Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

I would like to hear your input regarding the externally visible difference(s) between the Bf 109E-3 and E-7, as currently I have an ongoing debate regarding this issue.

Thanks,

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Hello Dénes
The best is to visit Falcon site
http://www.messerschmitt-bf109.de/index-1024.php

or this site
http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/index.htm

cheers Peter van Gogh

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Hi, Denes

In my opinion, You cannot state from a photo that has no visible date or WNr of the aircraft that it is an E-3 or E-7.

There are several reasons for this:

- Numerous E-3's were upgraded to E-7 standard, and thus in fact became E-7s

- A few E-7's (identified by works number) have been identified with the early type cockpit glazing.

- Also, I would suppose that E-3's did exist that had their engine changed and a N engine installed, and the cockpit hood exchanged with no official E-7 conversion data plate

So - it's an E!

Much of the reason for this is of course that repaired, converted and refurbished E-series aircraft were used to the end of the WWII

Regards,
Andreas

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Andreas pretty much nailed it... if the cowling is off, you could look for the "saddle tanks" on either side of the engine, which appear to be a hallmark of the DB 601N and that would be one way to identify an E-7, as would an external fuel tank. But as Andreas points out, so many early models were rebuilt into later variants that it's often an exercise in futility to positively identify what a given aircraft is, even with the W.Nr! One can make an educated guess, but that's about it.

Lynn

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

The easiest way is to check an octane trangle.
DB 601 A, which powered Emils since E-1, E-3 and E-4 used B4 low octane aviation fuel.
DB 601 N installed on E-7 burned high octane C3 fuel (96-100 oct.) due its higher fillin pressure and so on.

You have raised an extremally interesting point - the rebuilt ones.
One must keep in mind, that no W.Nr but equipment made a version.
So, if E-1 was given wings with MG-FF/m (or the cannons only were installed) it became E-4. If E-1 was given those cannons and also a better N engine it became E-7.


all the best
Kuba

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

The whole story started with the cover of a model kit's box:
http://www.moduni.de/picture/500/1/0/6/9/1069624.jpg

I argued that based on ARR documents I have copies of, No. 64 was not an E-3 (despite the appearance), but rather an E-7.

Somebody else argued that since it has the early type cockpit canopy, truncated spinner and no underbelly rack, it's an E-3.

I replied that these don't have any significance when identifying the proper sub-type, as there were older models (like the E-3) refurbished/upgraded to E-7 standards, even with the early type cockpit canopy and truncated spinner.

The other guy - a modeller - keeps insisting that to him it's an E-3, not an E-7, which must have newer style squared canopy and full spinner.

So I offered him a compromise solution: it's an E-7, which looks like and E-3.:) He did not accept it, either...

Here is a rather indifferent quality reproduction of the famous colour photo of the same airplane (bottom) , also featured on the rear cover of my book on the Rumanian air force, published by Squadron/Signal (photo by S. Tulea):
http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/4...arbfoto9bh.jpg

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

An E-7 did not necessarily have a DB601N installed actually the number of E-7/N and E-7/Z which were equipped with this engine was fairly low.
The saddle tanks were required not because of the DB601N but due to the introduction of the droptank, oil amount was insuficient using the standard oil tank given the extra 300l of fuel.
E-7/E-8 standards basically meant that, piping/wiring for the droptank and a few other changes (using the E/B as a basis). It should have had the DB601N as well but they gave so much troubles that the E-7 were built w/o except for the few E-7/N and E-7/Z.
The official designation for the type is E/B with modifications so as to carry a droptank, 4 MG-17s equipped a/c are to be know as E-8 and 2MG-17 and 2 MG-FFM a/c are to be known as E-7

So denes if your 109 could use a droptank it's an E-7...

btw Externally besides the octane triangle there is only one way to identify an DB601N equipped Emil...

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Servus, Dénes!

Concerning the Roumanian Bf 109E-3 that became an E-7, there's just no explaining the obstinancy of some folks, is there?!

I just checked an official wartime RLM document stating that the Messerschmitt Bf 109E carried by the Roumanian AF as No. 64 was an E-7 subtype, just as you have indicated. Werknummer was 704. Obviously an older E-3 that became an E-7.


My own research indicates that the Luftwaffe and the RLM pursued a universal program to convert all airworthy E-1s, E-3s, and E-4s into E-7s after 1940. I further suspect that there was not one comprehensive technical change order which included all mods necessary for conversion to an E-7 but that there might have been phases or stages of modification. Naturally, also, the conversions were not accomplished overnight, but by 1942-1943 it is unusual to find a "live" E-1, E-3, or E-4 carried in loss records or unit inventories. The preponderance of E-7s in training school reports is especially interesting.

Could still be much debate over the Emil canopy configuration. I sort of suspect that the "square" or "flat top" canopy style was prescribed as part of the conversion to an E-7, but for whatever reason was not universally carried out. Another explanation for "round head E-7s" might be that a mandated changeover to the "flat top" canopy came along later after the first E-7 mod orders were issued. On the other hand, I have never seen an E-7 assigned to either 7./JG 26 or I./JG 27 in the MTO that had a "round top" canopy, yet we know with certainty that many, if not most, of these same E-7s were updated E-1s, E-3s, and E-4s that must have originally had them. Something to chew on, perhaps.

RA

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

In fact there were a lot upgrades which were introduced in the 109 life which were designed to be retrofitted to earlier batches of produced a/c. While some introduced a change in designation like the equipment for droptanks some did not, the canopy for instance. There were hundreds of such modifications which should have been applied whenever possible.

Conversion to E-7 standard was indeed a must as it provided the Emil with a much needed extra endurance, and it was a definite high priority upgrade.
The WkNr 704 is typical of E-3s which went through the main upgrades, as it appears at a point as an E-4 and then as an E-7.

AFAIK only newly produced E-7 got the squared canopy and those earlier a/c which had them fitted at some point. The earlier a/c kept their canopy or they may have got a new squared one if time/spares where available or repairs needed.

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

I also think Andreas got it right.

The old notion that the "square" canopy signifies an E-4 while the older "rounded" was a feature of the E-1 and E-3 has been abandoned now, as far as I know. At least it should be.

These two types were readily interchangeable which is proved by the fact that there are even some Bf 109Fs with the "rounded" canopy. Rather than being early examples of Bf 109Fs as some sources have stated I think these are in-the-field modifications. The best know examples are the Fs flown by Horst Carganico. On his F-4s you can easily see these old canopies and as they were also a feature of his Emils (which is otherwise in E-7 configuration, with capped spinners), it is likely Carganico simply preferred these older versions, probably feeling they provided him with a better view from the cockpit.

Rabe Anton's ideas of the Emil modification program is also in line with my findings. I agree fully that there was probably no single standard set down for this upgrade, except to upgrade armament. In all likelyhood the main modifcation to be carried out was the fitment of droptank piping, MG FF cannon (on E-1s) and, in most cases it would seem, the capped spinner. The external armoured windscreen glazing was also fitted to most of these older models.

The attached photos are indicative of this practice. They show what was originally W.Nr 6274, an E-1 built by Fieseler at Kassel (note the black exhaust shrouds which is a feature of Fieseler-built Bf 109Es & Ts) and later modified into an E-7 with capped spinner, windscreen armour and MG FFs (and probably droptank piping). The photos show it in service with 5./JG 5 as Red 19 in 1942. Note the round metal sheet covering the original MG 17 port.

This one still retains the "round" canopy and this must have been the least important feature of the modification so I am not surprised that it was ignored for quite a few conversions. At least there are several examples to be seen in the JG 5 invetory of 1941-42.

Kjetil Aakra

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

It's interesting thing for me - in Erstatzteil-Liste from january '41 there's shown both - the cannon port with it's Trommel-bulge but also a MG 17 barrel hole (blinded, but visible) on the wing's leading edge. There is also a wing crane with both mount points, smaller for MG 17 and biger next to it for a MG-FF cannon. Was it standarised wing since the beginning till the end of Emil production?

You know for sure one photo of E-7 "white 12" of 7./JG 26 beeing rearmed with that blinded MG 17 barrel hole. It is not blinded with metal but a softer thing (fabric??) painted with darker colour (seems like red-brown primer for me).

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

I think it is quite often being forgotten that there are clearly defined modifications that constitute a new version. They either change logistical characteristics (E-1, E-3, E-4) or tactical ones (E-7). Obviously, such modifications like canopies, radio masts, wheels, etc. are not important and do not constitute a version.
In this particular case, the only modification that makes any difference is dropable fuel tank. I am not sure, what will be the version if such installation is removed. ;)

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

But what about that more powerful N-engine (rather important when you must feed it with different fuel) or M-type FF cannons loaded with different ammunition.
That drop-tank isn't a crucial difference, I think.

(pozdrawiam ;) !)

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Read Olivier's post, the answer is there!

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Thanks all for the enlightening comments. A fascinating topic, isn't it?

Below is a photo that shows an E-7 with truncated spinner [taken from 'Messerschmitt Bf 109 Recognition Manual. A Guide to Variants, Weapons and Equipment', by Marco Fernández-Sommerau, published last year by Classic].

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/2617/bf109e71pl.jpg

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Denes, I am not convinced the Emil in your photo is an E-7, although the date would suggest at least an upgraded earlier E. I think this is a minor error in the book and it could be an E-3, E-4 or E-7. Don't go by the caption, though (and I don't mean this a a negative comment on Fernadez-Sommerau's book, I'm a fan of it!).

Vzlion, there are no parts exclusive to any single Emil series we're discussing here (E-1, E-3, E-4 and E-7). The spinners, canopies, engines and wings would be freely interchangeable, although the result would be an odd mix of features, which is exactly what we observe.

Regards,

Kjetil

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Kjetil this a/c does have a droptank ;)

Cheers,
Olivier

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Olivier, yes you are indeed correct!

In that case it actually is an E-7, altough my point was that it is almost certainly an upgraded earlier series Emil, not a new-built E-7. And although we should such call upgraded Emils "E-7s" they did retain their original Werkenummer and for me it is therefore slightly errenous to call them E-7s. Perhaps we should refer to them as "upgraded earlier series Emils"??

Kjetil

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

As i underlined the only on paper difference is the addition of droptank support, just like the E-4 introduced MG-FFM to replace the MG-FF. In both case the a/c were upgraded to the new standard, but did not necessarily beneficiate from the other enhancements introduced on the production line which do not constitute a type by themselves just the evolution of the generic Emil type.
If they hadn't introduced the E-7 or E-4 references which were useful on a tactical standpoint you could have had E-3s with MG-FF and rounded canopy and E-3 with pointed spinner, square canopy and MG-FFM. The change in designation was dictated by operational consideration not by real change in design which made teh a/c so much different from the previous version.

So in my mind an E-7 is just an Emil with cannons and droptank support, and that was the point in introducing that designation, it does not cover anything else. Just like E-4 does not cover squared canopy, it happens that they were introduced at about hte same time as the MG-FFM in hte production line but they are no part of the official designation and early E-4 had the old style canopy.

Change in subversion designation on the 109 were dictated by tactical use, armament or engine, a change in one of those would incur a change in designation. An evolution of the basic design, for aerodynamical purposes for instance would not and they should not be relied upon to determinate a version as such changes spanned over several versions being introduced in the production process whenever possible.

Cheers,
Olivier

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Hello Olivier
As I understand the only difference between E-3 and E-4 was MG-FFM, so there cannot be E-3 with pointed spinner, square canopy and MG-FFM. Another question is if where there any E-7 with MG-FF?
Do you know how this modification was reflected on an ID plate? Was it left without changes, exchanged or another one was added?
Cheers

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Hi Franek, you seems to have missed a bit of the sentence ;) :
If they hadn't introduced the E-7 or E-4 references which were useful on a tactical standpoint (...)
I was saying that the E-4 and E-7 denomination were introduced because of tactical change either armament (E-4) or range (E-7) and that if they hadn't chosen to do so you'd have had E-3s with a whole range of differences between them. I was just trying to make a point on the E-7 being an E-7 just because of a choice of designation based on a single change of tactical importance, sorry to have been confusing.

No i believe all surviving E-3 were at some point upgraded to E-4 status, it was not too long a task. Data plates were usually over stamped with the new designation at the workshop. But i'm not so certain about the E-3 to E-4 upgrade since the modification could have been done in the field and i'm not certain they overstamped there.
I have seen plates of E-1 converted to E-3 and even E-7 but no overstamped E-3 dataplate with E-4 instead.

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

I think it was officially called temporary mental disability. ;)
What I wanted to point out is that either E-7 were converted from E-4 only or part of the modification was MG-FFM rearmament. Otherwise it would introduce more mess than expected. I understand, that you agree with me, although lacking any definite proof.
Cheers

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Hi, guys.

I have definitive proof of both E-1's and E-3's being converted to E-7, with WNr listings.

I am waiting for the documents, and will not post the listings until I can use the proper references and be definitive.

The documents are original reports from the Luftwaffe repair facilities.

Regards,
Andreas

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Andreas
The question is, where those aircraft re-armed with MG-FFM and was MG-FFM a standard weapon for E-7?
Best wishes

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

The technical specifications for what defines a Bf 109E-7 is readily available in the documents from the Technisches Amt. WIll have to find them somewhere in the archive, I know I have a copy of the different¨designations from there.

Andreas

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Hi, guys.

Just a heads up regarding the conversion of Bf 109's of earlier types to standard of Bf 109E-7:

There are more, but as an example, the following aircraft can be identified as conversions to E-7 from documents of the Erla Maschinenwerk VII, Antwerpen:

(The list has the following columns: Previous subtype, Built by, Werkenummer)

E-1 Arado 3300
E-1 Arado 4866
E-1 Arado 2696
E-1 Arado 3502
E-1 Ago 2950
E-1 Ago 3317
E-1 BFW 1937
E-4 BFW 2747
E-1 Fieseler 3174
E-1 FW 4077
E-3 Erla 2032
E-4 WNF 2747
E-4 WNF 5007
E-4B WNF 5902

Regarding the technical differences between a Bf 109E-4 and E-7, the following is taken from the 'Baureihenzusammenstellung der in der Luftwaffe eingeführten und in Einführung begriffenen Flugzeugmuster', written by the Generalluftzeugmeiser November 1st 1942.

From this document one can conclude that the E-7 really (as noted by others earlier in the discussion) is a fighter equipped for extended RANGE (that is the main reason for the new designation.

The technical standards are as follows (and this is interesting as this is a real LEGO toy approach!!):

Step 1: Bf 109E-1
Engine: DB 601 A
Armament: 4 MG 17 (Fuselage and wings)
Fuel quantity: 400 liters
Radio equipment: Fu G VII (with dingy E-1 S)

Step 2: Bf 109E-3
like E-1 but with:
Armament: 2 MG FF in place of wing MG-17's

Step 3: Bf 109E-4
like E-3 but with:
Armament: 2 MG FF 'M' in place of wing MG-FF's

Step 4: Bf 109E-4/B
like E-4 but with:
Abwurfanlage: mit SO-3-Einrichtung

Step 4a: Bf 109E-4/N
like E-4 but with:
Engine: DB 601 N in place of DB 601 A

Step 4b: Bf 109E-4/BN
like E-4/B but with:
Engine: DB 601 N in place of DB 601 A


Step 5: Bf 109E-7 'Jäger mit erhöhte reichweite oder Stuka'
like E-4/B but with:
(I include the original German text here so that You guys can read it Yourselves)
Abwurfanlage: Sonderträger f.abwerfb.300 l-Aussenbeh. unter d.Rumpf statt ETC-500. Sonderträger u.ETC können gegeneinander ausgetauscht werden'
in my translation:
Special equipment for carrying a 300 l external drop tank instead of a ETC 500. The special equipment for the drop tank and the ETC are interchangeable.

Thus: The E-7 is a Messerschmitt Bf 109E with

Engine: DB 601 A
Armament: 2 MG 17 in the nose and 2 MG-FF "M" in the wings
Fuel: 400 liters in the fuselage
Radio: Fu G VII
In addition: Special equipment for carrying a 300 l external drop tank instead of a ETC 500. The special equipment for the drop tank and the ETC are interchangeable.

Step 6: Bf 109E-7/N 'Jäger mit erhöhte reichweite'
like E-7 but with:
Engine: DB 601 N in place of DB 601 A

Step 7: Bf 109E-7/Z 'Jäger mit erhöhte reichweite oder Stuka'
like E-7/N but with:
Engine: with GM-1 equipment


Thus my conclusion as far as the external differences between the E-4 and E-7 goes:

A standard E-7 in 'Stuka' configuration can not be discerned from an E-4/B. Thus a photograph of an E with ETC 500 can be both an E-4/B and an E-7.

A standard E-7 in 'Jäger mit erhöhte Reichweite' configuration can be discerned from an E-4 by having equipment for carrying a droptank. Thus a photograph of an E with droptank cannot be an E-4.

The other versions of the E-7 You would have really good photographs to be able to tell apart, for the E-7/N would have 'C3' fuel marking (vs the standard '87' fuel triangle) (but this could also be a E-4/BN!!!), the E-7/Z would have the additional two hatches for the GM-1 equipment.


That's it!

Regards,
Andreas

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Thanks, I think it is a definite answer!

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

It confirms the documents i have at hands, thanks andreas (btw did you get my PM ?)
btw there is a small physical difference between a DB601N equipped a/c and the standard one. I'll try to come up with clear pictures/drawings and put something online when i get enough time to get back to the drawing board.

Cheers and thanks again,
Olivier

Re: Externally visible differences between Bf 109E-3 and E-7?
 

Did the oil vapour separator lines on the crankshaft cover differ on 601 A and N engine?

The question to Andreas, that E-1S - S for Schlauchboot? Where was it stored?

thanks for excellent posting ;)