DT and ord for 109E4 and Spit Vb DT

[Guppy35]

Thinking mainly for special events but bomb carrying or DT carrying ability for the E-4 would let it sub for the E-7 in MTO, ETO or Russian Front 1941 stuff

Spit Vb carried the DTs and the 30 gallon DT would be helpful for 42-43  cross Channel set ups as the Vbs were there alongside the IXs into 44.

[BaldEagl]

I love flying the V but the range is too short to be very effective.  +1.

[Krusty]

E4s never had DTs.

What did have DTs was the E-7. Some E-7s were refitted in the field with rounded canopies (replacements to damaged squared-canopy sets) and some lost the nosecone point or had their pointed prop hub replaced with an open one (also replacement parts in the field) but the only Emil with DTs was the E-7.


I would love the E-7 (especially the E7 trop). Anybody know when they started using the 90-round drums for the MG/FFm? I'm sure it must have been around the time of the E-7s' long career.

Extra range, extra ammo, extra horsepower... It'd be a nice addition IMO.

But not for the E-4. I'm also no expert on if the SpitVb ever carried a tank [Edit: Our early 1941 SpitVb, that is... Not the later models many of which shared the same name but were not the same plane], but I recall previous comments that "basically it didn't" when this came up before.


IMO stop-gaps are what we used to have in AH (multiple variants in 1 flight model, combined K-4s and G-10s, etc) and it leads to messy arguments with impacts felt 10 years later. I think that's the wrong way to go now that AH is finally rectifying that sort of thing.

[Guppy35]

Read it again Krusty.  Trust me I thought about this one.

So the E-4 would be able to sub for the E7 in later MTO Russian front events.  I'd like the E-7 seperate but I'm trying to think easier option.

If you want me to get going on Spitfire Vbs I can.  Again, since we don't have every last variant of the Spitfire V, it would allow for later Vb use alongside the IXs or VIIIs in both ETO and MTO events.  I can certainly find the date the DTs got into the game on the Spit V if that helps.

If we're going to be really technical about it, then make it the 109 E4/B with the bomb at least so it could be used along side the 109Fs as the ground attack bird it became when they took over front line fighter duties.  Barbarossa and North Africa MTO come to mind.

How this would be a problem I can't see as it's allowing for additional uses for the SEA folks.  I don't it would cause a stir in the MA with either of them

[Krusty]

Well, I see it as a big step backwards.

I do miss the bomb rack on the E4 and te F4, and wish they would re-enable it (it is still there in the skin viewer) for use in the SEAs even if it's disabled in the MAs... But it really wouldn't sit well with me to add DTs as a feature to a plane that didn't have 'em, even in the honorable goal to fill in planeset gaps.

I get what you're saying, but don't agree that the end result would be acceptible.

[Guppy35]

LOL well we have a 1941 Spit Vb and the Spit Vb carried 30 gallon DTs in 41.  I don't think HTC specified which month of 41 our particular Spit Vb was from. 

We have a 109E4 and a modified E4 with a bomb rack was the E4/B.  The E7 was pretty much identical to the E4 but equipped to handle the DT or bomb. 

I don't quite see how doing this is going backwards.  It's a simple fix that enhances potential SEA use. 

With that logic we better start going through ever skin in the game to make sure we have them on the right version.  Might there be an E3 skin on an E4?  No more North African birds cause ours in AH aren't fitted with the tropical filter?  That's not correct then so we can't ever use them in a North African scenario.  Forget the 109Fs and Gs too.  Not accurately modeled for North Africa.  Oops, No Hurris or Spit Vs either.  No tropical filters. 

Oops, I hope we don't have Galland's 109E skinned as ours doesn't have an ashtray or telescope site on it.  Just checked. The default skin appears to be Rolf Pingel's E4.  Sadly his E4 had the pointed spinner, not the one we have in game.  Bzztt!  It's gotta be changed cause it's not completely correct.  It has the external armor glass too on the canopy and Pingel's didnt.

Our Spitfire Vb default skin shows R6923 which was actually a converted IB.  The model has the later fishtail exhaust when it should have the earlier rounded ones.  Guess we better get rid of it.

Come on Krusty, you are being contrary just because you can be

[Krusty]

E-7 wasn't quite identical to the E-3/4. E-4/b was basically an E-4 with a bomb rack but no drop tank plumbing. It's that DT that would be the biggest impact on gameplay

I can't speak for the SpitV. If it was there, petition HTC for it! It only took several years of posting historic figures to get updated ammo loads on 109 20mm options, but we finally got them.

[Guppy35]

And how would a DT on an E4 impact game play?  Seriously.  I haven't seen a horde of Emils in the game ever.  And if I did, that would be a good thing.  Again, my reasoning for the DT is the same for both the Spit V and E4.  It allows for a more accurate range for scenario use in Sicily, North Africa and the ETO.  That can't be a bad thing

Its not like folks in the B of B scenario are going to cheat and use them.

If the difference between the E4 and E7 is the DT then what's the problem?  You can find pointed Spinners on E4s and the early cannon opening spinner on E7s.  I can show you pictures of E3/Bs too. 

We don't have the E4/N that I know of.

[fbWldcat]

+1 on DTs and ords. E-4 is a nice bird to fly for fun sometimes.

[Delirium]

Come on Krusty, you are being contrary just because you can be

Anyone else feeling some deja vu?

[clerick]

Anyone else feeling some deja vu?

All over again...

[RTHolmes]

pretty sure CMs can set fields to 100% fuel to eliminate drop tank availability for scenarios etc if required (ie. BoB.)

[Krusty]

Anyone else feeling some deja vu?

BS Del.

The E-4 is not identical to the E-7. There may have been some superficial similarities, but they're not the same plane. As a Bf109 fan I take an issue with this claim. If there was no difference between them, we (the 109 fans) would not have been asking, begging, crying, for a 109E-7 for 10 years on and off now. We simply would have used the E-4, because we're practical that way.


Keep your Fox-News-style commentary to yourself.

[Guppy35]

BS Del.

The E-4 is not identical to the E-7. There may have been some superficial similarities, but they're not the same plane. As a Bf109 fan I take an issue with this claim. If there was no difference between them, we (the 109 fans) would not have been asking, begging, crying, for a 109E-7 for 10 years on and off now. We simply would have used the E-4, because we're practical that way.


Keep your Fox-News-style commentary to yourself.

And the differences are Krusty?  Seriously. I keep looking and depending on which sourse the E7 is either an E4 adapted to take the DT or an E4/N adapted to take the DT.  Can you point out the other differences please?