Yeah, that's P 212.01-01, but the Luft46 profile is P 212.01.
?
Okay, let me put it this way. The sequence of known drawings goes:
P 212.01-01
P 212.02- (design with spine)
P 212.02-01 (appearing in the Blohm & Voss brochure of November 28, 1944, as 'P 212.02')
P 212.02- (design with single fin - see post #10)
P 212.03-01 (appearing in the Blohm & Voss brochure of January 11, 1945, as 'P 212.03')
The only known P 212.01 drawing is P 212.01-01, discovered by Gary Webster circa 2012. There are no other known contemporary drawings of the P 212.01.
The '-XX' code, i.e. 'P 212.01-XX', appears on drawing numbers. When those same drawings were used as part of a brochure, the '-XX' code was removed. So had the P 212.01-01 design been used for a brochure, and as far as we know it wasn't, it would then have been referred to as 'P 212.01'. I hope that all makes sense.
If we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that the drawing you refer to as 'P 212.01', was based on a genuine period drawing, the pre-brochure drawing in question would need to have been 'P 212.01-02' or 'P 212.01-03', for example. But as far as can be determined through extensive primary source research, there were no other P 212.01 designs apart from P 212.01-01.
When the Luft46 website was created in the late 1990s, the P 212.02-01 design was known, as was the P 212.03-01 design. No one had yet discovered a period drawing of the P 212.01-01 but it was presumed that such a design must exist since there was certainly a .02 and .03. Therefore, I surmise, the drawing you label 'P 212.01' is a speculative idea of how the P 212.01 may have looked.
The discovery of the genuine P 212.01-01 (looking really rather different from the 'P 212.01') some 12 years after the fact thereby serves to highlight the perils of taking a speculative approach to historical subject matter, as opposed to seeking out the primary source evidence.