The new 109E- a request.

[Urchin]

Can you make it the E7?  (Help me out here guys, but I believe that was an E4 with drop tank carrying ability).  

I understand that the E4 was the one in the BoB, but if we get an E7 we can use it like an E4 in a BoB scenario, just don't take the droptanks.  

Plus the E7 was common in North Africa, so we'd be able to kill two birds with one stone.  

Thanks.

[Seeker]

Apart from the drop tanks; what were the essential differences between the three models?

Am I right in thinking it was only the early E's that had the tail struts; or was it all of them?

Call me a heretic; but when it comes to things like the BoB; for me it's the looks that really count; rather than being too particular about which tyre tread pattern a certain model should have.

I'd happily have taken on a G10 in a Vb if it would have got me a BoB scenario a year earlier.

It's the pilot; and the sport that counts; after all.

[Karnak]

Urchin,

Here are what my sources say about the differences between the Bf109E-4 and Bf109E-7:

Bf109E-4:
Engine: Daimler-Benz DB 601Aa rated at 1175 hp

Bf109E-7:
Engine: Daimler-Benz DB 601N  rated at 1200 hp, but also offered an emergency output of 1250 hp.
Fuel: Droptank enabled.

Bf109E-7/Z
Engine: As with the Bf109E-7, but with GM-1 boost.


It is possible that the 1250 hp on the DB 601N  was only attained with the GM-1 boost.  My sources are not specific on that point.  If that were the case, the 1250 hp would only be relevant to the Bf109E-7/Z.

[Urchin]

I believe all the E's had the tailplane struts, they were removed in the F series and the tail had lil fasteners on the fuselage instead to hold it on.  

Karnak, thanks for the information.  I thought there was a 109E that was just like the E4 but with capability to carry a drop tank.  

Even if we get the drop tank-less E4, I'll be ecstatic.  I'll be the only dweeb flying the 109 with squared off wingtips .  Hell, I'll prolly even hop in the Spit some to try out those 8 .303s .

The early war has always been my favorite... the major combatants in the BoB (well, the famous ones anyway ) were pretty close in performance, that will make for some neat fights I am sure.  

On a totally unrelated side note, I DO hope you get your Spitfires someday.  I'm 'opposed' to the introduction of the SpitXIV for the same reasons you are, but I'd welcome a SpitIX LF.  Hell, I wouldnt even mind if the XIV came out unperked, I'd find some way to kill em.  It'd end up perked in the end anyway though.

[Wotan]

there were 109-e4(n) as well

Buerschgens: The E had a good armament. It had two cannons, which fired shells that exploded when they hit. You could see them.

Caldwell: Did you fly the same aircraft throughout the Battle, once you got the E-4/N with the DB 601N engine?

Galland: It was not the same aircraft - I changed aircraft.

[HoHun]

Hi Karnak,

>It is possible that the 1250 hp on the DB 601N  was only attained with the GM-1 boost.

GM-1 boost would probably yield several hundred horsepower, so it won't be figured in in your numbers. It probably could only be employed above a certain altitude though (the exact value of which I don't know).  GM-1 could easily boost power beyond what the engine was designed for, overstressing the rods or other components. So its main benefit was boosting engine power at altitudes where it had dropped below rated power.

Judging from the DB601A power curve, injection of 100 g/s GM-1 would restore engine power from 710 HP at 7 km to 1000 HP (a 40% power gain). At 11 km, output would rise from 400 HP to 690 HP for a 70% power gain.

I think this illustrates the value of GM-1 :-) It's really a big leap in engine performance at altitude, and there's no way a similarly engined aircraft without GM-1 could compete. At sea level, GM-1 might not have been usable at all, or at least offered a much smaller advantage.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Nefarious]

I think that the E-7 would be an excellent choice "similar" in performance to E-4, but remember

109 would at least have to fill role of

E-3

or

E-4-essentially same aircraft as E-3 only re-designed cockpit.


E-3 was more involved in Battle for France than BOB, E-4 was the 109 workhorse for the BOB.

All three a/c would be an awesome addition to PS.

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Nefarious

E-3 was more involved in Battle for France than BOB, E-4 was the 109 workhorse for the BOB.
 

E-3 had MG-FF cannon, E-4 had MG-FFM, modified to fire high-capacity M-Geschoss shells.

Tony Williams
Author: "Rapid Fire: The development of automatic cannon, heavy machine guns and their ammunition for armies, navies and air forces"
Details on my military gun and ammunition website:
http://website.lineone.net/~a_g_williams/
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum:
http://www.delphi.com/autogun/messages

[Kweassa]

While we're at it..

 Can the paint scheme be Werner Molders'?

 

 The 'Yellow Nosed' I think we see too many .. but I do admit it might be funny fighting a non-yellow nosed 109 in a BoB scenario.

[Buzzbait]

S!

No way... The paint scheme`s gotta be Adolf Galland`s.  

As far as the E7 is concerned:  Save it for the Desert.  It didn`t fly in the BoB so it shouldn`t be there.

In fact I hope the Spitfire included in not the 1A.  That was not the most common, and would be unrepresentitive of the aircraft.  The 1B or IIA were also used in equal numbers.

If the 109 is the E7, then the Spit should be the IIA.

In regards to the Hurricane:

It should definitely not be the IA.  All the IA`s had been upgraded by the time of the BoB.  The IB was the standard.

[Karnak]

Buzzbait,

I don't have the numbers on the Spitfire Ia vs IIa in the BoB, but  I can tell you with absolute certainty that the Spitfire Ib was only used in very small numbers.  Less than 50, and those were quickly reverted to Ia standards due to excessive jamming of the cannons.

I don't really care which version of the Bf109E we get (I bet its an E-4), but the one in the BoB was the E-4 and that is not the same as the E-7.

[Buzzbait]

S! Karnak

By the 1B, I didn`t mean the one with the cannon.  I meant the one with the variable pitch prop, pilot armour, sealing tanks etc.  Sorry if I confused the issue.

[Urchin]

No, the E-7 is not the same as the E-4, but it isnt much different either.  The E-7 was based on the E-4/N, which had a 1,200 hp engine (as opposed to a 1,175 hp engine on the E4).  It had an under-fuselage hardpoint that could mount a single 250 kg bomb, or 4 50 kg bombs, or a 300 liter drop tank.  

I'm not so much concerned about the DT for the scenario (as it would be easy to tell people not to load it, and I think most people would abide by that), I am concerned because without it the 109E won't really be a viable choice in the MA due to its very restricted radius.  

There were no other differences between the E-4, the E-4/N, and the E-7.  If people are concerned the extra 25 horsepower will unbalance a BoB scenario, then model the E-7 with 1,175 horsepower.

[Karnak]

Urchin,

No, the 25hp doesn't concern me.  75hp is a bit more of a concern, but still doesn't register.

My concern is that the droptank would radically alter the circumstances of a BoB scenarion in the CT.  In the CT everything is freeform, there would be no way to prevent the droptank from being used.

Even to that I don't really care.

Its great that a Bf109E is being added and that is what is most important.

[marcof]

Add the CR42,s , so that we italians can bail out over England, and start profitable business selling good food to the totaly unimaginative English..........

Marcof. VA BENE?,