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

[Kuba Plewka]

Originally Posted by Kjetil Aakra

Note the round metal sheet covering the original MG 17 port.

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).

[Franek Grabowski]

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.

[Kuba Plewka]

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 !)

[Franek Grabowski]

Read Olivier's post, the answer is there!

[Dénes Bernád]

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].

[vzlion]

Slightly off topic, but how did the maintenance people keep track of parts for the different modifications? A squadron could have had several E models all converted to E-7 standard. I'm sure each model had parts that were unique to that model alone. Therefore maintain would have to stock the parts that were unique to each model. A supply nightmare.

Walt

[Kjetil Aakra]

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

[olefebvre]

Kjetil this a/c does have a droptank

Cheers,
Olivier

[Kjetil Aakra]

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

[olefebvre]

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