PDA

View Full Version : Early series Me-109 e's with drop tanks!



stalkervision
02-11-2008, 09:38 PM
Check it out you non-believers.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2352/2147261354_e59fc21735.jpg?v=0

a e4 with a dropable centerline fuel tank..

E6 with a centerline fuel tank..

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2056/2239086782_abd6719638.jpg?v=0

http://www.flickr.com/photos/farinihouseoflove/sets/72157603801316117/?page=2

cawimmer430
02-12-2008, 04:27 AM
Holy cr_p!

I didn't know you were so good with photoshop, Stalker! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Feathered_IV
02-12-2008, 04:34 AM
Those two shots very nearly represent the grand total of early Emils that had them too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Ratsack
02-12-2008, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
Check it out you non-believers.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2352/2147261354_e59fc21735.jpg?v=0

a e4 with a dropable centerline fuel tank..

This looks like a garden-variety E-7 to me. It could be an E-4, but it seems to have the closed spinner tip of the E-7.



E6 with a centerline fuel tank..

What is an E-6? I've seen references to E-6s and E-9s around this board, but never seen an explanation.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2056/2239086782_abd6719638.jpg?v=0

cheers,
Ratsack

luftluuver
02-12-2008, 05:37 AM
The E-6 was a tactical recon plane.

Two seconds using Google to find.

Ratsack
02-12-2008, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
The E-6 was a tactical recon plane.

Two seconds using Google to find.

That's nice. Now, what makes you think it actually existed, and how does one identify it photographically if it did? Are there a known set of serials that were set aside for E-6s? How many of the handful that may have been ordered were actually built?

And in particular, what makes you think this plane in this pic is an E-6?

Google is not necessarily your friend.

Ratsack

John_Wayne_
02-12-2008, 06:52 AM
Another desperate attempt to influence the plane set for a computer game.

Feathered_IV
02-12-2008, 06:53 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
The E-6 was a tactical recon plane.

Two seconds using Google to find.

That's nice. Now, what makes you think it actually existed, and how does one identify it photographically if it did? Are there a known set of serials that were set aside for E-6s? How many of the handful that may have been ordered were actually built?

And in particular, what makes you think this plane in this pic is an E-6?

Google is not necessarily your friend.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats the way to get it going chaps. Twelve pages from here on. Easy.

Irish_Rogues
02-12-2008, 06:57 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Ratsack
02-12-2008, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
Another desperate attempt to influence the plane set for a computer game.

In what way? This sim is finished. BoB - if and when it's released - will arrive with the E-3, which has no relevance to this discussion.

How on Earth is this a discussion to influence plane sets?

I made a simple observation, that the top pic in my view is probably an E-7, and asked for an explanation of why the lower pic is tagged as an E-6.

Easy to understand, in my view.

Ratsack

luftluuver
02-12-2008, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
That's nice. Now, what makes you think it actually existed, and how does one identify it photographically if it did? Are there a known set of serials that were set aside for E-6s? How many of the handful that may have been ordered were actually built?

And in particular, what makes you think this plane in this pic is an E-6?

Google is not necessarily your friend.

Ratsack
For starters Rat, there is the camera opening between Frames 5 and 6.

There was at least 9 produced by Arado GmbH in their Warnemunde factory.

There was also the E-5 tactical recon plane. Some 29 were produced by Arado.

For general info, like what you asked, Google does OK. That is beside the Radinger/Schick book, Messerschmitt Bf109A-E.

Friendly_flyer
02-12-2008, 07:09 AM
Where's Kurfy when we need him?

John_Wayne_
02-12-2008, 07:22 AM
Don't be so jumpy Ratsack. Did I mention you?

If it makes you feel any better, I normally enjoy and appreciate your contributions here.

Kurfurst__
02-12-2008, 07:28 AM
109Es certainly had droptanks for them. E-7 was the first one to have the capability built into it in the factory, but the older models were gradually retrofitted for it, too. There were a couple of amiable discussions about it, as some of you may recall.

Now, IIRC the first pic is of an E-4 taken in Africa, shortly after arrival. I am not sure of the second, but it looks European, perhaps some paint scheme-geek modeller can give an apprx. data based on the camo style.

The E-5, E-6, E-8 definietely existed in small numbers, they are mentioned in loss and strenght reports. Some 29 E-5s were built by Arado sometime between July-October1940; nine E-6s by again Arado between November-December 1940, all with w. DB 601N. No prod. figures for E-8, but on 1 Jan 1941 two were reported to be around with DB 601N. These were figher recce of the appropriate Emil type, with camara equipment.

http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Engine/DB60x/DB601_datasheets_N.html

luftluuver
02-12-2008, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
Where's Kurfy when we need him?
What do you need Kurfy for? He only parroted what I said.

Supposedly Arado built 38 E-8s and Fiesler built 22 E-8s in 1940.

stalkervision
02-12-2008, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by cawimmer430:
Holy cr_p!

I didn't know you were so good with photoshop, Stalker! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Yup how do you like it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I wish I was that good.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

biggs222
02-12-2008, 09:52 AM
i have a book in my lap right now that shows a diagram for the E-4 with its possible loadouts...

it shows a possible:
551 lb(250kg)HE bomb
551 lb(250kg)SAP bomb
"Early type" (wooden) drop tank
66Imp gal (300 l) (junkers) metal drop tank
and of course the Ventral ETC Center-line stores pylon.

however if im not mistaken, the E-3 was the 109 used during that actual battle, not the E-4 which came into service in the autumn of that year.

EDIT: it also read that the wooden drop-tank was used during the battle but being produced from... "Moulded plywood, it was found to leak seriously after only a comparatively short exposed to the elements and its increasing proclivity resulted in rejection by Bf109E units."

HayateAce
02-12-2008, 10:26 AM
I say put'em in BoB regardless of history. Since when are Oleg's GM's, DM's or FM's influenced by truth?

Just something more to ignite with our 303's.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

JG53Frankyboy
02-12-2008, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by biggs222:
i have a book in my lap right now that shows a diagram for the E-4 with its possible loadouts...

it shows a possible:
551 lb(250kg)HE bomb
551 lb(250kg)SAP bomb
"Early type" (wooden) drop tank
66Imp gal (300 l) (junkers) metal drop tank
and of course the Ventral ETC Center-line stores pylon.

however if im not mistaken, the E-3 was the 109 used during that actual battle, not the E-4 which came into service in the autumn of that year.

EDIT: it also read that the wooden drop-tank was used during the battle but being produced from... "Moulded plywood, it was found to leak seriously after only a comparatively short exposed to the elements and its increasing proclivity resulted in rejection by Bf109E units."

most propably the "typical" versions of 109Es during BoB in 1940 were E-1 and E-4 , not much E-3 were around anymore. the most were reequipted with MG-FF/M , and than they were called E-4 , even when originally build as E-3......

also the shape of the canopy does not help...... you can find both kinds (with or withoput headarmour) in any version during this time.


btw, what is so "WOW" with Emils pictures with droptanks ??????????????????
i thought it was clear that Emils could carry them , that they just was not in use during the the BoB time (ending here 31.oct 1940)

Kurfurst__
02-12-2008, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by biggs222:
however if im not mistaken, the E-3 was the 109 used during that actual battle, not the E-4 which came into service in the autumn of that year.

E-4 came into service at around May 1940. Most E-3s were converted to E-4s by end of August, 1940. It was, along with the E-1, the two major types during the summer.


EDIT: it also read that the wooden drop-tank was used during the battle but being produced from... "Moulded plywood, it was found to leak seriously after only a comparatively short exposed to the elements and its increasing proclivity resulted in rejection by Bf109E units."

The trouble is nobody ever seen any evidence of the existance of such a droptank for the 109E. It probably comes from Wood and Dempster, who are not very well versed, but very dismissive of German equipment and their description the 109E variants is a piece of fantasy, too (they speak E-1s with cannons, Emils with engine cannons, Spitfires with four MGs etc.)

biggs222
02-12-2008, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The trouble is nobody ever seen any evidence of the existance of such a droptank for the 109E. It probably comes from Wood and Dempster, who are not very well versed, but very dismissive of German equipment and their description the 109E variants is a piece of fantasy, too (they speak E-1s with cannons, Emils with engine cannons, Spitfires with four MGs etc.)

As for the wooden droptank, its in my book i have a diagrammed picture of it along with the metal one...

*sigh*, the truth according to kurt... why is it every time i read some info on the 109 from any author and i see it posted here and you always manage to come along and tell us these authors dont know anything about anything?

the book isnt written by "Wood" or "Dempster". so your assumptions about my info are completely false... and nowhere in the description of the 109 does it say anything about a engine mounted cannon variant.

now Kurt, i do have a question for you. besides the additional cockpit armor and improved ROF for the MG FF cannon what other differences were there from the E-3 and the E-4?

Kurfurst__
02-12-2008, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by biggs222:
*sigh*, the truth according to kurt... why is it every time i read some info on the 109 from any author and i see it posted here and you always manage to come along and tell us these authors dont know anything about anything?

Because many authors just copy over and repeat old myths and errors, and I want to correct these. There are many good, reliable authors around, who base what they write down on primary sources, not old works of other authors. And from time to time, old information gets re-visited in view of new research. Just look at books produced 30 years ago - the G-6/AS was a sort of mystery aircraft, the G-10 was widely acknowled as seeing servince in spring of 1944, the 109K had MG 151/15 cowl guns etc.


the book isnt written by "Wood" or "Dempster". so your assumptions about my info are completely false... and nowhere in the description of the 109 does it say anything about a engine mounted cannon variant.

Its probably repeating Wood and Dempster`s stuff on the subject, as do many books. You can generally trace down myths to their source by publishing dates etc. But that`s not the point. The point is that there`s no primary source or photograph showing Emils with wooden droptanks. It probably stems from the plywood tanks used in the Spanish Civil War by the Condor Legions biplanes, or the very unpopular Dackelbauch of the the Me 110s.


now Kurt, i do have a question for you. besides the additional cockpit armor and improved ROF for the MG FF cannon what other differences were there from the E-3 and the E-4?

I am not aware of anything else; the E-4/Bs were appearantly fitted with the DB 601Aa, the E-4/Ns with the 601N, the rest were probably DB 601A-1 powered just like the E-1s and E-3s; the canopy frame was appearantly commonly introduced to all E models and was not limited to the E-4 and later, it just coincided with it. A pointed spinner seems to have appeared with the E-7.

BTW the MG-FF/M did not have greater RoF, the difference was that it could fire for the first time thin walled Minengeschoss shells, which required different recoil elements because of the lighter shell (which was faster - some 700 m/sec iirc), but otherwise pretty much the same gun. That may explain why E-4s were so many by August 1940, and E-3s so few on the strenght reports, even though not so many E-4s were produced up that time. Simply when the cannons of existing E-3s were modified, they became equivalent of the E-4 and were reported as such.

biggs222
02-12-2008, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


I am not aware of anything else; the E-4/Bs were appearantly fitted with the DB 601Aa, the E-4/Ns with the 601N, the rest were probably DB 601A-1 powered just like the E-1s and E-3s; the canopy frame was appearantly commonly introduced to all E models and was not limited to the E-4 and later, it just coincided with it. A pointed spinner seems to have appeared with the E-7.

BTW the MG-FF/M did not have greater RoF, the difference was that it could fire for the first time thin walled Minengeschoss shells, which required different recoil elements because of the lighter shell (which was faster - some 700 m/sec iirc), but otherwise pretty much the same gun. That may explain why E-4s were so many by August 1940, and E-3s so few on the strenght reports, even though not so many E-4s were produced up that time. Simply when the cannons of existing E-3s were modified, they became equivalent of the E-4 and were reported as such.

ic. i have here that the E-4/B was used as a "fighter bomber" during August (and onward i presume) was this false as well?

Kurfurst__
02-12-2008, 02:27 PM
No, its probably correct, the RLM`s delivery listings give a lot of E-4/Bs produced during the four 'BoB months', ie. July-October, something like 211, it just doesn`t tell when exactly production started.

I am not sure though if August was the first month, I recall reading it was experienced with earlier by 210 Erprobungs unit. Gotto read up on it..

But yeah, the E-4/B was definitely a fighter-bomber version, well sort of, basically an E-4 with a bomb rack and other equipment needed. But Jabos were sorta uncommon at the time for monoplane fighters.

JG53Frankyboy
02-12-2008, 03:55 PM
units with Bf109E fighterbombers in service before the order appeared that every fightergroup had to change one of its three squadrons to fighterbomberduty were:
II.(Schl.)/LG2
3./Erp.Grp 210

in John Vasos book about the EprGrp210 you can read the Flugbuch of the CO of the 3. Squadron, Oblt Hintze , flying a bombpractice mission with a Bf109E-4/B out of a base near Cologne in 1.July 1940.

stalkervision
02-12-2008, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by biggs222:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
The trouble is nobody ever seen any evidence of the existance of such a droptank for the 109E. It probably comes from Wood and Dempster, who are not very well versed, but very dismissive of German equipment and their description the 109E variants is a piece of fantasy, too (they speak E-1s with cannons, Emils with engine cannons, Spitfires with four MGs etc.)

As for the wooden droptank, its in my book i have a diagrammed picture of it along with the metal one...

*sigh*, the truth according to kurt... why is it every time i read some info on the 109 from any author and i see it posted here and you always manage to come along and tell us these authors dont know anything about anything?

the book isnt written by "Wood" or "Dempster". so your assumptions about my info are completely false... and nowhere in the description of the 109 does it say anything about a engine mounted cannon variant.

now Kurt, i do have a question for you. besides the additional cockpit armor and improved ROF for the MG FF cannon what other differences were there from the E-3 and the E-4? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Found another quite excellent book that mentions the plywood tanks once again.

They you have the book Galland's "First and last" that mentions it also..


I believe the evidence FOR is pretty well believable now though Kurf will never admit this whatsoever.. LOL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurf is pretty cool though. I like to read all the info he digs up.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Kurfurst__
02-12-2008, 04:28 PM
Gallands book..? Where does it mention it? I have the translated version, but I dont recall reading such in it.

Ratsack
02-12-2008, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
...
btw, what is so "WOW" with Emils pictures with droptanks ??????????????????...

Exactly.

Ratsack

stalkervision
02-12-2008, 06:14 PM
It's all water under the bridge now or a better term maybe.." gasoline from an empty leaky plywood fuel tank.."

If it did or didn't exist doesn't really matter. It wasn't good enough to use during the battle in any instance.

Just add it to another instance of german ww 2 "also ran technology" not quite ready for prime time.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

stalkervision
02-12-2008, 06:17 PM
When one looks at some of the technology that the germans used to conquer Europe, for instance the Mark 1 panzer, I am surprised they even did it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/SdKfz101.jpg/800px-SdKfz101.jpg

biggs222
02-12-2008, 06:18 PM
what i want to know is, when did they start using the Metal 66 gallon tank? must be some time after sept-oct, since i cant find any info about it being used in any "BoB" books.

stalkervision
02-13-2008, 12:14 AM
one last quote..

"The shortcomings in the range of the Bf 109E, which had proved something of an embarrassment to the Jagstaffeln during the final phases of the French campaign, had been foreseen by the Luftwaffenfuhrungsstab, and a jettisonable 300 liter (66 Imp. gal.) fuel tank for use by the fighter had been developed and, in fact, manufactured in some numbers prior to the offensive in the West. Produced from moulded plywood, it was found to leak badly after exposure to the elements for any length of time. Furthermore, the fighter pilots considered it to possess an incendiary proclivity, and it therefore saw no service use when the suitably equipped Bf 109E-7 began to arrive late in August 1940."

- Augsberg Eagle: The Messerschmitt Bf 109, by William Green

biggs222
02-13-2008, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
one last quote..

"The shortcomings in the range of the Bf 109E, which had proved something of an embarrassment to the Jagstaffeln during the final phases of the French campaign, had been foreseen by the Luftwaffenfuhrungsstab, and a jettisonable 300 liter (66 Imp. gal.) fuel tank for use by the fighter had been developed and, in fact, manufactured in some numbers prior to the offensive in the West. Produced from moulded plywood, it was found to leak badly after exposure to the elements for any length of time. Furthermore, the fighter pilots considered it to possess an incendiary proclivity, and it therefore saw no service use when the suitably equipped Bf 109E-7 began to arrive late in August 1940."

- Augsberg Eagle: The Messerschmitt Bf 109, by William Green

thats the exact same quote from my book.

Feathered_IV
02-13-2008, 02:53 AM
Bungay mentions those in, Most Dangerous Enemy too.

Kurfurst__
02-13-2008, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
one last quote..

"The shortcomings in the range of the Bf 109E, which had proved something of an embarrassment to the Jagstaffeln during the final phases of the French campaign, had been foreseen by the Luftwaffenfuhrungsstab, and a jettisonable 300 liter (66 Imp. gal.) fuel tank for use by the fighter had been developed and, in fact, manufactured in some numbers prior to the offensive in the West. Produced from moulded plywood, it was found to leak badly after exposure to the elements for any length of time. Furthermore, the fighter pilots considered it to possess an incendiary proclivity, and it therefore saw no service use when the suitably equipped Bf 109E-7 began to arrive late in August 1940."

- Augsberg Eagle: The Messerschmitt Bf 109, by William Green

The problem is that William Green is notoriously unreliable when it comes to the 109. I guess its all honest mistakes, for example he claim the 109K could climb to 6000m in 3 minutes (he actually misread the scale on the chart that is available on my site, it was 6 minutes, but at a 30 minute rating, not max power), he claims the 109K-4 had MK 103 or MK 108 armament (the K-4, noted in all primary Messerschmitt sources, had only MK 108, though for later variants like the K-8 and K-10 the modified MK 103m was planned), he claims it had 15mm MG 151 guns over the cowling (in which case he simply misread MG 131s in some poorly readable photocopies). And so on.

In any case, the fact that the different books repeat the same text without any changes indicate this myth is originating back again to the William Green books. Just check how many books speak of 109Ks with MG 151s and G-10 arriving in the spring of 1944... all originate to Green.

There was no need to develop a seperate 66 gallon metal droptank or the 109E, since it was already developed for the Ju 87R. And that type existed months before the Battle of Britain, even before the Battle of France, as the long range Stukas used it in Norway already, and are documented to have used it in the Battle of Britain as well; the RAF reported Stukas with droptanks as early as July.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/JU87R-droptank_May-June_France.jpg

In fact this same Ju 87 droptank was used later by all LW fighters, 110s, 190s, 109.
It was available even before the 109E-7 came into service, and it was tested on it in July 1940.

Ie. the British trials describe the droptank they found with 109G-2 "Black Six" in late 1942 :
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109...9Gtrop_WdimPerf.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET-109Gtrop_WdimPerf.html)

JETTISONABLE FUEL TANK:

One jettisonable fuel tank, type Ju 87/NKF. Capacity
65 gallons, weight 55 lb.; test pressure 8.5 lb/sq.in.

Same droptank depicted in the Bf 109E-7s manual, note the dent on the tank, its the same light alloy tank.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/E-7_alutbehalter.jpg

Now, E-7s came into service in late August 1940, but naturally at first it was few in numbers, and something like 200 were produced until the end of October. Basically it leaves droptank usage operationally possible for September and October, if we restrain the Battle of Britain to the artificial boundaries the British set for it, and of which the Luftwaffe was ignorant of. I presume they couldn`t use droptanks on a wide scale first because there were only a few aircraft around to use them, and it would be impractical to have a few dozen fighters with droptanks, especially in mixed units of E-1/E-4/E-7s, and the rest without. The first recorded use of droptank are from October 1940, and the first known photos made of Emils (an E-1, meaning the others were being converted by that time) with a droptank are from early November 1940.