Bf 109 E4

[BaglanBoy]

Hi All, Am I right in saying,  that to be able to fly the Bf 109 E4 I will have to have the Odessa / Leningrad map installed ? because I'm having a problem finding it anywhere.

 

Cheers

[MDzmitry]

All the content is already installed, you need to own the "Siege and Liberation" module to unlock both the map and the aircraft. 

[BaglanBoy]

Thanks for the info

[Heart0ne]

I don't really want to hijack this thread, but I thought making a separate 109E-4 thread for my question wasn't beneficial.

 

Has someone already made a comparison graph about the performance differences between the DB 601Aa, DB 601A and DB601N?

[LukeFF]

I can't give you numbers, but, in general:

- 601N: better overall high-altitude performance

- 601Aa: better low-altitude performance at the expense of high-altitude performance. It was mainly fitted to E-4/B fighter-bombers.

[AcesDarthBubu]

On 11/13/2025 at 1:31 AM, LukeFF said:

I can't give you numbers, but, in general:

- 601N: better overall high-altitude performance

- 601Aa: better low-altitude performance at the expense of high-altitude performance. It was mainly fitted to E-4/B fighter-bombers.

Lukeff, for the uninitiated. What heights are considered high or low attitude ?

[YR-AndreiTomescu]

from what i know, the Romanian pilots of E4/7 s considered over 4,5k meters to be high, as in declining performance, as they had the A engine, however best suited on the eastern front and their roles

also the N versions needed 100 octane fuel, and that was missing.

Edited November 18 by YR-AndreiTomescu
add

[DanielZockt]

9 hours ago, AcesDarthBubu said:

Lukeff, for the uninitiated. What heights are considered high or low attitude ?

The DB601Aa is better until 5km where the DB601A starts being better. The DB601N isnt really a high altitude engine, but a improvement overall. It's way better at all altitudes than both engines since it runs C3/100 Octane Fuel instead of B4/87 Octane.

 

Edited November 18 by DanielZockt

[LukeFF]

Going off of memory here, but I also think the N engine variant was constrained mainly to the Western Front, where supplies of C3 fuel were more reliable than in the East. So, for most ops, if you're aiming for strict realism, you want to go with either the A or the Aa model (and the latter especially for ground attack).

[Kurfurst]

On 11/18/2025 at 5:54 PM, LukeFF said:

Going off of memory here, but I also think the N engine variant was constrained mainly to the Western Front, where supplies of C3 fuel were more reliable than in the East. So, for most ops, if you're aiming for strict realism, you want to go with either the A or the Aa model (and the latter especially for ground attack).

 

Bf 109F-2 would like to have a word with you.

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, Kurfurst said:

Bf 109F-2 would like to have a word with you.

 

Okay, then, please show how common N-engined 109 E-4s were in the East. 🙂

[Kurfurst]

4 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Okay, then, please show how common N-engined 109 E-4s were in the East. 🙂

Ah, but that's a toughie since the E-4 was no longer in production by the time the 601N was fitted en masse (spring 1941) to 109Es.

So all but IIRC of the 15 E-4/Ns were refits, and as such their data plates/loss report still said its an E-4s. And, I am not in the mood of scrolling through hundreds of pages of loss and delivery lists (which again probably show only E-4s lost since this was the original type of the plane shown on the data plates).

 

There weren't that many E-4/N around to start with - the first conversions occurred just before the Battle of France with JG 26 yet by the start of 1941 only 59 E-4/Ns are reported within a total of the 113 601N powered Emils, 109E-1/N through E-7/N, plus five new F-1 types.

 

It seems a decision was made that by April 1941 5 Gruppen of E-7/N should be converted with 200 601N engines supplied for the tasks (plus 480 - 480 engines for 110Cs and 109Fs). So it definitely not rare by that time overall.  But since just about any old Emil could be, and was brought up to the E-7 standard by that time, what is really was E-7/N to start with...? An old E-1 , E-3 or E-4 frame refitted multiple times? 

 

In any case, the original point was that since the F-1 and F-2 also had the 601N (just like almost all of the last batches of Emils produced in 1941), C-3 couldn't be that scarce on the Eastern Front either - most of the 109Fs in early Barbarossa absolutely needed it for their engines). The vast majority of 109s during much of 1941 and early 1942 must have had 601N and run on C-3 since the older E models were progressively phased out to 2nd line units and the F-4 (that run on 87 octane again) was just beginning arriving at units.

 

I suppose a good guess for those E-x/Ns would be those units which operated a mix of older Emils and newer F-2s, since the latter certainly needed the higher octane fuel and it would have been stupid to supply two types of fuel to one unit. 

[LukeFF]

Fair enough, thanks.