Photo DH.85 Leopard Moth TD+IL?

[musec04]

Hello Tony,


While it is not an area where I can claim any knowledge at all, is it possible that there were different Stkz systems for training school aircraft and those coming off production lines in large numbers?


With the above in mind are any other aircraft known with TD+I* Stkz from training schools? The Leopard Moth photo has May 1941 on the rear of the card, so it wouldn't have replaced the previously used Stkz of a Go 242 it would appear.





Regards,


Clint

[Stig Jarlevik]

I agree with Clint here Tony

The date, as I see it, on the flip side is 27 May 1941
I remember you, among a few others, believe the STKZ was not as unique as most others claim it to be.

I can absolutely see a certain merrit in pointing that out.
As with every human thought out plan, there are basically always some spanners thrown into such wheels.

I am also pretty certain when it happened it didn't bother the Luftwaffe very much.

Cheers
Stig

[musec04]

Hello Stig,


As I said I'm no Stkz expert and my question about seperate systems is possbly very naive because of that fact, but as a general question, I believe that there are many duplicate Stkz - if these are usually between those applied to training school aircraft and those assigned to aircraft coming off the production line of a factory does not a good case generally exist for two seperate Stkz systems rather than just the one?


Regards,


Clint

[Tony Jones]

Hi Clint


There was only one stkz systm but there are hundreds of duplications especially with French or Czech built a/c being the main culprits



I think in early 1940 stkz blocks were given to the Schules to use, there are many examples of W 34 and Fw 58 using the same stkz, probably when one type was replaced by the other type


Regards


Tony

[musec04]

Hello Tony,


It was because of the high number of duplications that I asked my question. Doesn't it seem as though the number of duplications is sufficiently high that it apears to be more than a series of accidents? Other airforces did,of course have erroneously applied serials, but not to this extent and if not an accident then a system?



Regards,


Clint

[edwest2]

Hi Clint,


On the old LEMB, there was a list in alphabetical order. Information was verified by photo or some named document. Duplicates were noted and verified. That site is no longer active. It is available to those who can still log in, but I can no longer see that portion of the site.


Best,
Ed

[musec04]

Hello Ed,


Its still available on Wayback at, for example:


https://web.archive.org/web/20140627...nnzeichen.html


Regards,


Clint

[edwest2]

Hi Clint,


Thank you. So TD+IL is listed as a Gotha Go 242. It would be worth it to get permission to duplicate this information and add to it. I suspect some are unaware that this was/is out there.


Best,
Ed

[Tony Jones]

Hi


Coming back to the original theme DH 85 is the way the RLM dealt with c/n of foreign built a/c. Many Italian a/c were used as what the RLM put down as the c/n is nearly always the military MM serial, which in all cases was not the c/n

So if the had a DH 85 painted as 963 when they received it that would have been enough to call this the c/n


The photo noted by Clint shows w/n 96 that is just about readable so the 3 could also be there.


If it was F-AMYS they would have looked fpr the c/n which was 7069, on this basis I believe that Malcolm has found the correct a/c for TD+IL



Tony

[Tom Willis]

Hi Tony - Sorry to disagree on your interpretation of the said W/Nr of this aircraft. I see the W/Nr clearly showing 69 and not 96 and there does not appear to be anything after this. Of all the examples of Foreign types I have in German use the aircraft's original construction number was always maintained either used in documentation or marked on the aircraft (usually on the fin) . I have never known any case where the previous Air Force Serial No would be used - although sometimes when the Balkenkreuz was first applied the original markings may have been kept until the next re-painting. So I stick to my original statement that the correct W/Nr 69 points to this being De Havilland c/n 7069 and therefore ex-French F-AMYS.
I do agree with Tony in saying that there was only a single Stkz system which included those issued in blocks and mixed format to the various manufacturers. Usually a tight reign was kept on any duplication but I believe that any mistakes made were at Unit level.
The Go 242 W/Nr 0021 is listed as the 1st Type A-1 but it is always assumed as being TD+IK but there is no proof of this.