E-7? terrain color?

[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/t...3/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.



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




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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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..

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/t...3/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. 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..

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..


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?

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by stalkervision

I am looking for some NEW info buddy. Someone did manage to find a picture of an ACTUAL GERMAN PLYWOOD DROP TANK. 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..

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...


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:

[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.