poll: E3 vs E4. which one would you prefer?

[spitfiremkv]

I don't think there's any difference in engines, so it would be the extra cannon in the nose. I'd much rather have that than not have it, yet the E4 did away with it.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by spitfiremkv
I don't think there's any difference in engines, so it would be the extra cannon in the nose. I'd much rather have that than not have it, yet the E4 did away with it.

I'd rather have the one that saw the most significant use in the Battle of Britain, the Bf109E-4.

[spitfiremkv]

but why? with 3 cannons you can do that much more damage!

[GRUNHERZ]

99% of E3 did not mount an engine cannon, that's an old myth because it was basically prepped for one but the gun never worked well so was not fitted at factory.

[MOIL]

Sure I'll vote, what's an E3 or E4 ?

[Guppy35]

E7 with the drop tank

Dan/CorkyJr

[Karnak]

Originally posted by spitfiremkv
but why? with 3 cannons you can do that much more damage!

Because I am interested in what was used and what did the fighting, not the most powerful, one built knockoff I can get.

I'm an RAF fan, but you won't see me asking for the Spitfire Mk Ib or Mk IIb.  That would be dumb.

[HoHun]

Hi Spitfiremkv,

>I don't think there's any difference in engines, so it would be the extra cannon in the nose. I'd much rather have that than not have it, yet the E4 did away with it.

It seems that no Emil ever featured an engine cannon.

The reports of such an aircraft seem to be based on misinterpretation of photographs from a single Me 109E fitted with experimental tow line attachment point protuding from the spinner.

The most important versions of the Emil as used in the Battle of Britain were:

- E-1: 4 x 7.92 mm MG
- E-3: 2 x 7.92 mm MG, 2 x 20 mm MG FF
- E-4: E-3 with armour glass, head armour, MG FF/M
- E-4/N: like E-4, but with DB601N engine

The E-1 saw considerable use in the Battle of Britain, but only very few E-3 aircraft were employed. It seems they were all converted to E-4 status and re-designated accordingly.

The E-4/N was relatively rare, one squadron at the beginning of the Battle and one group at the end. The DB601N meant its performance was a bit better, especially at high altitude.

I figure that the DB601A was used in 4 versions in the Emil:

- A-1 with 4 km full throttle height
- Aa with A-1 (4 km) supercharger
- A-1 with 4.5 km full throttle height
- Aa with A-1 (4.5 km) supercharger

The former 2 versions could be converted into the latter 2 respectively, and it might be that by the time of the Battle of Britain, they had.

The DB601Aa was a bit more powerful than the A-1, probably due to better tolerances and/or materials, and was produced in parallel to the A-1. However, the Aa made only about 25% of the DB601A production.

Unfortunately, the Aa-engined aircraft were not recognizable by their designation, probably because the DB601A-1 and Aa were interchanged in the field during maintenance, depending on their availability.

(The old story that the Aa was an export engine to be fitted to the Me 109E-3a export model appears to be inaccurate.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Pooh21]

z1

[Kurfürst]

The E-4, it had its MG-FF replaced by the MG-FF/M, which could fire the powerful Mine shells. And, as HoHun said, most E-3s appear to be converted to E-4s (not much of a conversion, cannons+canopy being the difference..).

I wonder about the E-1s though, some say they replaced the wing MGs to cannons by 1940, but its hard to tell, a cannon armed E-1 would look exactly the same as an E-3.

The E-4/N would be a hotter version, but only a Group was built up shortly before the BoB, as decision was made that most of the 601N engines would go into reserve, Bf 110s, and the 109F that just started production. E-7 appeared in August, and could carry droptanks, but it took some time to introduce it. However, towards the end of the battle the E-7/N appeared in great numbers, able to carry droptanks or bombs, powered by the 601N engine, with Mine shell firing MG FF/M, and a slight aerodynamic improvement on the spinner shape.

I still wonder about E-1/E-3/4 conversions.. seems to be very simply to do.

[Nashwan]

I wonder about the E1 as well, whether they were converted to cannon armament or not.

Hooton, Eagle in flames, gives the following figures for the percentage of E subtypes lost during the BoB:

Type July Aug Sep Oct
E1    44    40    38    36
E3    30      8      1      2
E4    20    52    61    62

[Pooh21]

z1 cause I want a twin 109 and can look over in other cockpit and see my capuchin friend there

flying monkeys rock

especially if they wear fezs'

[HoHun]

Hi Kurfürst,

>I wonder about the E-1s though, some say they replaced the wing MGs to cannons by 1940, but its hard to tell, a cannon armed E-1 would look exactly the same as an E-3.

In Priller's "JG26", there's an account by a pilot who used a quadruple-MG armed Me 109 shot down three Hurricanes in a row from the blind six of their formation. As he states that after the third attack, his windscreen got oiled up from the Hurricane in front, I imagine he must have been very close on opening fire - which might explain how he got them down with that little firepower.

(No guarantee on the accuracy as I had to dig that up from my memory ... unfortunately, I don't own that book.)

>The E-4/N would be a hotter version, but only a Group was built up shortly before the BoB, as decision was made that most of the 601N engines would go into reserve, Bf 110s, and the 109F that just started production.

Hm, "Messerschmitt Bf 110, Me 210, Me 410" by Mankau/Petrick note that the DB601N was initially ear-marked for the Me 110, but re-directed into the Bf 109 units pretty quickly. The fighter units really got preferential treatment there. I'm not sure of the time line, but I think the DB601N was only fitted to the smaller part of the Emils before Battle of Britain day, though production was rapid. (Mankau and Petrick quote the GL/C protocols, so they're probably realiable in the issue.)

>I still wonder about E-1/E-3/4 conversions.. seems to be very simply to do.

I'm not so sure about replacing the E-1's MGs with cannon, but I'd imagine that the E-1s were given the additional armour at least :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Krusty]

E-1s flew on with E-3s and E-4s un-adjusted. There are photos of E-1s flying with E3/4s, and you can tell the difference because of the missing bulges on the E-1s. Now I don't know if that was the NORM, but when the 3/4s were around, the E1s were un-changed. Probably because the older wings weren't meant for the new guns, but the new planes had the adjustments built in at the factory level.

I think they also had a weaker engine. Not sure on that one.

P.S. The idea was always to put a gun in the engine. Always. The problem was the guns. And the vibrations. The only planes that ever had this were test aircraft and prototypes, and it was removed before it went into distribution.

Once the 109F came around, they had finally gotten a decent, reliable cannon (MG151/20) and solved the engine vibration problems.

[Tony Williams]

I'm interested in the E-1 in the BoB question - I must admit I thought that virtually all of the 109's in the BoB carried cannon, but I've recently learned otherwise.

It is of course easy enough to tell from any pic showing the wing leading edge as the cannon barrel protrudes, the MG's doesn't. Does anyone have loads of photos of 109s in the BoB, and can do a quick count-up?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum