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

[Dénes Bernád]

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,

[gogh]

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

[Andreas Brekken]

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

[lritger]

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

[Kuba Plewka]

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

[Dénes Bernád]

The whole story started with the cover of a model kit's box:


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):