Romanian army and Wehrmacht, 1-st elements of Wehrmacht in Ro.

He, he, he, I was trying to ber "diplomatic". Remember the big brewhaha about the use of the word "controversial" in relation to Ion Antonescu?

Let us forget diplomacy for a second and call a spade a spade. Gheorghe Buzatu is regarded a CV Tudor's heir apparent and is widely regarded as Romania's main holocaust denier. He is also one of the people behind the Ion Antonescu Foundation, whose main purpose is to make Antonescu look like a boy scout.

Radu

... and what? Wasn't he?! The first "pionier", maybe...
All that being said and laughed at, in the community of historians (in Iasi, at least), Mr. Buzatu isn't very well regarded, so to say. That's why he left the city for Pitesti some years ago, last century...
As for his (too) many recent books, there's but a simple explanation (IMO, but documented, as I read quite a couple of his books in the last years): he found some rather new documents and the above-mentioned books are based on them, interpreting and re-interpreting them, with very slight differences. One can try to read his books, but after - let's say - three of them, one will agree with my idea! Of course, this doesn't mean that he has only xenophobic, negationist etc.- oppinions!

This post has been edited by MMM on April 17, 2011 04:12 pm

... and what? Wasn't he?! The first "pionier", maybe...

If you mean "Straja Tarii", that was Carol II's creation and it was Romania's version of Hitler's Jugend.

I did not "judge" Buzatu... I only said that he is regarded as the Romania's leading holocaust denier. To some, that means a bad thing, to others it means a good thing. I will not get into that... I learned my lesson.

Radu

http://www.google.ro/url?sa=t&source=web&c...8g5SnMA&cad=rja

Interesting! Thanks, Petre, Mr. Traşcă is a very well-dpcumented military historian and this small fragment is confirming it!

Do not blame 100 percent the airfield.
As you all know, Me-109 has a narrow landing gear. Personally, I do not understand why the design team did not modify the original project. In addition to modified drawings, some stamping and casting tools would need to be created, but for something produced in the thousands the cost will be immediately absorbed.

A third of all Me-109 damaged to become nonoperational were not lost during battles, but during the landing process due to the narrow landing gear.

This post has been edited by Florin on September 11, 2011 09:06 pm

Most sources state that only about 10% of the 109s were lost in take-off accidents, but that was also due to the notorious "take off swing" caused by the engine torque which forced the tail to swing and the wingtip to drop. Experienced pilots knew how to avoid it. This was a problem mostly early in the war and for novices. As the war progressed, experience and improvements in design (tall tailwheel and lockable tailwheel steering) solved it

The narrow-track landing gear was just as narrow as that of the Spitfire.

Meserschmit experimented with wide-track landing gears, but they turned out to be more trouble than they were worth. The main selling point of the 109 was its simplicity (like the AK47) and the ease of servicing (like the AK47). Because of that landing gear, a couple of mechanics could change the wings in a couple of hours while the plane was standing on its landing gears, wheas a 190 required cranes and jacks and a whole team to do the same.

Hth
Radu

Few shots made to the landing gear of Me-109:

+

+

+

+

+

+

Ah yes, the G-10 of the Air Force Museum.
A famously dubious restoration job... Colours are spurious (actually, screaming-out-loud ridiculous) and that drop tank rack is a joke.

If you need any help with the Bf.109, just let me know. I just happen to know a thing or two about it.

Radu

It was clear from Denes' earlier post that the "soaked airport" was to blame; I've also met a Romanian archive document which "complained" about the state of the airfields ("aerodromuri de campanie" was the exact phrase) and asked for funding...

About the "third" lost in acidents, it seems quite much, as the Germans' engineering departments would have "patched" somehow this problem.
Nice comparation with the AK-47... I'd rather compare it with the T-34 or the Sherman, because of the complexity of a plane is closer to that of a tank - IMO, at least...

Yeah, that would work as well.
The Bf.109 was a perfect example of "function over form". Parts could be replaced easily with simple tools by a small team.
A "bad airfield" will cripple any aircraft, irrespective of the type of landing gear. That is how "runway denial weapons" work.
Radu

In the second photo (starting from top), at the joint between wing and engine, it seems that previously some teeth were painted on the engine cover, to give it that "shark" look. The yellow paint did not cover them completely.

That is actually the shadow of the exhaust pipes. You can see that each "tooth" matches the exhaust pipe right above it.
Radu

Two people addressed until now my statement that a third of the Me-109 damaged to become non-operational were lost as landing accidents.
This information was during a documentary on Military Channel, "Top Ten Fighter Planes". I am sorry for trusting them ...

Don't (necessarily) be sorry! S**t happens!
I just posted my "doubts" regarding the high proportion of damaged planes...