| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > Modelling & Art > 1/72 Me 109 E3 kit of Tiberiu Vinca |
| Posted by: Bernard Miclescu April 16, 2004 09:25 pm |
| I found this kit at AEROMODEL producer. The kit is not a very good one, but the decalls are quite great. Several versions, T vinca's , I DICezare, Lungulescu, Serbanescu.
Yours, BM |
| Posted by: Québec November 13, 2005 03:58 am |
| This is great news for 1/72 fans!!!!!! I just bought today in 1/48 Hasegawa's new Bf-109 E-3 Rumanian Air Force, with Tiberiu Vinca's plane on the box cover! Modelers of every scale, there's hope out there!!!!!!!!!!! |
| Posted by: Dénes November 13, 2005 04:05 am | ||
Here is the box cover:  Too bad, Vinca's 'Emils was actually an E-7, not an E-3... Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Québec November 15, 2005 05:01 am |
| Hello Dénes, according to my limited information on the plane, the difference between an E-7 and an E-3 (and 4) was the certerline rack for a fuel reservoir. The canopy, according to pictures in your book (Rumanian aces of World War 2) is the old style with light framing, so the one in the kit is good. Also, what model of spinner was on this plane? Thanks! |
| Posted by: 109 November 15, 2005 05:59 am |
| The main visual difference between a 109E3 and a E4 is the cockpit frame, square on the E4, round on the E3; the external difference between E4 and 7 is the spinner, pointed on E7. Vinca's plane (64) was obviously an E3 as all the pictures show a round frame and short spinner. So far i've only seen one romanian 109E that i can say for sure it's a E7...it's behind the 109E4 yellow 65. It's number, most probably 63. This is of course considering ONLY external marks.  Source of the photos, internet. |
| Posted by: Dénes November 15, 2005 06:26 pm | ||
Those features were interchangeable, thus they don't clearly denote the sub-type. Vinca's 'Emil' was an early production E-3 (W.Nr. 704), which was upgraded by the Germans to E-7 standard. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 109 November 15, 2005 07:27 pm |
| As a modeler i don't care much about what electric switches inside make the difference between an e3 an a e7 , but in the external details that make a model. Vinca is sitting next to his No. 64 109E , the plane has rounded canopy and short spinner, thus EXTERNALLY (as i previously mentioned) an E3. Therefore if I don't intend that my 1/72 model would fire electrically or pneumatically the cannons or carry external loads, i MUST buy an E3 in order to depict Vinca's plane, not an E7. IF the Germans had ever upgraded the E3 to E7 standard, they for sure did not change enything outside, it was only wiring and other minor changes INSIDE. That is if they ever did that. Anyone knows: E1-E3=round canopy , E4-E9 squared canopy.  Source.Aripi Romanesti WWII collection |
| Posted by: Dénes November 15, 2005 08:40 pm | ||
As a modeller you're obviously correct. I, as a historian, say that based on documents the airplane was an E-7. Therefore, Vinca's mount was an E-7 that looked like an E-3.  Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 109 November 15, 2005 08:59 pm | ||
...than your remark makes no sense...the Hasegawa kit, as detailed as a japonese kit can be, has no electrically operated cannons, nor "droppable" drop tank...this is the modeling part of this forum... |
| Posted by: Dénes November 15, 2005 09:26 pm | ||||
It might not make sense to you, I don't know. I said it clearly and concisely: "Vinca's mount was an E-7 that looked like an E-3" (the latter part of my sentence was directed towards the modellers). Regardless of the forum, I might add. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 109 November 15, 2005 09:50 pm |
Than why is "too bad"?  |
| Posted by: Dénes November 15, 2005 10:26 pm | ||
Because despite of what I've understood is a very nicely done model kit, the labelling (E-3) is erroneous. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Dénes November 16, 2005 12:47 am |
| Here is an excerpt from a German document dated April 1943, detailing the German origin ARR airplanes used in combat at Stalingrad. I hope the many capital if's, but's, etc. are now settled. Gen. Dénes   |
| Posted by: Dénes November 16, 2005 01:14 am |
| I enclose a photo of a Bf 109E-7's nose section, taken from 'Messerschmitt Bf 109 Recognition Manual. A Guide to Variants, Weapons and Equipment', by Marco Fernández-Sommerau, published by Classic in the UK. I think the author must know what he's talking about... Gen. Dénes  |
| Posted by: 109 November 16, 2005 05:42 am |
| Documents may be confusing (especially as 64 was in between 2 E7s (63 and 65)...but pictures NEVER lie...Probably many E3 were retrofitted to carry drop tanks or bombs, (especially on the Balkan front), thus becoming "sort of" E7s. But again the hallmark of E1-3 series is the canopy, as opposed to the E4-7 The spinner had many many forms, indeed, i have seen E1 with pointed spinners. PS. indeed, Hasegawa sould have said on the cover: "Romanian E7 that looks like an E3"   Picture from Aerodetail 109E book. |
| Posted by: Dénes November 16, 2005 08:22 pm |
| 1-0-9, if the proofs presented are not good enough for you, I am fraid I cannot help you any further. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: horia November 16, 2005 10:25 pm |
| this is a nice site with Me-109: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/index.htm |
| Posted by: 109 November 16, 2005 10:38 pm | ||||
Let us recapitulate: Hasegawa released a 1/48 model of a Romanian 109E. On the cover it was called E3 probably because of it's most important external hallmarks.. Your opinion is that 64 is in fact an E7 that looks IDENTICAL to a E3 ...with a lot of imagination i could accept that....but why did you say TOO BAD, as is there was a mistake in the kit ? When completed , it will be a precise replica of the real aircraft... Again should they have said "Romanian Bf-109E7 that looks identical with an E3" or "don't be fooled by the humble appearance of an older E3...inside there's a beast of an E7" ... See i know that you're a historian it's normal to be more focused on the documents than on pictorial evidence...but one should never ignore facts in favour of a piece of paper that could have easily been a typo . Let me remind you that sub-subvariants of 109 were rarely even noticed or reffered to by pilots or mechanics...It could have been that a E3 (no 64) slipped among the real E7's as all the close numbers indeed had the squared canopy, and some of them had pointed spinner. Philosophy: what makes a plane a subtype...does the round canopy and short spinner "beat" the electrically operated cannons and a drop tank? I would say that a plane with all this 4 features is more likely to be a E3 than a E7..if it was (IF...) retrofitted to the E7 standard, without the new canopy and spinner is no more an E7 than an E3....besides...it was "born" as an E3 and if retrofitted (IF...) only got a part of the features of a E7 (invisible internal details)...so.... If you decide to do some modeling...buy Hasegawa's E7 and build Vinca's plane out of it...I'm sure you'll be pretty amazed of how the square canopy resembles the round one in the pics...but never mind that, you'll have your E7! PS. Help me? Why? Better help yourself with some less "dated" 109 reference books... |
| Posted by: 109 November 16, 2005 11:36 pm |
Already a little off topic, a 1/72 Model of Vinca's plane. |
| Posted by: Dénes November 17, 2005 01:23 am |
| ..... Based on the available Werknummern, most E-7s in ARR service were older, refurbished airframes. Gen. Dénes Off topic discussion deleted by Host. |
| Posted by: Dénes November 17, 2005 02:02 am | ||||||||||||||
Because it's historically inaccurate and thus misleading. BTW, I never said 'identical, but 'looks like'.
For example I don't know if the (removable) center underbelly rack was mounted on Vinca's plane or not, or at least the suspension bolts and fittings, which should have been there (that area is not visible in the available photos). Also, I don't know if there was an external difference between the shape of the MG-FF & Oerlikon, and Ikaria made 20 mm cannon's barrel. I leave this up to you to figure out. And so on. By the way, since the windshield and most probably other parts of the airframe were fitted with armour, the proper designation of Vinca's plane should be Bf 109E-7/U2.
I checked the available photos of ARR Bf 109E-s with fuselage number 50 and up (where visible). Nos. 52 and 56 as well as 64 (while in home defence at Mamaia, in 1944, long after Vinca's duty tour at Stalingrad) all have rounded early style cockpit canopy. Unfortunately, the spinners are not visible. All these aircraft are mentioend as E-7 in the quoted German document, so it was certainly not a unique occurrence in ARR. Finally, to answer your basic question:
It's the sub-type punched on the latest dataplate of the aircraft and the sub-type given by original documents what actually count. At least to me... Here is what the quoted British book has to say about the refurbished airframes:
Clear enough to me. Gen. Dénes P.S.
"Help me" here is not equal "sa te ajut". It's more like "n-am ce sa-ti fac".
The book I quoted, 'Messerschmitt Bf 109 Recognition Manual. A Guide to Variants, Weapons and Equipment', by Marco Fernández-Sommerau, published last year by one of the best aviation publishing houses, Classic, is the latest word on the topic. Therefore I have to take what's written in it as reference. Att'n Host. This topic should be split and a new one created, so what's in it can be found easier. |
| Posted by: Cantacuzino November 17, 2005 10:02 am | ||
It's not necessary for spliting. Any info related to Vinca and rom. Bf 109 E it's wellcome on this topic (for modelers and historyans equal ). Only the offtopic discussion was deleted. |
| Posted by: Cantacuzino November 17, 2005 02:02 pm | ||
The spinner of "Nella" was the early type (with open hole) and was painted in dark green (dunkelgrun). http://imageshack.us http://imageshack.us Photo by Sorin Tulea |
| Posted by: Dénes November 18, 2005 02:35 am |
| I just found out that prior to entering ARR service, W.Nr. 704 was actually an E-4 and served with Ergänzungsstaffel des JG 52: Bf 109E-4 W.Nr. 0704 Erg.St. JG 52 12-Feb-41 Bruchlandung Arques 50% Bruch It now appears that Vinca's mount was born as an E-3, which was then upgraded to E-4 and then ended it's service life sometimes after the war as an E-7. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Cantacuzino November 18, 2005 05:56 am | ||
Below Bf 109 E (3,4,7) Wnr 0704 from 52sq. in summer '44. It was repainted at IAR Brasov with olive green. The spinner was painted with yellow spiral on dark green. The pilots standing next to "yellow 64" are Lt Galea Ion and Lt. Pop Horea. Photo Galea Ion ( Courtesy Ion Dobran ). http://imageshack.us |
| Posted by: Cantacuzino November 18, 2005 06:05 am | ||
Another rom. Bf 109 E 3 upgraded to E7 ( judging by the spinner) Photo I. Galea courtesy Ion Dobran. http://imageshack.us |
| Posted by: 109 November 18, 2005 07:31 am | ||||||||
Than please amaze us with your ideea on the cover!
The ONLY difference between E3 and E4 (except for the canopy of course) is the switch from the MG-FF to the MG-FF/M (identical cannons , except that the latter could fire Minengeschoß, hence the M designation). Again that is ablolutely irrelevant from modeling point of view, as no external difference can be seen from the older E3. The cannon barrels are identical.
Not only E7 could carry external load, subvariants like E3/b and E4/b could do it to. So if you see an E with a centerline rack is not neccesary a E7.
We are talking about a 1/48 model of Vinca's plane here...i doubt that anyone could read what's stamped on the plate...at 1/48... As a modeler I tell you this...it can have all the wires and the cables INSIDE...if it doesn't have the squared canopy , is not a E4/E7 . You see , I can accept that after an overhaul planes were upgraded, but this (if it was) was not a complete upgrade, as "full" E7 had the square canopy. Therefore it is no more an E7 than it is an E3. I don't care what could have been written on that plate , because i cannot build Vinca's plane out of a E7 kit. I realize we see things from different perspectives, you as a historian, me as a modeler, but this was the modeling part of the forum and we were talking about a kit. And the ONLY kit you can built Vinca's plane from is...guess what, a E3!. |
| Posted by: Dénes November 18, 2005 02:55 pm | ||||||
Your sourceas are outdated, 1-0-9. Only the E-7 (and E-8) could carry a fuselage underbelly drop fuel tank. As for the canopy, here is what Kjetil Aakra - a researcher from Norway - wrote (perhaps you believe him more than me):
 Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 109 November 18, 2005 04:04 pm | ||||
I did not say anything about drop tank, i said external load . Of course the E7 alone had a "wetpoint", but on the fuselage itself there was nothing changed. As the romanians never used either drop tanks nor bombs on Es, the Etc500 and the drop tank racks were most probably never even mounted operationally (i failed to see any pics with a Romanian 109E with any kind of rack), so again from modeling point of view such issue has no relevance whatsoever.
I respect the research work of Kjetil Aakra. We are not talking about some other planes from Norway probably modified, as he mentions, at the express request of a German ace, but about a particular kit of a particular plane, that can only look as the original. The fact is that the original looks precisely like an E3 is the most important issue for a moddeler, as there is no other visual way to clearly state that it was otherwise. I understand the reason you are pushing this debate onwards, you're a historian, and also we've had a "history"; Of course for a historian the type of the canopy has no rellevance, but again as i told you before , this is the modelling part of the forum so if the completed model looks exactly like an E3, than for all reasons it is a E3. If a zealot modeler would go to a contest with the model he could I guess mention that it is a E3 with SOME invisible E7 features hidden inside. You still avoid answering my questions :" what Hasegawa should have written on the cover?" , "why is it "too bad" it was a E7?" and mostly " could you build Vinca's plane out of a Bf-109E7 kit?" |
| Posted by: Dénes November 18, 2005 04:37 pm |
| In light of your refractory approach, I have nothing more to add to the discussion, as it leads to nowhere. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: C-2 November 18, 2005 07:25 pm |
| Cantacuzino, You should ask my permision when posting Tulea's photos!  |
| Posted by: Dénes November 18, 2005 07:44 pm |
| I've heard that Modelism Publ. claims the publication rights for the recent reprints of Mr. Tulea's colour photos. Can you confirm it? Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Cantacuzino November 18, 2005 08:02 pm | ||
Sorry, I forget that.  Btw. Mr Craciunoiu did ask you the permission to publish the pictures of Mr Tulea in "Romanian Aeronautics in the second world war " At least he got some money from selling that book .  |
| Posted by: C-2 November 19, 2005 05:39 pm |
| The only one who has the right to publish Sorin Tullea's photos is his son Serban Dutescu. Sorin Tullea sighned many things on his last days. ALL those" things" were when he could hardly tell his name. Do I need to say more? |
| Posted by: C-2 November 19, 2005 06:32 pm | ||
How they can claim ,when Mr Dutescu and me have the originals?????? |
| Posted by: Dénes November 19, 2005 07:00 pm |
| I don't know, that's what I've heard in the 'high circles' in Bucharest a couple of years ago. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: C-2 November 19, 2005 08:01 pm |
| I don't belive that S. Tulles sighnt anything like this while been in "good health". And that can be prooven medicaly very easy. And I don't belive he'd give CC those rights after refusing to publish his book. It's like having a copy of Mona Lisa,and claimig the rights for her... |