"CAPTURED ME109s" a New Book! July 2007

[Blue-Max]

Originally Posted by Dénes Bernád

That aircraft was flown willingly to Italy by a Rumanian officer, Cpt. rez. av. Constantin Cantacuzino, in a diplomatic mission, and he intended to return to Rumania with it. It was only an accident that prevented him to return with his mount, and used a P-51 instead - which, in turn, was not a captured bird either.

If I am remembering right, after a safe landing, the aircraft was flown in Italy by an american pilot who damaged it. This was the cause of the accident ...

[Mirek Wawrzynski]

Thanks for the comments. Question: Does it have lists of WNrs and original markings for these machines?

Yes, the book contains such info like planen's WNrs, each one for each plane. There are some small gaps in such info, due to the lack of these information in the sources. Anyway most of the plane's WNrs are given as much as possible but of course there are not the engines' WNrs.

Yes, there are in several cases: 1st orginal Luftwaffe markings and the next new one (after captured). This approach is presented in several most interesting planes, which were captured and later served (were flying) in France, RAF, USAAF, VVS RKKA (like 1. - LW, 2. - Soviet, 3. - USAAF) or PAF (1. Croat, 2. PAF) services. Such flying cases have such different camuflages + markings.

To Dénes B
There are used of course in the title very wide meaning of the word "captured". The plane flown by Cpt. rez. av. Constantin Cantacuzino, has the story about the reason of his political mission with American officer on the board (well know story). It was a pity to "lost" such nice case and painted Romanian plane, which markings in this mission do not fit in fact to any know air froces during WW II.

For me it is stragne remarks done by you about title. You, as an author, well know that the title and the words do not 100% fit, many times, to the reality and the past. There are always some exceptions, and you have marked it by my title. Thanks for your "hawk's eyes" and comments,:-)

Knowing your book about "Romanian Air Force. Prime decade ...1938-1947)" you had "forgoten" to written or add one importan word: "Royal" in own title. This is also not good and do not fit to the history and past of Royal Romanian Air Force. Someone can directly think reading your cover that it was "communist, or neutral" air force!
Maybe I am wrong but Romania was, in written by you period, still a kingdom? The communist regime was after 1947 etc. Your cover does not right informed and

It's an erroneous

for young reader, who are wrong informed about this issue from the 1st pagae = cover page.

Regards,
Mirek Wawrzynski, co-author of the book.

[Dénes Bernád]

Originally Posted by Mirek Wawrzynski

Knowing your book about "Romanian Air Force. Prime decade ...1938-1947)" you had "forgoten" to written or add one importan word: "Royal" in own title. This is also not good and do not fit to the history and past of Royal Romanian Air Force. Someone can directly think reading your cover that it was "communist, or neutral" air force!
Maybe I am wrong but Romania was, in written by you period, still a kingdom? The communist regime was after 1947 etc. Your cover does not right informed and for young reader, who are wrong informed about this issue from the 1st pagae = cover page.

For your information, the title of my book included in the Squadron/signal series was chosen by the Publisher, not me, in line with the other 'air forces special' titles. All I could do is to include a sub-title - for the first and only time in this series - which clearly spells out the time period covered by the book, i.e., 1938-1947, when Rumania was (still) a kingdom. Moreover, I referred to the Rumanian air force throughout the book as ARR, i.e. Royal Rumanian Air Force.
Therefore, please contact the US Publisher with your complaint, if you wish.

P.S. Let me point out the the analogy you try to imply between the title I authored and the title you co-authored is a forced one, and it's not logical, either.

[Mirek Wawrzynski]

P.S. Let me point out the the analogy you try to imply between the title I authored and the title you co-authored is a forced one, and it's not logical, either.

It is simple, you "cling my arm, seeing there small thing - a straw - and do not see very big beam in own eye".
Thanks for explanation your still strange (?) and not right title. Publisher is publisher.
BTW I wonder if this smart publisher did the same with RAF to match the size of own cover with the author's title? And he made own, shorter version with name of Royal Air Force to only Air Forcel?


Anyway captured has very wide meaning, in my opinion, including this strange and interesting history.

Regards,
mw

BTW. Royal is not so long word!