1/72 Me 109 E3 kit of Tiberiu Vinca

1-0-9, if the proofs presented are not good enough for you, I am fraid I cannot help you any further.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 16, 2005 08:24 pm

this is a nice site with Me-109:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/index.htm

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...

This post has been edited by 109 on November 16, 2005 10:39 pm

Already a little off topic, a 1/72 Model of Vinca's plane.

.....
Based on the available Werknummern, most E-7s in ARR service were older, refurbished airframes.

Gen. Dénes

Off topic discussion deleted by Host.

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on November 17, 2005 09:47 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.

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 17, 2005 03:58 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.

The spinner of "Nella" was the early type (with open hole) and was painted in dark green (dunkelgrun).





Photo by Sorin Tulea

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on November 17, 2005 10:43 pm

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

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 18, 2005 02:44 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 ).

Another rom. Bf 109 E 3 upgraded to E7 ( judging by the spinner)
Photo I. Galea courtesy Ion Dobran.

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!.

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.

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

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 18, 2005 02:58 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?"

In light of your refractory approach, I have nothing more to add to the discussion, as it leads to nowhere.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 18, 2005 04:39 pm