oct 27, 2010)

I am currently reading "Thunderbolt! by Robert S. Johnson and toward the end of the book he describe closing on two fighters attacking a lone Bomber. He describes them having to outline of a Fw-190 from a distance but as he closes he see's they have a "pointy nose with an in-line engine" and states they are the new FW-290. This would have been in early 1944, I think he stated it was in the month of January 1944 if I remember correctly.
Anyone knwo to which he is referring. My first instinct is he was seeing a FW-190 D-9 series, but am not sure when those went into combat service.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 27, 2010)

Based upon my recollection, the Fw-190D didn't enter squadron service until the late summer or fall of 1944, so unless this event occurred later than you believe, it could probably not be a Dora. I supposeJohnson could have seen a developmental prototype for the B, C or D model (which were flying quite a bit earlier), but I have a hard time believing there would be two of them chasing a bomber. I suspect others can give a much better answer than I, but my guess he just misidentified a couple of Bf-109s or Fw190As. 

I wonder how Johnson came up with the "Fw290" name. I'm unaware than US intelligence ever hypothesized about the existence of such a beast.


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Oct 27, 2010)

I'll look up the passage in the book tonight and see if I can get the date and description exactly as he describes it. Mr. Johnson wrote his book 15 years after then end of WWII so I suspect he may have got things mixed up a bit.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 27, 2010)

Bucksnort101 said:


> I'll look up the passage in the book tonight and see if I can get the date and description exactly as he describes it. Mr. Johnson wrote his book 15 years after then end of WWII so I suspect he may have got things mixed up a bit.



Quite likely. While very entertaining, informative, and often powerfully moving, the published reminiscences of combat pilots are among the least reliable sources for technical or historical facts about aircraft capabilities, design, or operational history.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 28, 2010)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that aircraft makers could not have the same number in Germany. For instance there already was a Ju 290, so there could not be an Me 290 or a Fw 290.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 28, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that aircraft makers could not have the same number in Germany. For instance there already was a Ju 290, so there could not be an Me 290 or a Fw 290.



True but the number was given by the Allies not the Germans. I would say it was a natural presumption by the Allies for example as the Me109 went to Me209 and Me309, the Ju88 went to Ju188 to Ju288 and Ju388.


----------



## Crimea_River (Oct 28, 2010)

Those would have been Doras most likely. Many pilot's bios and quotes have erroneous ID's.

EDIT sorry guys, I misread the date. Milosh below is right and the combat report is January 1943, making it impossible to be D's


----------



## Milosh (Oct 28, 2010)

They certainly were not Dora 9s as the first development report was issued on Feb 23 1944. The V17 did not fly til April 13 1944. The V53 did not fly til June 12 1944. The V54 did not fly til July 26 1944.

I am also not finding any photos of 'long nose' development Fw a/c with armament.


----------



## Timppa (Oct 28, 2010)

Almost certainly a misidentification. My guess is that Johnson saw Bf109's.

Allied intelligence was well aware of the development of the Fw 190C from the beginning. In Hermann's book of Fw190D there is a very accurate Allied sketch of "Fw190 with DB603 engine". So it is possible that this plane was dubbed as Fw290 by some intelligence officer.

But I'm quite sure that this plane , or any other Fw190 prototype was not what Johnson saw. They were far too valuable to be used in combat.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 28, 2010)

Timppa said:


> Almost certainly a misidentification. My guess is that Johnson saw Bf109's.
> 
> Allied intelligence was well aware of the development of the Fw 190C from the beginning. In Hermann's book of Fw190D there is a very accurate Allied sketch of "Fw190 with DB603 engine". So it is possible that this plane was dubbed as Fw290 by some intelligence officer.
> 
> But I'm quite sure that this plane , or any other Fw190 prototype was not what Johnson saw. They were far too valuable to be used in combat.



I would agree. If one accepted allied pilot accounts at face value, "He-113s" were also used operationally and shot down on occasion in 1943-44 even though we know that to be impossible. 

However, just for discussion, there were other in-line fighters used by the Luftwaffe in advanced fighter training schools, most notably as the Dewotine D-520. What is the possibility of these planes being encountered in combat situations and mis-identified as unknown German types.


----------



## Mike Williams (Oct 28, 2010)

I’m with Timpa on this; it’s simply a misidentification. They were not uncommon at the time. I believe the unit Intelligence Officers probably requested that pilots keep their eyes open for new variants and pilots saw what they expected to see. This applies to both RAF and USAAF.

AFDU Tactical Trials such as this one from April 1944  noted “It is anticipated that the new FW.190 (DB.603)… 

Here’s Johnson’s report on that encounter:






And the Encounter Report from 1st Lt. Joe Powers who shot down the 190:


----------



## zoomar (Oct 28, 2010)

vikingBerserker said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that aircraft makers could not have the same number in Germany. For instance there already was a Ju 290, so there could not be an Me 290 or a Fw 290.



Basically true, but like all rules there are exceptions. Thus the number "162" was used both for a schnellbomber derivative of the Bf-110 concept (Bf-162) flown in prototype form in the late 1930's and later for the He-162 jet fighter. I also believe numbers were originally often assigned in blocks to manufacturers (hence the Ju-85, 86,87, 89,90), and if a certain number never led to an actual airplane, it could be freed up for use by another manufacturer at a later date.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 28, 2010)

Mike Williams said:


> I’m with Timpa on this; it’s simply a misidentification. They were not uncommon at the time. I believe the unit Intelligence Officers probably requested that pilots keep their eyes open for new variants and pilots saw what they expected to see. This applies to both RAF and USAAF.
> 
> AFDU Tactical Trials such as this one from April 1944  noted “It is anticipated that the new FW.190 (DB.603)…
> 
> ...



It's great to read these. Thanks a million.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Oct 28, 2010)

zoomar said:


> It's great to read these. Thanks a million.



I agree with you, specially in the last segment of 1st. Lt. Joe H. Power's report in which he includes the job well done by the other two pilots in the flight.


----------



## CPWN (Oct 29, 2010)

How about Bf 109H? Some sub-variants were installed with Jumo-213.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2010)

How many Jumo powered 190H's flew?

The answer to that should answer the likelyhood of whether the "290" was a mis-identified 109H.


----------



## zoomar (Oct 29, 2010)

I think the answer is probably "none" - at least in operational form with the Jumo engine. I don't believe any Bf109H models were delivered to service squadrons, so the situation with this plane would be the same as with prototype long-nose FW's.

As others have said, the near certainty is that he simply saw a standard Bf-109, or somehow his eyes played tricks on him and he thought an "A" model Fw190 had a longer-than-usual nose. Or, maybe he wasn't sure what he saw (maybe a 109 or a 190) and just wanted first dibs on spotting the first "FW-290" and earning a pint from the intelligence geek.


----------



## CPWN (Oct 29, 2010)

Here's a possibly research:

_Bf 109 H in service with 5.(F)/123_
Bf 109 H in service with 5.(F)/123 - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
Bf 109 H (page 1)


From the page: Messerschmitt Bf 109H
A small number of the pre-production H-0 and H-1s were produced, and were tested by a reconnaissance unit based at Guyancourt, near Paris.



However, it seems non of them was Jumo powered.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 29, 2010)

CPWN said:


> However, it seems non of them was Jumo powered.



Bingo!


----------



## Bucksnort101 (Nov 3, 2010)

Read the rest of the book last night and I am now sure it was just a misidentification or typo in regards to the aircraft. Whomever proof read the book did not know enough about the suject to correct the error I believe. Towards the end of the book Mr. Johnson describes his last two kills and that saw a Me-209 cut in front of him. Along with several other sentences confusing sentences at the end of the book I'm sure it was not proof read to extensively. Still a pretty good book overall.


----------



## Erich (Nov 3, 2010)

in reality most US fighter jocks did not know late war LW types in 45. Johnson is no exception, long nose Fw 190's were typed up in after action reports and in 99 % of the cases the guys were flying against Fw 190A-8 and A-9's


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 3, 2010)

and a couple fins claimed they shot down 51s...which isnt entirely or absolutely impossible but highly improbable.


----------



## Erich (Nov 3, 2010)

not really as there were at least 6 109 pilots in I./JG 300 and in the spring of 44 they could of easily engaged 51's even into the summer of 44


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 3, 2010)

i am not following you, here, erich...in finland? how does I./JG 300 relate to that? i will have to look it up (again) but top a Finish ace said in one of his encounters he shot down a 51 , but everything else i read dismisses this as actually being a yak. personally, i actually give more creedence to the pilots aircraft identification skills but have no proof. i believe another fin pilot also claims to have shot down or had a go around with a stang. its not impossible due to the shuttle missions in 1944 where 51s and 39s landed on russian "FRANTIC" bases. i know of one that crash landed and was left there. how repairable it was??? a total loss or collapsed gear...some where in between. when they left those bases..some ac may not have started and been abandoned...or the taken off and had to return to base due to problems...and abandoned. there was very limited repair abilities here if any. these are all possiblilties only..i have no proof save for the one crash landed 357th ac. the russian could have had a couple to play with and used them....we may never know?


----------



## Erich (Nov 3, 2010)

at least 6 Finnish pilots served in the ranks of I./JG 302 at night and on day missions before the survivors went back to Finland and served against the Soviets. so with that there is a strong possibility that the high cover gruppe I./JG 302 with the Fin pilots may have encountered P-51B pilots over Germany. it was not JG 300 that I mentioned earlier. JG 302 was already based in part in Finland.

A-ok now ?


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 3, 2010)

gotcha! i can see that but these reports were supposedly over Finland airspace. i am close to finding them...

ok got it. but first let me ask if the 6 fins were there fighting or primarily there to train? i remember a small amount were sent to germany after the war of continuation started. germany became more friendly to finland and started to share equipment and training. IIRC that is when they started getting 109s. that detachment was there to train and learn to teach the other fin pilots how to fly the 109. 

the 51 encounters i remember came from this website which has an interview with finnish ace Ilmari Juutilainen. 
the site is: http://www.sci.fi/~fta/finace012.htm

and here is the piece from the article:

MH: Another unusual plane on your victory list is the North American P-51 Mustang of which the Soviets received only 10. Could you describe your two encounters with the Mustangs?
Juutilainen: The only time we saw Mustangs was during the peak of the Soviet summer offensive of 1944. The Mustangs we met were older models, with Allison engines. On June 26 we had just been escorting Bristol Blenheim bombers and were returning over the front line when I saw a Mustang approaching me from my right side in a right turn with his belly toward me. I yanked the throttle to idle to let it slide past me. The Mustang pilot, however, recovered his turn and then saw me. He also pulled his throttle back, and I saw long flames backfiring from his exhaust pipes. He also kicked his rudder to slow down, but I was doing the same thing, and because I had started sooner than he, the Mustang slid right out in front of me. The Mustang pilot then went to full power and tried to shake me off his tail with a climbing turn. In so doing he made his last mistake and flew directly in front of my gunsight. I fired, and soon the Mustang was burning in the forest near Tammisuo. Two days later my section was returning from a reconnaissance mission and made the usual detour to have an aerial engagement before returning to base. Soon we saw an Il-2 formation coming toward us escorted by three Mustangs. One of them pulled left and the other two went into a dive. In a tight diving turn I went after the airplane that had broken left, firing short bursts to break the pilot's mental backbone. It worked, for he apparently got nervous and went into a dive. The pilot kicked his rudder, but much too rapidly, only causing the tail to waggle while his plane stayed rather comfortably in the middle of my sight. The target was at an altitude of about 150 feet when it caught fire and crashed into the tall pine trees.

this could be complete BS but the time frame does fit. the FRANTIC missions were all prior to this time frame.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (Nov 4, 2010)

Erich said:


> at least 6 Finnish pilots served in the ranks of I./JG 302 at night and on day missions before the survivors went back to Finland and served against the Soviets. so with that there is a strong possibility that the high cover gruppe I./JG 302 with the Fin pilots may have encountered P-51B pilots over Germany. it was not JG 300 that I mentioned earlier. JG 302 was already based in part in Finland.
> 
> A-ok now ?



You have a source for that ?
There were a group (more than 6) that participated in night fighter training (Jun.- Sept. 1944) , but they did not take part of combat, AFAIK

This subject pops up at regular intervals in various forums, but shortly:
The Soviet OOB is now quite well known: Their bases, their equipment, their numbers. So at Finnish front (1944):
The Soviets had plenty of Yaks of various marks, La-5's, and P-39's. Small number of of P-40's and Hurricanes. But :
- No Spitfires
- No Mustangs of any kind
- No P-38's ( one of Juutilainen's claims)


----------



## drgondog (Nov 5, 2010)

bobbysocks said:


> its not impossible due to the shuttle missions in 1944 where 51s and 39s landed on russian "FRANTIC" bases.
> 
> *No P-39s were used for shuttle missions. Several Mustangs were left during each of the seven - almost all due to simple mechanical issues like mags or generators requiring replacement. A belly landing could be repaired but a Packard Merlin engine change would be problematical if damaged.
> 
> ...



The 357th (Frantic II) did two escort missions for Russian bombers on August 7th and 8th, the latter mission was to Rumania and they continued on to Italy. They didn't get back to UK until 11th and 12th. I'll have to dig for any air to air losses on the 'supplemental' missions but don't recall any.


All ttoo possible but why wuould VVS place an unmaintainable ship on Ops? Particularly since the Mustang would be down the list in performance against LW at low to medium altitudes in contrast to Yak 3 or Laag 7's, etc.

Personally I wouldn't (and don't) believe any P-51B/D were used by Soviets until I see some proof from VVS records.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 5, 2010)

The Soviets had Spit IXs so I don't see why one of the spare engines could not be put in a P-51.


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 8, 2010)

drgondog said:


> The 357th (Frantic II) did two escort missions for Russian bombers on August 7th and 8th, the latter mission was to Rumania and they continued on to Italy. They didn't get back to UK until 11th and 12th. I'll have to dig for any air to air losses on the 'supplemental' missions but don't recall any.
> 
> 
> All ttoo possible but why wuould VVS place an unmaintainable ship on Ops? Particularly since the Mustang would be down the list in performance against LW at low to medium altitudes in contrast to Yak 3 or Laag 7's, etc.
> ...



first off my apology for the typo...it wasnt 51s and *39s*but p 38s that were involved in shuttle missions. my fingers stick or i get vaporlock of the brain on occasion.

the one and only reference i have a of a 51 ( from the 357th) crash landing in russia ( and it said during Frantic V) is from here: 

8th Air Force Fighter Group - Littlefriends.co.uk

it was G4-W from the 362nd sq ac# 43-6721 Lt. Howard Egeland's "Chicago Bound" .... Lost 8 Aug 1944 - crashlanded Russia during "Frantic V" - Lt. Egeland uninjured.

ok just found this :Russian P51's

Okay - as for the aircraft that landed / crashlanded behind Russian lines; here are some aircraft that are known to have ended up on Russian territory - I didn't include those where the pilot bailed out, i.e. where the aircraft was destroyed:

(Dates given DD/MM/YYYY)

44-13399 P-51D-5-NA 4th FG 335th FS WD-O, damaged 21.06.1944 during "Frantic" mission wit Lt. James W. Russell, Jr.; salvaged in Russia - date given as 04.07.1944 (left behind)

43-6721 P-51B-5-NA 357th FG 362nd FS G4-W; lost 08.08.1944 crashlanding; flown on shuttle mission "Frantic V" by 1/Lt. Howard B. Egeland; crashlanded in Russia (pilot ok)

44-14086 P-51D-10-NA 339th FG 505th FS "Angel of Mercy" 6N-D; lost 12.03.1945 with Lt. Richard C. O'Brien RET MACR #13417, crashlanding in Russia; personal a/c of Maj. Archie A. Tower

44-13440 P-51D-5-NA 325th FG 217th FS "Ball's Out II" 30, lost 14.03.1945 in forced landing in Russia, a/c assigned to and lost with Lt. Walter R. Hinton - a/c given as salvaged 02.09.1945 ! 

44-14314 P-51D-10-NA 355th FG 357th FS "Sexless Stella / One More Time" OS-L, lost 15.03.1945, MIA; a/c assigned to and lost with Lt. Jack H. Dressler - Evader via Russia

44-63183 P-51D-20-NA 78th FG 82nd FS "Cutie II" MX-Y, lost 17.03.1945; a/c assigned to and lost with Lt. Paul H. Stearns - EVD

44-15137 P-51D-15-NA 353rd FG 350th FS "Baby Duck" LH-R; lost 18.03.1945, MIA (Russian La-5's) a/c assigned to Capt. Herbert G. Kolb; a/c lost with 2/Lt. Garnet D. Page (RET) MACR #13414

44-72233 P-51D-20-NA 78th FG 82nd FS "Cutie" MX-D; lost 21.03.1945 MIA (flak) a/c assg. to/lost with Maj. Richard E. Conner - hit by flak at L?nnewitz; bellied-in behind Russian lines.

44-14852 P-51D-10-NA 78th FG 83rd FS "Lottie" HL-F, lost 26.03.1945 with Lt. Andrew R. Innocenzi, landing accident in Russia - reported as Reclaimed / reduced to components 19.11.1947 !

44-63512 P-51D-20-NA 325th FG 318th FS "ShuShu / Chuck O" 66; lost 02.04.1945, crashed Russia; a/c assigned to Maj. Norman Leroy McDonald

43-24784 P-51B-15-NA 325th FG 318th FS "Charlotte" A58, lost 02.04.1945; a/c assigned to and lost with 1/Lt. Henry E. Southern - MIA MACR #13642


----------



## billswagger (Nov 9, 2010)

In reguards to RSJ's report, 

There's the possibility of a field mod, taking an inline engine and adding it to the 190 airframe.
It could've also been an Emil airframe with the later engine. 
I'd find it hard to confuse a 190 with a 109 though. 
There are other reports on that site that make note of 108s, or an aircraft similar but not quite a 109. 
It wouldn't surprise me if mystery planes were flying around with parts from several aircraft. 


Bill


----------



## bobbysocks (Nov 9, 2010)

Timppa said:


> You have a source for that ?
> There were a group (more than 6) that participated in night fighter training (Jun.- Sept. 1944) , but they did not take part of combat, AFAIK
> 
> This subject pops up at regular intervals in various forums, but shortly:
> ...



you sure about that???

i said it wasnt entirely impossible that the russians used them...but very highly improbable. there is no proof. there are no records. the wreck of what he shot down is still in the finnish mountains...probably a yak. but this is an A model with an allison engine...just like Juutlainen said he saw. who knows?????


----------



## Milosh (Nov 9, 2010)

The Soviets received 10 Mustang Is from the British.


----------



## riacrato (Nov 9, 2010)

billswagger said:


> In reguards to RSJ's report,
> 
> There's the possibility of a field mod, taking an inline engine and adding it to the 190 airframe.
> It could've also been an Emil airframe with the later engine.
> ...



That would surprise me _very much_.


----------



## Nowotny262 (Mar 3, 2019)

Johnsons saw the very rare Fiat G55 Centauro wich saw service in small numbers with the Luftwaffe


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 3, 2019)

Nowotny262 said:


> Johnsons saw the very rare Fiat G55 Centauro wich saw service in small numbers with the Luftwaffe



I doubt that is what he saw. The German acquired 3 G55’s. 2 of them never left Italy, and only one arrived in Germany. Johnson claimed he saw 2, and if thats the case these certainly were not it. Besides the G55 does not look remotely close.

None of the 3 G55 acquired, saw service anyhow. All three were used for testing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2019)

Nowotny262 said:


> Johnsons saw the very rare Fiat G55 Centauro wich saw service in small numbers with the Luftwaffe


The Fiat was only test flown by the Luftwaffe and by late '44, was retired from service by the ANR in favor of Bf109s.

The few photos of the five G.55 that exist with Luftwaffe markings do not have stammkennzeiche applied, meaning it never got beyond testing at Rechlin.

The five Luftwaffe G.55s were:
M.M.91064
M.M.91065
M.M.91066
M.M.91067
M.M.91068


----------



## Nowotny262 (Mar 3, 2019)

Please read the account attached to the Centauro's image, on this Green the pilot hwo kill Bonet (G55 pilot) in fact had the same confussion


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 3, 2019)

Other than this site, I can't seem to find any other mention of an Fw 290 on the web


----------



## fubar57 (Mar 3, 2019)

From the Robert S. Johnson book also listing Martin "I Only Stick to the Facts" Caidin as co-authur....


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 3, 2019)

Nowotny262 said:


> Please read the account attached to the Centauro's image, on this Green the pilot hwo kill Bonet (G55 pilot) in fact had the same confussion


That's not a Luftwaffe G.55, though.

And during the BoB, RAF pilots claimed to have shot down Heinkel He113 fighters, too.

In regards to a Fw290, there is no such thing. The first clue would be the "290" which was already in use as the Ju290...the RLM did not allow duplicates except on very rare occasions, like the case of "162" (Bf162/He162).


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Mar 7, 2019)

hate to say it, but he may have misidentified some P-51's, and attacked them. Wouldn't have been the first time it happened, and certainly not the last.
And it wasn't unheard of for Mustangs to be mistaken for 109's


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Mar 7, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> That's not a Luftwaffe G.55, though.
> 
> And during the BoB, RAF pilots claimed to have shot down Heinkel He113 fighters, too.
> 
> In regards to a Fw290, there is no such thing. The first clue would be the "290" which was already in use as the Ju290...the RLM did not allow duplicates except on very rare occasions, like the case of "162" (Bf162/He162).


Given the Germans' established pattern of adding 100 to type numbers for further developed versions (e.g Ju 88, Ju 188, Ju 288), is it possible that 'Fw 290' was just a guess at the name of the Fw 190D when it first appeared?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 7, 2019)

KiwiBiggles said:


> Given the Germans' established pattern of adding 100 to type numbers for further developed versions (e.g Ju 88, Ju 188, Ju 288), is it possible that 'Fw 290' was just a guess at the name of the Fw 190D when it first appeared?


That would indeed make sense, but as mentioned, the Ju290 prevented that, so the Fw190 ended up with a "D" variant instead of a new designation.

But again, there's still some question as to what really was encountered.
Like I posted earlier, RAF pilots were claiming He113s during the Battle of Britain and there's a USAAF action report where a pilot claimed an He280. 
During a an air raid over Sophia, Bulgaria, the Royal Bulgarian Air Force intercepted a flight of US bombers and they spotted a flight of inbound fighters and welcomed their approach, as they saw them to be Bf109s.
They were wrong, this inbound flight were P-51Bs and it was almost a fatal mistake...


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Mar 7, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> That would indeed make sense, but as mentioned, the Ju290 prevented that, so the Fw190 ended up with a "D" variant instead of a new designation.
> 
> But again, there's still some question as to what really was encountered.
> Like I posted earlier, RAF pilots were claiming He113s during the Battle of Britain and there's a USAAF action report where a pilot claimed an He280.
> ...


I want suggesting that 290 was the actual designation; just that it might have been British Intelligence's first guess at a name for the new type. I don't suppose they were on the Luftwaffe's internal mailing list when designations were finalized.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 8, 2019)

Allies had fairly good intel, though and were aware of the Fw190C project and V17 didn't fly until Spring of 1944, the other prototypes flying soon after.

And in regards to Johnson's report, he stated that the two fighters that were attacking a lone bomber had the outline of a Fw190 from a distance but had a pointed nose with an inline engine.
While this might sound like an Fw190D, his encounter was in January 1943...the Fw190D went operational in September '44.


----------

