I would like one question,why is not included in this part of the E4 Messer?
 

I'm not understand why not included the Cliff's of Dover in this part of the E4 Messer?:( They were employed already in this period the Battle of Britain.
Sorry my poor english.;)

Best regards!:)

V.4_Pogi

S!

Totally agree.

You say the E4 isn't in Cod?

I've not seen any official list for the release. Can you please share the link to the official plane-list?

This is from the list from the excellent gamer.ru preview.

Royal Air Force: Tiger Moth, Spitfire Mk.I / Mk.Ia / Mk.IIa, Hurricane Mk.I / Mk.I DH5-20 and Blenheim Mk.IV
Luftwaffe: Bf-109E-3/E-3B, Bf-110C-4/C-7, Ju-88A-1, He-111H-2/P-2 and Ju-87B-2
Air Italy: Fiat G.50 and Fiat BR.20M
Bonus: the Su-26M

Not strictly official, but 99 percent likely to be accurate.

RAF flyable
Spitfire Mk.I
Hurricane Mk.I
Blenheim Mk.IV
Gladiator Mk.II
Tiger Moth (trainer)

RAF AI
Defiant Mk.I
Beaufighter Mk.IF
Blenheim Mk.IF
Blenheim Mk.IVF
Blenheim Mk.I
Wellington Mk.IC
Lysander Mk.I
Anson Mk.I
Cierva C.30°
Avro Rota Mk.I (autogyro)
Sunderland Mk.I

AXIS flyable
Bf-109 E3 & E1
Bf-110 C4
He-111 H-2
He-111 P-2
Ju-87 B-2
Ju-88 A-1

AXIS AI
Do-17 Z-1
Do-215 (recon.)
FW-200 C-1
He-59
He-115
Ju-52 /3M
Bf-108
FIAT G.50
FIAT CR.42
FIAT BR.20M

And the civil stunt plane the Su-26

Wasn't this the list of planes included in their beta? :confused:

That doesn't mean there won't be an E4 in the final.

I'll wait for the official announcement, before I cry and run in circles.

You're right,this only beta,but they talk about him nowhere and did not figure even on a picture.

S!

Don't all E-4s have the squared-off armoured canopy?

If that is true I'm sure we would have seen the E-4 by now if it was going to be included.

No, the E4 is just a E3 where the MG-FF were replaced with MG-FF/M.
The canopy change was made around the same time to all emils for additional pilot protection.

I hope E4would be in the first addon/update......really hope

Well, i would always choose a E3 converted to E4!!!
The old style canopy gives a much better visibility!!!
In RL, of course, i would take the additional protection that the squared canopy gives :-D .

You could also argue for the 109D (mg only version) I believe that was still flying in the BoB.

Just an observation, I don't mind shooting down Ds, E3s or E4s :D

Didn't the 110C4 have the MG-FF/M?

Strange, they could've made an E4 out of the already existing cannons;)

During the Battle of Britain only the rear plate was replaced as additional protection. The square canopy was added later. As such, you would probably not even recognize the difference unless you have very detailed shots of the different 109s. If it was even worth modeling at all...

Besides that, when the square canopys were added to the E4s, the E3s also received them as a refit. So even that wouldn't allow a 100% identification.

@ Sven:
Correct. Given the little differences and the fact that the gun is already modeled makes me quite confident it's either in the release as well, or will be added in a patch.

I really hope so, I cannot imagine that the E4 will not be in the release, all the works been done for it.

Kay, if the gun is the only difference (and if even that requires no 3D changes) it would be bizarre if the E-4 was not included. Perhaps, the intention is to model the later style canopy on the E-4 and add it a patch?

Would be nice to have all the BoB era E models, even the E-1 is surprisingly good fun because you get so much ammunition.

well....

The E4 should be in, it was used in numbers if we begin the why is not debate...well in October the F1 was used in limitet numbers etc....

With the 109 especialy the E4 it comes down to ammo. The "mineshot" original had impact detonator, but later series had delay...the first version exploded on the fusulage doing little damedge.

With the "shitzz" cannons on the E3 it was harder to hit, but it was regarded that 3 to 4 cannon rounds would be enough to bring down an enemy plane. Many RAF fighters who returned after being hit with cannon rounds was written of.

And if the RAF boys say give us the hispano, think twice. The version of the Hispano used doing BOB was a piece of junk. They jammed ALOT and was disregarded until a better version was made. When they worked i have to admit it was a great gun, but a 80% failure rate is playing lotto with your life.

I look so much forward to this game. :)

LTbear

The Spitfire Ib is confirmed, so hopefully it will have a historical failure rate. Otherwise it will be the plane of choice for RAF pilots, since the Hispano is probably the best aircraft gun of WW2.

SO what is the difference between say , an E4 and say... and F4?

yupz or we end right back at the KI-84 style whining....

Well its another plane lol..that is the short story. The long story i link to since im to bored to wright it my self...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109

There is most of the story about the 109 :)

Pretty ok reading if you are "blanc" on the 109

LTbear

From what i've seen there is no E1 or E4 or E7 or square canopy...

but on the plus side we do have an SU26 ;)

I expect the other versions of the Emil will be paid DLC or in the next expansion.

I hope We'll have modded versions of all Emils within a few weeks of release...

Were has that been confirmed?

Based on screenshots, videos and reviews, these are the Spitfire variants:

2x MkI (one with two-pitch, one with CSP, most likely)
1x MkIa
1x MkIIa

I never read anything about a Ib ever, nor have i seen a screenshot of it. If there will be a 5th variant for the Spitfire and only the E-3 and E-3/B for the 109, it would be a bit suprising.

Thinking about it, there is no way Oleg would leave the E4 out of the initial release, it was the Luft's main battle wagon.

wrong, E1, certainly at the start.

You mind telling us where you saw the mkIb "confirmed"... As of the other day only the mkI, mkIa and mkIIa are going to be in the game.

Im not sure what Luthier means by mkI and mkIa but there was never a mention of any cannoned mkI version.

I for one dont care if its not in the game. Only 19 squadron got them and after the problems with it, went right back to 8 mgs.

Drat, been looking everywhere for the Igromir video that had 4 Spitfires in the Menu (all with 3 bladed props) and I seem to remember seeing the MkIb in the menu of one of the pictures of the update from Oleg that showed the whole Game Map, but I can't find either now.

Also, the list from the Gamer.ru preview only has 3 Spitfires now....

I guess we can settle this if someone can find the update thread that had the game map.

Well, i have pictures of 109Es during the BoB of JG53 with MG17 or canons in the wings. Both variants with the earlier canopy and the later one.
Both canopy versions with headarmour and without.
Both canopy versions wih addtional front windscreenarmour and wirhout.

Optical, there was actually no "the 109" during BoB :D

And yes, because the already confirmed Bf110C-4 is armed with the mineshell firing MG-FF/M it wouldbe easy to make an 109E-4 version...
An E-1would need some 3D overworking.

But hey , the axis will get 5 flyable bombers, two fighterbombers and the mighty G.50 :D
So... I dont think its worth a big whine to have 'only' an E-3
RAF will have only one bomber, not to forgett! So, let them have their multiple versions of Spit&Hurii IMHO :)

Well the E4's were in production in 1939 so they would have appeared in numbers during the BOB, to leave this out of the game is very poor. The E3's were upgraded to E4's as well.

i don't disagree.

but not having an E1 is a bigger hole in the german plane set if you look at the numbers fielded, since at least the only diff really between he E3 and E4, is the Mg FF vs Mg FF/M

and from Kurfust,

and,

personally i am surprised that oleg didn't go with an E1 and E4, which would of made the most sense to me.

In the Igromir video there were indeed 4 Spitfire:

Spitfire Mk. I
Spitfire Mk. I Hea... (more was not displayed in the menu)
Spitfire Mk. Ia
Spitfire Mk. IIa

imagine...in Rise Of flight we have Fokker DVII with mercedes D.IIIa and DVIIF with BMW IIIa engine, both very rare (spec. BMW variant) and most produced variant was DVII with D.IIIau engine....
so having E3 in BOB and not having E1 and E4 is very odd decision.....also
but like I said...I hope Oleg will introduce E1 and E4 soon after initial release...really hope so....

SWEET! the famous Spit mkI Heat-seeking AIM-9 Sidewinder version.

Oleg got my email after all! :lol:

Salute

The problem with trying to model an E4 as well as the E3 is it would require the model be redone, since the canopy and glass and some other details are different. I am surprised Oleg didn't model the E-1.

Drawing of E-1 and E-3:

http://www.airpages.ru/eng/draw/me109_2.shtml

Drawing of E-4:

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/8...09e4bigvi8.jpg

http://www.worldweapons.eu/2-Aviatio...E-4%20(rc).jpg

No, a 109 produced as an E-3 and got its MG-FF replaced with MG-FF/M became an E-4.
Wich canopy Maddox would use in a -1, -3 or -4 is totally unimportant. During BoB both canopy versions were used in all three armament variants.

Maybe the full name is "Spit MkI Heartthrob", which includes the pilot and love interest model.

Or "Spit Mk1 Hear! help me get this broomstick out of my arse!"

I suspect one of the Spitfire Mk I versions is the version that only had 4 mg, and the other is the one with the full 8 gun wing.

As for all the "Why the E-3 and not the E-4?" I'm not seeing it. As near as I can tell, they are the same plane, with some differences in the internal fittings, and sometimes, but not always, a slightly different canopy, which means it requires both a new external 3D model, and a new internal 3D model. Making the E-4 is just going to tie up the 3D modelers for making a plane that's just like the other one.

I'm not seeing the price/performance ratio here.

I'm actually with Tree here. I believe Oleg will have E-4 - and I'll go further - I believe he'll have an E4/N.

JG26 for example, fought the Battle of Britan with mostly E-4's (all E-3's had been given up in refit), a few E-1's for some of the Enlisted pilots and some E-4/N's. Only a few Geschswader had the E4/N in inventory as it requires 96 (vs 87 octane) fuel. E-7's with drop tank capability don't show up until Novemeber, but I guess that doesn't mean they can't be there. BTW, sometimes even E-1's had E-4 canopies. Just because you have not seen it in screen shots, doesn't mean it won't be there.

As Frankyboy said earlier, there is no standard Bf-109 for all Geschwader/Staffeln in July-September 1940. I like the later E4 canopy better - as with this FM I'd prefer the armored glass considering most RAF will be shooting rifle caliber ammo (even though I imagine I can see better in the older canopy). More than anything else, it will be cool to check them both out.

There was a panic attack a few weeks ago about the Spit Mk IIA. Now that the beta reviews have been posted this week - we find the reviewers actually flew one.

Reading through all the forums lately, the mood is often smells more of Hyperventilating 7th graders than RAF and Luftwaffe pilots about to go head to head in one of the greatest air battles of all time.

Ahhh... the excitement of it all. Even if I don't get an E4/N - I'll still won't be breathing in a bag in the head. It's all like Christmas to me.

S!

Gunny

Absolutly no 3D work would be necessarry!
Just change the armament code from MG-FF to MG-FF/M. And the MG-FF/M is already included in CoD for the Bf110C-4 & C-7 !
My suggestion would be to skip the E-3 totaly (CoD is still not Gold i guess). And than later release an E-1. An E-1 would need external and internal work!

The later canopy cuold be made for 109E versions in possible MTO or easternfront scenarios.
For the BoB E-1, E-1/B, E-4, E-4/B would be the perfect setting IMHO. The now selected E-3s are a little bit questinable :)
But anyway, the difference between firing a mineshell or not is perhaps not so huge : D the E-3 has still canons ;)

Maybe the mineshells are selectable as a belting option. I know, the name of the Bf 109 would not be historically 100% correct in this case.

The don't give so much about the names anyway. Just look at the Spitfire names, the "a" in "Mk. Ia" was added to all machine gun armed "Mk. I" when the canon armed "Mk. Ib" came in service. So having a "Mk. I" and a "Mk. Ia" doesn't make much sense as they are the same subversion.

Main difference between these two spitfires will be the propellee i guess...

sorry but you're dead wrong. There was no such thing as a 4 mg spitfire.

As Banks put it the "a" was only put in the name to delineate the difference in sub division of a mark.

so essentially Mk.I = Mk.Ia .... Oleg and crew got some explaining to do.

and on the same issue... what exactly is a bf109E-B, as its listed in the flyables, I've never heard of that one before...

it seems like they are a bit confused by the names of the different variants.
The mkI was still called "mkI" even when it went from 2 bladed to 2-pitch 3 bladed to CSP 3-bladed.

If anything they would be more accurate in calling them "mkI early" or "mkI late"

Maybe like "Bf 109 E-3B, E-4B" type?. A JaBo (Jagdbomber, fighter-bomber) version, I think.

since we're talking about Messerschmitts:rolleyes: , I have a question about the E3. In IL2 'modded' we have the E3 with an optional nosecannon, was it commonly available for pilots in the BoB and what did pilots think about it?

A cannon between the cylinder hubs of an Emil is plain and utter bullsh*t! The Emil did have its main oil tank where the breech of such a weapon would have been so there is no technical possibility of an ordinary Emil having a centerline weapon. This is a fairy tale from the earliest days of research on the Bf 109 and continues to live on through lazy authors who copy from earlier works rather than research details on their own. There may have been one or two pre-series prototypes being tested with a centerline MG FF, but I'm rather sceptical about this. These "Bf 109 E-2" sound too much like one of these urban myths ...

Thank you for your clear answer!

Its imaginary aircraft like this that is the main reason I have never used the mods.


kinda like the difference between a Volkswagen and a 911 Porsche :D ... among other things the 109F's actually DID have a nose cannon.

The F4 was always my favorite 109 in IL-2.:cool:

What do you think?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...1&d=1298733158

To be precise, Thor, no OPERATIONAL Emil went to the front.

The original intent of the E series was for a "motorkanon", but for reasons they could not make a reliable installation in time.

Otherwise, why go though the expense of producing the expensive VDM propeller hub?

Too bad you Luftwhiners will have to learn to aim better :D

I think the E4 will be available as a buyable addon rather like the RoF model. You Lufties will be desperate for it after our Spitfires get stuck in, 8 guns against your unarmoured canopies, it's going to be PK City :D I can see what Oleg is doing, you guys will have your wallets out as soon as you possibly can - it'll be like real war, except with money instead of politics lol

I suspect it's been said already but that's not true. The Spitfire letter denotes the wing type, A being 8 gun, B supporting cannon, C a multipurpose wing of cannon or mixed 303 and E 50cal + cannon

You are wrong. Less than 30% were E4's by the time the BoB was ending.

JG2 had mostly E-1's throughout, only the likes of Galland had newer types.

Oh dear. And I thought all Americans were gun nuts ;)

No, the hispano wasn't the problem, it was the fact that it was mounted upright and g forces would cause jams. Some genius had the idea of putting it on it's side, et voila, a reliable gun.

But since you are on the subject of reliable guns from the RAF you should read the story on wikipedia about the US attempts to 'improve' the Hispano

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano...#US_production

Makes me laugh anyway, that's why you all got stuck with 50cal's

And your sources? Please list. I'd like to know more.

Everything I have access to shows that across the extent of deployed Geshwader, both early in BoB and late in Bob E-1's - were minority - only assigned to some Enlisted pilots. Galland was in JG26 not 2.

I think also that Galland, Wick, Balthasar and other 'Kannon' mainly had E-4/N's. Look at the Octane rating on their aircraft in profiles. The issues is a bit confused by E-1's/E-3's with E-4 canopy and E-3's which had ben upgraded to E-4 standard.

BTW, my main JG26 source "JG26 Top Guns of the Luftwaffe - Donald Caldwell".

S!

Gunny

Just for info:

The canopy style has NOTHING to do with E3 or E4!!!!
The only difference between those models are the weapons in the wings!!!!
E3 -> MG-FF
E4 -> MG-FF/M

So ANY E3 that received the weapon upgrade was automatically a E4.
The squared canopy was refitted to all Emils when available, but some pilots wanted visibility more than protection.

I only used the term E4 canopy for convieniance sake.

Any idea of a better term?

Dunno, say rounded-frame and square-frame canopy I guess.

I am in favor of as many early models as possible.

The "whinge and whine" factor of online hotrod jocks complaining about needing faster later machines means flightsims very rarely progress backwards in time.

Hence the earlier the initial models in the sim are the better.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised once the third-party scene takes off for the new series. :) After all, we had plenty of early-war birds turn up after the initial release even for Il-2, the Gladiator, for example, even if it was created as an export version. Lots of guys from European countries other than England and Germany have an interest in the earlier types because they were the main types in use in their countries. The Buffalo for Finland, for example.

BTW, I think one of the guys earlier in the thread had it nailed when he pointed out that give the screenshots we've seen of the armament screen and the info that many have given regarding the profusion of different variations of the cockpit/head armour styles among all three models, equipping any aircraft as an E-4 instead of an E-3 will likely be more of a case of choosing the belting. Admittedly that creates the "inaccuracy" of being able to fire older-type ammo with the newer MG FF/M, but given that on choosing the ammo you're semantically choosing the gun it's loaded into, and in terms of the damage model and aircraft weights there ought not to be a noticeable difference in the MG FF -> MG FF/M transition so I don't think it really matters.

The real omission is the E-1.

Thanks!

After thinking for a bit - either what you propose or perhaps "armored" or "unarmored"?

Haha, don't take me as any kind of definitive reference. :) It's not something that anyone's going to criticise you for if you don't use the most closely-translated name, though, I'm sure.

If that's the only difference, then maybe we'll have it as an option in the arming options. The sim might still call it an E-3, but if i can go to the belting options and choose the m-shells for the cannons it's a good enough E-4 for me until they properly patch it in.


EDIT: Seems i was a bit slow :-P

Just to ad: the additional headarmor and even the additional windscreen armour was also possible with the early, more rounded canopy...

IF the mineshells are available in the amunition selection of the E-3 i would be very surprised, not to say dissapointed...
And btw, who would fly without them!

Haha, that's true. Why would you be disappointed, though? Whether you'd call the aircraft E-3 or the E-4 in game would be dependent upon which ammo it was firing, it's not like the game considers alterations to the recoil system of the gun - it doesn't really matter in game since it's just a label for two aircraft with differences in the guns which have no practical difference in the game in terms of separating the two types. If mission builders are able to choose which ammo types are available in their mission to indirectly choose whether the player flies an aircraft with MG FF or MG FF/M - and they definitely should be able to :) - it's perfectly fine.

IMHO the consistent wing type letter system was "applied" late war or even post war.

When the Spitfire I came into service there was only one wing type, hence there was no letter for it. In 1940 the letter "A" and "B" were added to distinguish between the machine gun armed and the canon armed version.
Spitfire II and V used the same system, "A" meaning machine gun armed, "B" canon armed. Then there was introduced the "universal wing" and machines with it were given the "C" letter.
Sounds like the wing type letter system, but then the Spitfire IX with Merlin 60, 61, 63 came in service, and the wing type system wasn't used initially! They all had the "universal wing" but they were simply called Spitfire IX without the "C" letter. When the Spitfire IX with Merlin 66 was introduced they were given the name Spitfire IXB - simply to distinguish between the different engines. Obviously not the wing type letter system.

After this the wing type letter system must have been "applied" retroactively to all marks.

Well, basically everyone who knows the difference would then fly a E-4, which is probably more realistic anyway.

I don't think it would be that bad. Better than leaving the E-4 out entirely.

like the E1 you mean.

Its weird how the usual lufty whiners don't seem to be concerned about that, yet they are concerned about which type of 20mm cannon they get (and upset it's not the better of the two).

Hey Mom, some kid at school called me a "Lufty Whiner".

Now's the point that I start thinking about if the Dedicated Server has restrictions on aircraft slots, ammo, types, etc... If I remember correctly, it does.

Simple enough for online mission builders to limit numbers, etc... Spit II and E4/N limited to a few per side, for example.

Can you elaborate some more? If many E-3's were converted to MG FF/M's in BoB why wouldn't they get MG?

S!

Gunny

my point is simple.

surely having a plane that fought in much larger numbers (the E1) in the Battle of Britain is more important than other sub types (E4N) which fought in much lesser numbers, if you want an as accurate as possible BoB (although having all the variants would be nice).

yes/no?

There are more than 1 version of the Bf109E? LOL! All look the same to me!

Exactly.

Now of course, they could keep the same cockpit (would be wrong), cut the barrels of the cannons and say those are machineguns (would be wrong too) and then pretend it's a E-1.

I don't think people would like that, even those that want the E-1 in CloD.
Maybe they are concerned that they won't get the more common, historical variant in a realistic flightsim.

Also because the E-3 is so similar to the E-4 and the E-4 was more common, it is a bit surprising, that the developers decided to only model the E-3 instead of the E-4.


But whatever, i'm still hoping for E-1, E-3 and E-4 (and E-7, but then that's a bit too unlikely).

As i said earlier in the thread, an E1 and an E4 makes by far the most sense to me.....

Dang, yes JG26. This is from Stienhilpers book, he was in the BoB under Galland and said that they had few decent types, and those they had 'the Spaniards' got them. Steinhilper had an E-1 I recall.

I have also read Gallands "The First and the Last", but he barely mentions equipment apart from numbers produced, and spends the book complaining about how they lost and what he wanted to do. ;)

Hooton in Eagle in Flames gives the percentage losses of 109s by subtype:

July
E1 - 44%
E3 - 30%
E4 - 20%

August
E1 - 40%
E3 - 8%
E4 - 52%

September
E1 - 38%
E3 - 1%
E4 - 61%

October
E1 - 36%
E3 - 2%
E4 - 62%

and from Kurfust, over at ubi a while ago,

"I have some actual numbers. On 31 August 1940, fighter units (excluding JG 77) reported 375 E-1s, 125 E-3s, 339 E-4s and 32 E-7s on strength, indicating that most of the E-3s had been already converted to E-4 standard. JG 77 had around 100-125 aircraft with it, but for the rest of the units, its 75% cannon E-3/4/7, the rest are all MG E-1s. The E-1 and E-3 were produced parallel and in about equal numbers from the end of 1938, but by mid-1940, the production of the E-1 stopped, replaced by the E-4 and then the E-7."

and

In Ulrich Steinhilper's book 'Spitfire on My Tail', he relates quite clearly that they, JG52 didn't get there first cannon armed 109's until mid september , and then only 2, which were hand me downs from another unit. Rest of the unit bar these 2 planes was still in E1's.

Its pretty clear that the E1 and E4 were the most common variants by far and that around SEPTEMBER sometime, the E4 became more prevalent than the E1, which had been the most common type until then, but even it October a third of the losses were still E1's.

which makes the E3 choice mystifying to me.

The RAF called them "squareheads"

The 'universal wing' was the 'c' wing, ie it was able to fit cannon or mg's or both. The naming convention was probably thought up afterwards as soon as they had 2 wing types and needed to tell the difference.
The different engine types were designated by letter as an indication of the blower fitted, since all of these used the universal wing then it didn't matter, but it was a 'c' wing anyway. I've never heard of 'B' being used, that's very strange, LF and HF were used.

Now I have to look it up in my massive definitive Spitfire book........

Yes, this is the reference I was talking about. He was always complaining that they had old types and the only new ones went to Galland. He did get an upgrade towards the end if I remember.

Yep, plane he was shot down in was a cannon armed emil (he was one of the lucky 2 to get one)

I've been to see it, it's now on display at the museum at Hawkinge, after it was dug up in the 70's about 5 mile from where i live.

Thanks Osprey and Fruitbat for sharing that data. I have Galland's book too, and agree - he doesn't speak much at all about subtypes during this period. I see this alot in the pilot biographies I have. Looked through Gunther Rall's also, finding nothing about aircraft details during this period.

I just re-read the section from Caldwell's book that I referenced earlier. I made a significant error in applying the quote from the book. The comment about E-1's concerned the October period. I stand corrected. I'll share a few paragraphs here for completeness.

"The Schlageter fighters found themselves back at their permanent bases on the Rhine, where from 26 June to 20 July they mounted guard against the minor threat posed by RAF Bomber Command.

All the Geschwader's aircraft were fitted with seat and back armor before the return to combat. Attempts to implement an engine-mounted cannon in the Bf 109 were temporarily abandoned, and the model that was to carry it, the Bf 109E-3 was replaced on Messerschmitt's production lines by the E-4. The MG FF/M cannon, originally designed for engine mounting, had a higher rate of fire than the MG/FF, and supplanted the earlier cannon in the wings of the E-4. Another standard feature of the E-4 was an armored windshield.

Another significant variant, the Bf 109E-4/N, was an answer to the Jagdwaffe pilots' complaints of poor high-altitude performance. This model had a modified engine, the DB 601N, with an increase in engine compression ratio from 6.9 to 8.2, boosting maximum horsepower to 1175. There was a cost for this improvement-96 octane fuel was required in the new engine instead of the standard 87 octane. High-octane fuel was always in short supply in Germany, and the E-4/N was given a restricted production run. JG 26 was one of the few Geschwader to receive thsi model. According to the Luftwaffe's aircraft loss returns, JG 26 fought the Battle of Britain with E-1's, E-4,s and E-4/N's. The lightly armed E-1 was still being flown by some of the enlisted pilots in late October."

Thanks again for the info-good discussion.

S!

Gunny

well, Maddox decided to put in the E-3. Than it should stay to be an E-3 ! And with a mineshell firing canon it becomes an E-4...


i guess we all here have the same opinion:
That the CoD 109 , at least at release, will be the E-3 is 'strange'.
It was there and had action but was by far not the most common variant. E-1 and E-4 would have been the much more logical choice. And perhaps more interesting for a Luftwaffe fighter campaign. First you have to fly the E-1 and later get the upgrade to the canon plane.
Even more strange is that 1C already have the MG-FF/M modelled for the Bf110C-4 & -7 ?!?!

my, very personal, wishlist for the 109 in CoD would have been:
E-1 & -/B with DB601A-1 old canopy , no headarmour
E-3 & -/B with DB601A-1 old canopy , no headarmour
E-4 & -/B with DB601Aa with newer canopy and headarmour
E-4/N with DB601N with newer canopy and headarmour

would have been from plane to plane a nice improvemnt in a pilotcareer. And for online, COOP designers have no proplems to restrict the numbers ;) , and im actually sure that Dogfight designers will also be able to limit planenumbers and weapons.


But ok, the axis side will get a lot (in comparison to the RAF) of flyable bombers :)
and dont forgett , there will still be the mighty G.50 :D

Thanks!

Great list. Understand all.

S!

Gunny

maybe they left something for the payware addons (*wink*)

thats what i was hoping for, would of been really good.

maybe we'll get an E1 later, i hope so, was looking forward to flying it.

most uf us sure dont know Maddox/1C further businnes plan. But i personaly doubt that there will be a pay AdOn of the BoB scenario.
Perhaps there will be some very few flyable in a free patch/upgrade. There will be most propably not so many planes for free as in the IL2 past, but i guess Maddox will still release a little amount of his work for free :)
Additional 109s would sure be canditates as not much 3D work (as example E-1: ammocounter in cockpit and some minor work on the wings) would be needed.
But in general i more expect some CoD AI planes (and missing ones) in further scenario AdOns.
As examples the Wellington flyable in an MTO (espacially early one), the Do17Z in an Moskau 1941/42 scenario.
And Bf109E-4 and E-7 would fit in these two. And Maddox is planing to make these AdOns playable for their own or merge them with the others..

Sure Gunslinger, nice share (without an argument lol)

If I get around to it i'll put up data on the Spitfire wing designations, but for the record the book is called 'Spitfire, The History' and it really is definitive - everyone interested in WW2 WF air war should have this book (check the reviews, it's all facts, not bias)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spitfire-His.../dp/0946219486

ISBN's
0946219486
978-0946219483

OK, I found some references to the wing, it's going to pretty cut up but to summarise:

1. Supermarine specification #462 of 20 Feb 1939 outlined proposals for improvements to the production spitfire...(lists requirements of which)...to fit the aircraft with 2 20mm hispano cannon, if desired alternatives of cannon and mg.
In a meeting at Supermarine in Southampton discussed was trial installs of (a)2x20mm...(b) 4x20mm (c) 6x colt browning 50's. Joseph Smith enquired "...if there would be any objection to adapting all 3 installations in such a manner that alternatives of cannon and machine guns could be installed"

This suggests that the 'universal wing idea was born according to this spec on this day. There were many other specs too and Supermarine built prototypes for testing at Eastliegh....

4th June 1941, Supermarine tech report states weights of Spitfire III W3237 auw with A wing 6831lb, with B wing 7020lb and the new C wing (4x20mm) 7445lb (this is the first time I see 'Universal Wing' mentioned) and later it it mentions the dropped 'D' suffix for a 12 browning configuration.

Under the section on the mkV it specifically states that the Ministry had a problem with general aircraft designation (MkIII was in trials, MkV to counter the 109F), This was around Feb 1941, and was affecting the ordering spare parts in particular. Thus it was actually the Air Ministry that listed the letter designation according to gun configuration and this was applied by Supermarine.

On the subject of types there were planned 3 types for the mkIII's later abandoned but the designation system was adopted for the VIII and IX etc. The 'F' (fighter), 'HF' (high fighter) and 'LF' (low fighter bomber). There were dozens of combinations of Merlin engine and blowers and props which affected performance at different altitudes

Hope that helps.

yep Gunslinger, sorry if i came across a bt rude to start with.

glad you enjoyed watching TOADs vid:grin:

Osprey, thanks for the info! Still digesting.......

Fruitbat, no worries - any friend of TOAD's is a friend of mine :) After I get some time before CoD release - I'd like to come fly 1 v 1 with you and TOAD....

All the best.... this was really a good thread....

Man, I can't wait to get in my cockpit - :)

S!

Gunny

anyway, for a short time the Spitfire IXs with Merlin 61&63 were unofficialy called Mk.IXA and the ones with Merlin 66 Mk.IXB.
totaly indepentend from their armament - all had 2x20mm and 4x.303cal :D , at this time !

Good post Ospery, obviously the official suffix and prefix system was made up as early as 1941.

Yes it seems by good collaboration too.

Frankyboy, what's your source? The only reference I could find was MkI's which were upgraded to MkV's which temporarily carried this naming convention (VA) because the wings were not replaced on the very first. Only about 120 (memory from last nights reading) of the Mk VA were produced.
This wasn't uncommon to fighter production, as new developments came in the factories would use up old stock of sections which is why you sometimes see strange configurations in airframes on particular Mks. It makes sense, resources were precious and the Mk IX was a MkV which was a MkI. The development and testing of these combinations was constant and they kept on spewing out the hybrids.

Alfred Price Osprey Aircraft of the Aces volume 5 "Late Mark Spitfire Aces 1942-45"
page 14

sure thing, i'd like that.