[Stig Jarlevik]

Bertrand

But this cannot be a report dated on the 16th?

This is a summary report dated much later and could well have discrepancies.
I have seen other of these summary reports before and without knowing the date they were actually written, it is impossible to make any 100% conclusions at all. Like all summary reports they were written by uninterested clerks given most likely a bunch of papers to make something out for somebody higher up.

I would say from French point of view we are back to square 1 again, since this is not what other French historians have used to either determine the actual aircraft (no s/n listed) or the date in question. So what did they use??

Cheers
Stig