Quote:
Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik
Thanks John
Very interesting scenario. I don't think I realized that the difference in real life was in fact so small between the two versions. That a C-2 could be upgraded to a C-4 seems very likely while making a D into an E would be a lot more difficult.
Wonder why they in fact changed the sub-version title in this case and not just continued with a D-x?
Anyway your explanation is very much plausible and I have made an explicit note about it in relevant places.
May I ask if this is the first D-3 WNr that this change can be noticed or are there any lower (or indeed higher) WNrs where this also can be seen?
Thanks again John for taking the time to enlighten all of us 
Very much appreciated!!
Cheers
Stig |
As I said in my post, Stig, available components were used without regard to the fine details, which researchers and interested people nowadays examine in fine detail. There is a photo that Fernando and I used in our 'Messerschmitt Bf 110 C, D and E: An Illustrated Study' on page 105 that defies accurate description - not just a sub-variant, but an actual variant. Here's that photo:
Regarding a 'D' W. Nr. aircraft becoming an 'E' at the factory stage of construction, as I said, with the factory having the component parts available and the machinery to fit those parts (given that the 'E' was being built at the same time as the 'D'), it's easy to see that airframes could be put on the 'E' production line for the fitment of the latest improvements, and coming off the productionline at the end, the paperwork that accompanied the aircraft would reflect its final form.
I haven't delved deeply into cross-referencing the W. Nr. of D-3s initially allocated with their variant when appearing in the loss lists, but that might be an interesting task, given what I discovered about the C-2/C-4.