E-7? terrain color?

[Flyby]

Just a few for questions for those in the know:
Will the 109E-7 be modeled on SoW_BoB? If so, will it be modeled with the 79 gallon drop tank?

Will the color of the terrain be different from IL2?

What are the differences between SoW-BoB, and Rowan's BoB2, aside from online playability?

I'm sure these questions have been addressed ages ago, but perhaps there is something new to report, or different perspectives now?
Flyby

[stalkervision]

Just a few for questions for those in the know:
Will the 109E-7 be modeled on SoW_BoB? If so, will it be modeled with the 79 gallon drop tank?

Will the color of the terrain be different from IL2?

What are the differences between SoW-BoB, and Rowan's BoB2, aside from online playability?

I'm sure these questions have been addressed ages ago, but perhaps there is something new to report, or different perspectives now?
Flyby

The wingtank wasn't used in BOB because of it's alarming tendency to catch fire in flight. Had it been things just might have been a bit different... :twisted:

A nice option would be for it to be allowed. One can do this in BOBWOV but the wingtank isn't modeled. You just get a higher reserve of fuel to fly the 109 is all.. :(

The difference between BOBWOV and BOBSOW when it comes out? HMMM..

Of course the new game will have better graphics and more aircraft. BOBWOV's "air graphics" and cockpits ain't all that bad. The AI in the shockwave game is very very good and BOBSOW will have to go a "fur piece" to beat it which I somehow doubt they will do given the statements in the past about that about that.

Weather effects will be similar. BOBWOV models them really well but it really takes a big cpu to handle them with a lot of aircraft in the air. I imagine BOBSOW will react in the same way.

Lots of aircraft in the air at one time..I imagine in BOBSOW one will have to turn down the "eye candy" quite a bit to get it flyable on a slightly lower line computer.

These are all "semi-educated guesses" Judging from the statments about BOBSOW I believe they are generally right.. :wink:

[Flyby]

Good reply. I recall reading that the E7 could take a 79 gallon tank, ans assumed that it did so, in late November of '40. I also read that the E7 actually dropped bombs over England, and that doing so was considered a wasted effort.
I don't own BoB-WoV, but i've read that it's pretty good in a lot of ways, and so I wondered at the matchup. It should be interesting, especially with the AI issue you mentioned, and the number of planes in the air.
I hope the color of the terrain will be better than that of IL2. IMHO, I always thought the greens were way too bright and didn't look very natural. Actually I always thought the terrain colors in CFS1 looked pretty decent.
Anyway, thanks for the reply. Good stuff.
Flyby

[stalkervision]

Good reply. I recall reading that the E7 could take a 79 gallon tank, ans assumed that it did so, in late November of '40. I also read that the E7 actually dropped bombs over England, and that doing so was considered a wasted effort.
I don't own BoB-WoV, but i've read that it's pretty good in a lot of ways, and so I wondered at the matchup. It should be interesting, especially with the AI issue you mentioned, and the number of planes in the air.
I hope the color of the terrain will be better than that of IL2. IMHO, I always thought the greens were way too bright and didn't look very natural. Actually I always thought the terrain colors in CFS1 looked pretty decent.
Anyway, thanks for the reply. Good stuff.
Flyby


Yes, in fact the e7's did drop bombs over england. The fighter pilots hated carrying those crummy bombs though and usually dropped them anywhere on england as soon as possible and flew back home saying "mission accomplished!" :lol:

Hay they had no "bombsites" on their planes and were't bomber pilots so who could blame them.. :)

In the mean time while your waiting (which may be a long while.. :( ) I suggest you pick up a copy of BOBWOV to practice on before hand for he upcomng series and battle.

If you get to be a really good fighter pilot in BOBWOV then BOBSOW will be a piece of cake.. :)

And you will be already to plaster all those new Multiplayer pilots in BOBSOW because the Ai in BOBWOV is really quite excellent. If you can beat it then human players will be a snap...
:twisted:

[Flyby]

And you will be already to plaster all those new Multiplayer pilots in BOBSOW because the Ai in BOBWOV is really quite excellent. If you can beat it then human players will be a snap...
:twisted:
You mean the AI in BoBWOV is that good that it's better than human opfor? :shock:

[stalkervision]

And you will be already to plaster all those new Multiplayer pilots in BOBSOW because the Ai in BOBWOV is really quite excellent. If you can beat it then human players will be a snap...
:twisted:
You mean the AI in BoBWOV is that good that it's better than human opfor? :shock:


The ai is truly excellent IMO. If you attack a enemy pilot and don't shoot him down on the first pass which isn't always possible because they are excellent at getting away, he and his wingman will tag team you to death if you don't somehow get far enough away from them. They will also quite frequently call in others to help them finish you off! I have had six to 8 enemy aircraft on my tail at one time.. :cry:

The ai in bobwov are VERY realistic and historically accurate. They also make quite excellent counter moves to all your moves and are quite unpredictable even! :shock: They are nothing like Il-2's lets just say "less then satisfactory" ai ... :)

In human play there are good players and bad players. They don't work in teams most of the time or have the ability of BOBWOV's Ai IMO..

they are also entirely "mission oriented" The fights in BOBWOV don't just turn into low altitude "one on one shooter fests"

[1.JaVA_Sharp]

agreed.

I've only dabbled with sp quick action stuff. That alone is pretty hard in itsself.

[Flyby]

I'm not genrally into offline play, but I may have to give that one a go. Price should be reasonalble now since it's been out a while.
thanks!
Flyby
PS Someone send Oleg a copy so he can up the AI intellect. (don't ban me!!!)

[stalkervision]

I'm not genrally into offline play, but I may have to give that one a go. Price should be reasonalble now since it's been out a while.
thanks!
Flyby
PS Someone send Oleg a copy so he can up the AI intellect. (don't ban me!!!)

Very resonable and well worth it believe me! 8)

If olegs AI in the new game is half as good as this one I will pleased... :)

[Avimimus]

I am worried about the terrain colour. I prefer the pre-DCS Lomac and EAW. Perhaps I have a "difference in colour perception"...I also recall liking JWW2F.

Anyway, I hope we will be able to change the textures for the main terrain or that an option for colour saturation will be included.

[Flyby]

I am worried about the terrain colour. I prefer the pre-DCS Lomac and EAW. Perhaps I have a "difference in colour perception"...I also recall liking JWW2F.

Anyway, I hope we will be able to change the textures for the main terrain or that an option for colour saturation will be included.
I hope Oleg releases some new screenies soon. I'd like to see some terrain shots
Flyby

[Jughead]

"PS Someone send Oleg a copy so he can up the AI intellect. (don't ban me!!!)"

+1

I've been seeing strange things online too, so I have moved to offline play.
I've see some pretty neat things in WoV. If Oleg is a WW2 flight sim fan (something tells me he is) I'm sure he's played it too. Which is probably a good thing.
[/quote]

[KOM.Nausicaa]

I also read that the E7 actually dropped bombs over England, and that doing so was considered a wasted effort. Flyby

First ever bomb-run carried out by the BF109 was done in an attack on Dover harbour, as early as July 1940, in the beginning of BoB.

[Ballenato]

E7 its called E7 because droptank. If not drop tank is able to carry (that mean no rak), was called E/3-4. Bombs in E-4 and before were an retroffited planes.

Stalkervision, where didi you read that those drop tanks and it's alarming tendency to catch fire in flight btw?

saludos

[stalkervision]

E7 its called E7 because droptank. If not drop tank is able to carry (that mean no rak), was called E/3-4. Bombs in E-4 and before were an retroffited planes.

Stalkervision, where didi you read that those drop tanks and it's alarming tendency to catch fire in flight btw?

saludos


I believe it was in the Ballentine Series of military books / ME-109 by Martin Caidin buddy.

Pss..that was because they were actually made from pressed and molded paper! :shock:

right after the battle a metal one came out but by then it was to late..

[JG53Frankyboy]

i sure hope Maddox will include the -/B option for the SoW:BoB Bf109E :)

[stalkervision]

i sure hope Maddox will include the -/B option for the SoW:BoB Bf109E :)

what he will probably do is to make the tank the same as it was in real life..

Extreamly flammable... :twisted: :lol:

It will make for some great unplanned screenshots though.. :)

[JG53Frankyboy]

-/B means bombs - no need to model any droptank for the SoW:BoB 109s

[Flyby]

E7 its called E7 because droptank. If not drop tank is able to carry (that mean no rak), was called E/3-4. Bombs in E-4 and before were an retroffited planes.

Stalkervision, where didi you read that those drop tanks and it's alarming tendency to catch fire in flight btw?

saludos


I believe it was in the Ballentine Series of military books / ME-109 by Martin Caidin buddy.

Pss..that was because they were actually made from pressed and molded paper! :shock:

right after the battle a metal one came out but by then it was to late..
I still have that book! :D

[Ballenato]

E7 its called E7 because droptank. If not drop tank is able to carry (that mean no rak), was called E/3-4. Bombs in E-4 and before were an retroffited planes.

Stalkervision, where didi you read that those drop tanks and it's alarming tendency to catch fire in flight btw?

saludos


I believe it was in the Ballentine Series of military books / ME-109 by Martin Caidin buddy.

Pss..that was because they were actually made from pressed and molded paper! :shock:

right after the battle a metal one came out but by then it was to late..

I think you must double check your sources, at least dont get too much credit on those fantastic Caidin texts.

From "Bf109 Recognition manual" - Marco Fernandez Sommerau:

"From the E7 to the last K4s, all Bf could carry auxiliary fuel tanks externally. These were suspended from a carrier rack under the belly. The type of belly rack changed very little between the E and the last K.
The original ALUMINIUM drop-tank selected for the 109 was a Junkers design of 295 litres capacity. Other types of tank soon appeared, most being similar in apparience but with a flattened botton in order to give adequate ground clearance. At the end of the war an "economy" steel version (type 8-4559 E1) appeared but saw limited use as it was less resilient than earlier tanks and imposed some limitations - aerobatics and sudden manoeuvres were not advised with it attached, nor were reough field landings recomended. Areinforced steel tak was subsequently adopted."

regards

[stalkervision]

E7 its called E7 because droptank. If not drop tank is able to carry (that mean no rak), was called E/3-4. Bombs in E-4 and before were an retroffited planes.

Stalkervision, where didi you read that those drop tanks and it's alarming tendency to catch fire in flight btw?

saludos


I believe it was in the Ballentine Series of military books / ME-109 by Martin Caidin buddy.

Pss..that was because they were actually made from pressed and molded paper! :shock:

right after the battle a metal one came out but by then it was to late..
I still have that book! :D

Great book huh? 8)

[stalkervision]

E7 its called E7 because droptank. If not drop tank is able to carry (that mean no rak), was called E/3-4. Bombs in E-4 and before were an retroffited planes.

Stalkervision, where didi you read that those drop tanks and it's alarming tendency to catch fire in flight btw?

saludos


I believe it was in the Ballentine Series of military books / ME-109 by Martin Caidin buddy.

Pss..that was because they were actually made from pressed and molded paper! :shock:

right after the battle a metal one came out but by then it was to late..

I think you must double check your sources, at least dont get too much credit on those fantastic Caidin texts.

From "Bf109 Recognition manual" - Marco Fernandez Sommerau:

"From the E7 to the last K4s, all Bf could carry auxiliary fuel tanks externally. These were suspended from a carrier rack under the belly. The type of belly rack changed very little between the E and the last K.
The original ALUMINIUM drop-tank selected for the 109 was a Junkers design of 295 litres capacity. Other types of tank soon appeared, most being similar in apparience but with a flattened botton in order to give adequate ground clearance. At the end of the war an "economy" steel version (type 8-4559 E1) appeared but saw limited use as it was less resilient than earlier tanks and imposed some limitations - aerobatics and sudden manoeuvres were not advised with it attached, nor were reough field landings recomended. Areinforced steel tak was subsequently adopted."

regards


I have a bit of a problem with your " source" buddy. The problem I have is that if you and the author are saying a real usable nonleaking droptank of metal construction was available to the luftwaffe during the battle of britain the germans would have absolutely totally used it! :shock: Many many german planes landed in the channel out of fuel or crash landed on the beach because of a lack of fuel. Also there is the problem of the germans always having to cut short their escort missions to bolt home because of a lack of fuel.

I have also just found another confirming source for this in "THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN" by Richard Townsend Bickers. A very excellent source for BOB information.. 8) A quote from the book..

" The Jagdflieger were aware that their BF 109 E's possessed sufficient endurance for a mere 20 minutes actual combat over Britain and that London represented the effective limit of their tactical radius. This embarrassing limitation had been foreseen and a jettisonable 66 Imp gal (300 liter) fuel tank had been developed and, in fact, manufactured in some numbers. However, produced from molded plywood, it was found to leak seriously after comparatively short exposure to the elements and its incendiary proclivity resulted in its rejection by BF 109E units."

I have seen this mentioned in a few other places before also. :wink: My source is confirmed I believe now. :lol: Apparently Marco Fernandez Sommerau is quite inaccurate here if he is implying in some way that there was a usable metal fuel tank for the Me-109 during the Battle of Britain buddy.


well actually he isn't so much inaccurate from your quote as I believe he actually means the late end E7 model that came out at the very end of the conflict with the new metal tank in line 66 gallon tear drop belly tank. He is apparently not even aware of the earlier plywood tank though.. :roll:

cheer up though. I apparently was wrong about the molded paper tank. It was actually molded plywood! :lol:

ME-109 by Martin Caidin is an excellent book btw, you might want to get a copy. He has always turned out to be right on everything about the 109 that I have ever read about it.. 8)

regards SV

[Ballenato]

Im aware of that, again, biased concept of LW. No primary document sources have found about "plywood" drop tanks, so if you have something that can convinced me, in ready to see that.

And about Caidin's book, i own a copy. Is deeper in my shelves.

[stalkervision]

Im aware of that, again, biased concept of LW. No primary document sources have found about "plywood" drop tanks, so if you have something that can convinced me, in ready to see that.

And about Caidin's book, i own a copy. Is deeper in my shelves.


Primary sources now? Now we want "primary sources" too huh? :lol:

The other book I quoted is a pretty good darn source IMO. Why don't you prove to me that the plywood tank never existed instead. :)

Something tells me Caidin isn't one of your favorite authors.. :wink:

[Ballenato]

Dont gonna get in a twisted discussion. Im telling ya that i never seen any refs on those, so clammed paper/plywood, drop tanks... im telling ya that you show me anythig that prove use of that kind of drop tanks, thats what i call primary sources, not quotes from a book.
I can not prove you that were not used. Because i dont have any evidence of the use. But you states that it were used, im only asking about any clue.

take it easy, m8

PD: And btw, im never said that in BOB were used drop tanks, just that the drop tanks were of alumminium.

[stalkervision]

[quote="Ballenato"]Dont gonna get in a twisted discussion. Im telling ya that i never seen any refs on those, so clammed paper/plywood, drop tanks... im telling ya that you show me anythig that prove use of that kind of drop tanks, thats what i call primary sources, not quotes from a book.
I can not prove you that were not used. Because i dont have any evidence of the use. But you states that it were used, im only asking about any clue.

> The book I quoted the passage from is by an excellent aviation historical author. I see no reason for him to make things up and in fact given his statement it appears he was quoting from a primary source. Maybe you should endeavor to find your primary source threw him. I have no reason to doubt him because I have seen this mentioned many times before by different authors also.

[SG1_Gunkan]

Because i dont have any evidence of the use. But you states that it were used, im only asking about any clue.

+1

[JG53Frankyboy]

according to Jochen Priens "History of JG53, Vol.1" at least JG53 received its first Bf109E-7s in October 1940.
And that the JG53 used 300liter Droptanks first in November 1940 in combat action.

Seeing that the Italians are modelled in SoW:BoB - who also apperead very late , end of October was their first combat mission http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/falco_bob.htm - a Bf109E-7 would fit in the timeframe !

BUT, my guess is , we will not see so much variants of one plane anymore - as in the IL2 series.
i expect ONE Bf109E version in SoW:BoB.
if it will be a -4 or -3 (only depends wich kind of MG-FF Maddox will choose) , i don't know.
and i expect also the -/B armament option (bombs) - to simulate the fighterbomber raids.

[stalkervision]

Drop tanks were used in the Spanish civil war by the condor legion and they worked out quite well. The german's were well aware of how to retrofit planes to carry them. The e-4 even had a center line bomb rack release fitted in the middle of BOB. I have also studied the system used by the german's for their drop tanks. It is quite simple efficient and ingenious. I see no other limiting factor here to the use of a drop tank during bob except that the original drop tank design for the 109 was faulty IMO.

I know plywood/paper materials were used on some p-51 drop tanks due to either wanting to save metal resources or not to give the enemy free useful aluminum metal materials. The german's may have designed them this way originally for just the same reason but came up with a faulty design. Our "paper" drop tanks worked quite well from what I know of them..

[Ballenato]

Drop tanks were used in the Spanish civil war by the condor legion and they worked out quite well.

Sorry? All that you can see with drop tanks, maybe, are post war 109 "nacionalistas". But for sure drop tanks never were used in SCW. Im spaniard and have quite near this thread. Only two
German aircraft in Spain used drop tanks, the Heinkel 51 and the Henschel
123. Anyway ill check my files again :roll:

The e-4 even had a center line bomb rack release fitted in the middle of BOB
As you "know", nothing to do with fuel rack system. Those are different systems.

I have also studied the system used by the german's for their drop tanks. It is quite simple efficient and ingenious.

So, you know what modifications were need to use it?
The factory simply ran a fuel pipe thru the cockpit floor, coming up on the right side corner, behind the seat. The pipe ran along under the edge of the canopy to a auxiliary fuel contents indicator, then thru the
instrument panel and firewall to the engine. Normal procedure was to start the engine with the fuel coming from the drop tank, then as the fuel
got low, to switch to the main tank, and jetison the drop tank.

Dont take it personal Stalker, im learnig, hope youll doing too.

[stalkervision]

"Ballenato"Drop tanks were used in the Spanish civil war by the condor legion and they worked out quite well.

Sorry? All that you can see with drop tanks, maybe, are post war 109 "nacionalistas". But for sure drop tanks never were used in SCW. Im spaniard and have quite near this thread. Only two
German aircraft in Spain used drop tanks, the Heinkel 51 and the Henschel
123. Anyway ill check my files again :roll:

The e-4 even had a center line bomb rack release fitted in the middle of BOB
As you "know", nothing to do with fuel rack system. Those are different systems.

stalker > I was thinking about the system being used as a "fuel tank" release system too. IMO a very important part of a drop tank sustem.. :) <

stalker/ I have also studied the system used by the german's for their drop tanks. It is quite simple efficient and ingenious.

Ballenato /So, you know what modifications were need to use it?
The factory simply ran a fuel pipe thru the cockpit floor, coming up on the right side corner, behind the seat. The pipe ran along under the edge of the canopy to a auxiliary fuel contents indicator, then thru the
instrument panel and firewall to the engine. Normal procedure was to start the engine with the fuel coming from the drop tank, then as the fuel
got low, to switch to the main tank, and jetison the drop tank.

stalker> Yup, I actually have know about this system for quite a while. It has no pump! A very enginious and simple system IMO.. <

Ballenato/ Dont take it personal Stalker, im learnig hope youll doing too.

Stalker > Actually, I really don't buddy. I am trying to find out the ultimate answer to this nagging question and I believe you are too! :lol:

We are just starting out on different ends of the same question is all.. :)

[Flyby]

Good to see this discussion continuing. Hopefully a solid historically agreeable conclusion will be reached. Meanwhile, good stuff here. carry on.;)
Flyby out

[stalkervision]

I am always looking for further long forgotten aviation knowlege. My ego is quite "flexible" :lol: Any more new info on this topic is greatly appreciated.. :)

[Flyby]

I am always looking for further long forgotten aviation knowlege. My ego is quite "flexible" :lol: Any more new info on this topic is greatly appreciated.. :)
Well said my good man! :D Perhaps the more knowledge we have about the equipment of the battle, the more satisfyingly immersed in it we will become. If not, well it's just a game anyway. But what great expectations we have of it for the suspension of disbelief! I can see myself flying an E-4 near London, and dividing my attention between what's going on around me and that little red light that just flickererd on. Man, that's living life on the edge as a virtual fighter pilot. No better use of a pc imho. ;)
Flyby out

[stalkervision]

more info...

http://wikipedia.ketsujin.com/index.php?title=Special:PdfPrint&page=Messerschmitt_Bf-109

[stalkervision]

This is an ACTUAL picture of a plywood drop tank!

http://museum119.cz/nadrz/nadrz.htm




A guess was ventured that it was an experimental 262 but no one really knows what luftwaffe aircraft it really belongs to. Notice the mounting marks which look like the e4 under belly bomb release points..


http://museum119.cz/nadrz/1.jpg

................................

http://museum119.cz/nadrz/3.jpg

[Ballenato]

Thnaks for the links Stalker. But still no proof used on 109. Just take a look it dimensions, no space under a 109 belly. And too long. And btw, external drop racks were standard onwards E/7. So this must be a Ju87 long range set up too.

Regards

[stalkervision]

Thnaks for the links Stalker. But still no proof used on 109. Just take a look it dimensions, no space under a 109 belly. And too long. And btw, external drop racks were standard onwards E/7. So this must be a Ju87 long range set up too.

Regards

The investigation goes on. :) One part is proven now, That the luftwaffe actually produced these kind of plywood tanks.. :wink:

[Ballenato]

http://usuarios.lycos.es/mrvalverde/FRR094.JPG

Here you have a pic of a He51 with a "Huevo del Diablo" (Devils Egg) attached. 2 bombs sticked to the drop tank. The shape looks more like this. And still no 109 ;)

[stalkervision]

I was just going over the book I saw the refrence to ABOUT the early plywood drop thank( The Battle of Britain by Richard Townsend Bickers (pg68) and to my amazement there is a drawing of the 109e4 with a drawing of it's auxiliery equiptment and a early WOODEN DROP TANK IS SHOW THAT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THE PHOTO HERE!


Wish I could scan it in for you and show you the drawing but I have no scanner.. :(

http://museum119.cz/nadrz/2.jpg

btw..the drawing looks more like the photo above then the heinkels d/p. BTW, do you know if the heinkel d/p is wood? It looks like a dent is in at the front it as if it is made of metal..


I know you don't believe my sources but one of the contributing authors to the book is Adolph Galland! :)

[Ballenato]

Thanks again Stalker, i droped an email to a friend. He has lot of reports regarding drop tanks use in LW, for sure hes gonna give us some light.

[Kurfürst]

Stalkervision had asked this quiestion over Ubi board. Appearantly, he did not like the answer for he certainly does not quote what he learned there. ;)

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1321030306

It`s worth reading the thread.

But to summerize, there`s absolutely no evidence of plywood droptanks ever being used operationally on Bf 109Es in the Battle of Britain to our very best knowledge. It`s probably a myth originating from some older, poorly researched (for tech details) BoB books.

In fact, they used light metal alumium tanks from the beginning till the end. These were evidently originally developed for the long-range Ju 87R, and were subsequently used on the Bf 109E-7 that first carried the neccesary piping for the droptank.

E-7s were introduced to service and combat in 26 August 1940. 186 was produced until the end of the Battle, 31 October 1940, and 452 in total until mid-1941, when Emil production ended.

It`s somewhat unclear wheter E-7s had DB 601Aa or the more powerful DB 601N engines, or a mix of these two engines. E-7s can be identified from their pointed prop spinner (however, later on many E-4s etc. were retrofitted with the neccesary equipment).

According to Rechlin`s 109E range tables, at 5km altitude using a the 300 liter single droptank extended range and endurance to 920km and 1h 50min at 500/520km/h, 1165 km and 2h 50min at 410/430 km/h, and 1325 km abd 3h 50min at 330/350 km/h cruise speed (droptank on/off).

Here`s a picture from the E-7`s German manual, evidently an alumium drop tank of the well known pattern.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/E-7_alutbehalter.jpg

E-7 in flight, again, the same metal droptank :

http://kepfeltoltes.hu/071102/109E-7_droptank_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.jpg


The pictures of plywood droptanks stalkervision is showing are way too big to fit on the 109, they are actually experimental droptanks for the Me 262 that were not used in service.

[Kurfürst]

So, you know what modifications were need to use it?
The factory simply ran a fuel pipe thru the cockpit floor, coming up on the right side corner, behind the seat. The pipe ran along under the edge of the canopy to a auxiliary fuel contents indicator, then thru the
instrument panel and firewall to the engine. Normal procedure was to start the engine with the fuel coming from the drop tank, then as the fuel
got low, to switch to the main tank, and jetison the drop tank.

That indeed worked this way on many Allied fighters according to the manual.

German fighters droptank worked different, though. On the 109 and 190, pressurized air tapped from the supercharger was fed into the droptank itself, which in turn forced the contents of the droptank, through a pipe into the main tank. Effectively, the engine was fed from the main internal tank all the time, and itself was replenished continously from the droptank. There was no fuel selector switch of any kind.

On the 109, the pipe leading from the DT to the MT was lead through the cocpit on the right side. A section of the pipe was made of glass, through which the pilot could observe simply and reliably wheter the drop tank properly feeds or not.

A classic 'Keep it simple, stupid' system. ;)

[stalkervision]

kurfurst..

But to summerize, there`s absolutely no evidence of plywood droptanks ever being used operationally on Bf 109Es in the Battle of Britain to our very best knowledge. It`s probably a myth originating from some older, poorly researched (for tech details) BoB books.


> I never said it was used buddy. That's a "strawman argument" I have been looking for this elusive plywood drop tank is all. I know it was never used because it apparently leaked badly.. :wink:

Kurf> Stalkervision had asked this quiestion over Ubi board. Appearantly, he did not like the answer for he certainly does not quote what he learned there.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1321030306

> That is because I haven't learned anything I didn't already know already Kurf. I am looking for the actual real answer to the question. I want to know where this idea really came from. Why quote old info quoted from other sources I have seen 1000 times before.. :?

I am looking for some NEW info buddy. Someone did manage to find a picture of an ACTUAL GERMAN PLYWOOD DROP TANK. :shock: All of you said it was a figment of different aviation authors imaginations but apparently that figment actually exists... :)

That kind of puts a crimp into your belief that there was no such thing made by the german's.. :lol:

oh one last thing..

Kurf..

The pictures of plywood droptanks stalkervision is showing are way too big to fit on the 109,

> That is really hard to say. I have seen quite large and long bombs slung under the 109e's center line rack.. :roll:


kurf.. they are actually experimental droptanks for the Me 262 that were not used in service.


That is a speculation based from some japanese contributor based on some test of an experimental 262 test. One can not say this is the same drop tank as that one test whatsoever because it doesn't have me-262 drop tank written on it does it? :lol:

[Kurfürst]

I am looking for some NEW info buddy. Someone did manage to find a picture of an ACTUAL GERMAN PLYWOOD DROP TANK. :shock: All of you said it was a figment of different aviation authors imaginations but apparently that figment actually exists... :)

That kind of puts a crimp into your belief that there was no such thing made by the german's.. :lol:

Well it`s quite simply a case of you adding a strawmen arguement - the discussion was of course about the doubtful existance of 'horribly leaking 109 plywood tanks in BoB', a claim that you`ve made and not the denial of the existance of any, even experimental 'German plywood tank', for any aircraft type at any time - AKA refuting a claim that nobody made.

Basically, you have absolutely nothing supporting what you claim to exist, whatever rhetorics and twist you mix it with.

[stalkervision]

It wasn't me that came up with this. I wish it was because it is quite interesting idea. No, other people apparently were privy to information we don't have at this moment. I see no reason for them to make it up. I am just attempting to find that original information they used is all.

[Kurfürst]

The same question was asked about plywood tanks on butch`s board. There`s no answer to it from butch, which makes me believe he had not seen evidence of plywood tanks either.. otherwise he would surely note, it`s his most favourite subject (109s at all).

Frankly, if he had not heard, I don`t think it exists. I don`t know anyone who knows 109s better than butch. Plus it only appears in old BoB books, which are in error in many other ways about tech details.. For me, it`s easy to decide upo which is the most likely scenario, well until someone stands up and shows evidence of plywood tanks, that is.

[stalkervision]

The same question was asked about plywood tanks on butch`s board. There`s no answer to it from butch, which makes me believe he had not seen evidence of plywood tanks either.. otherwise he would surely note, it`s his most favourite subject (109s at all).

Frankly, if he had not heard, I don`t think it exists. I don`t know anyone who knows 109s better than butch. Plus it only appears in old BoB books, which are in error in many other ways about tech details.. For me, it`s easy to decide upo which is the most likely scenario, well until someone stands up and shows evidence of plywood tanks, that is.

franky I am just looking for the truth here. What I really truly want is the original source information that was quoted in these books. I have no agenda but the truth here. Yes it is a bit of a crazy quest. :) I could just go with all the information everyone keeps repeating verbatum it seems back and forth between all the search engines with no new information included. I believe there is a bit more to this story though. Given that there is an actual luftwaffe plywood drop tank is one clue. Another is that it looks the same as in my book is another.

I believe these tanks were tested before BOB and found lacking by the luftwaffe, then the whole thing was forgotten about...

I have one crazy pet theory about these tanks I am thinking about now. Supposedly these tanks were produced in some numbers. Now I am not sure exactly how closely they resemble the 262 tanks but it maybe these tanks were still lying around in some german warehouse and were attempted to be used again on the 262 at the end of the war due to critical shortages of metal at the end of this war. After all more then a few 109's were built with all wooded tails I believe to save on aluminum! :( No one remembered that they leaked so badly or assumed due to the crisis they were worth a shot once again , tried them out and found out their original problem was so severe that they rejected them one more time...! :)

[stalkervision]

The mystery is finally resolved... 8) :)


Originally posted by berg417448:
I was reading "Adolf Galland-The Authorised Biography" by David Baker. In the notes at the end of Chapter 13 I read the following:

"Just weeks earlier the Bf-109E-7 had begun reaching the Stafflen, although the variant would not see service with JG26 before early November. The E-7 was essentially equivalent to the DB601N poweredE-4/N but with fuselage shackles for either a 300 litre (66 gal) fuel tank or 330 kg (550 lb) of bombs. The light metal tanks were a great improvement on the compressed wood pulp type, but they did cut performance, and pilots jettisoned them if combat threatened."

Now I have no idea whether they really existed or were really used but when someone reads it in Adolf Galland's biography I can see why they might believe in them.

Thanks berg417448: :D 8)

[Ballenato]

The E-7 was essentially equivalent to the DB601N powered E-4/N but with fuselage shackles for either a 300 litre (66 gal) fuel tank or 330 kg (550 lb) of bombs

So his assuming E/4 and early models didn't mount fuel racks.
On the other had we have that Galland flew H51 on SCW, which used external drop tanks made of plywood, yes :) .
I'm guessing hes taking account that, and not only 109's.

Anyway we r on the right direction.