[Tom1UK]

Hi Gentleman

I do not have anything in my Stkz files for JU+XY or BQ+OM. I do have other JU+.. but these are from Junkers and dated from before the official allocation of Stkz.

But in my files for the Bf109G-2s built by Erla I have the following:

G-1 10299 - 10318 KA+KA - KA+KT
G-2 10319 - 10322 KA+KU - KA+KZ
G-2 10325 - 10350 ..+.A - ..+.Z
G-2 10351 - 10358 ..+.. - ..+.. Gap of 8 a/c
G-2 10359 - 10384 RF+FA - RF+FZ
G-2 10385 - 10410 ..+.A - ..+.Z
G-2 10411 - 10418 ..+.. - ..+.. Gap of 8 a/c
G-2 10419 - 10444 ..+.A - ..+.Z
G-2 10445 - 10470 GE+WA - GE+WZ

I have had these on file for many years now and always on the look-out to see if any 'prime-source' material to fill in the gaps.

It would seem that JU+XY could do just that. This would seem to fit in with the 8 gap section. The last a/c being JU+XZ

Because of the large amounts of Stkz blocks being employed on Fighter and Bomber production it seems only logical that old doctrines of not using 'J' because of its assimilation to the letter 'I' would be dropped. Perhaps we now have the proof that this was indeed the case.

Rabe can you perhaps clear up the BQ+OL anomoly. From what source did this come from?

Perhaps Rabe and Kari are correct and instead of an 8 a/c gap in the Stkz there was a six gaps followed by a 2 gap. In a lot of cases sometimes the gaps were just 1 a/c. The rest of my files for the Erla production run give other examples of 8, 6 & 4 gaps. So why not 2.

I hope that this keeps the debate going and a positive result will be achieved.

Regards


Tom Willis