[edNorth]

Ok. Thanks all. I did not expect this outburst and have no intent of comment further. I have ever so often given small info or corrected small things here, I can not see the intentional "snide" or Trolling in my postings. Maybe my English is no good after all.

John Vasco: Yes, there are these interesting exceptions that seem kill all established theories, but most often these are errors - printed company documents or not - perhaps that employee that wrote it up knew no better - was he perhaps fired for doing so? - often some clerk or employee changes things for secifiic purpose - purpose we do not know about - i.e. that may not be obvious to the newcomer or those that can not distingush between what is supposably correct or not correct.

I said "good" reference but not extremely good, notably correct or such. Maybe there is better referance out there. And lets not forget: Wikipedia has authors (althou it often appears authorless), just as we all are (or think we are) but then experts step in and correct (werever we like it or not) but then we probably do not know either, if there is still more experts out there ...

As this is my 1000th "post" (answer) one might throw in a jucy one.
One author was once given a list of German aircraft codes where the maker of that list had reversed the last two letters of the unit code so his computer could sort them correct (in alphabetical order). Needless to say they were copied just like that into that given-to-authors manuscript and printed that way.