Correct N135EM model?

[billings.spotter]

I recently caught N135EM, a private L-39.
Just last year the aircraft was uploaded as a L-39C, yet L-39ZA was displayed on the aircraft and the registration shows L-39ZA.
Currently it is the opposite. Now it has been repainted, still on the same certificate as before, but it now displays L-39C on the aircraft. The registration still says it's a ZA.

For this aircraft in particular and for future reference in general, should I stick with what it auto-fills as(L-39C), or should I put the model it is registered as(L-39ZA) and maybe add a comment to screener explaining the situation?

[ErwinS]

It is indeed a L-39ZA. Will correct the accepted one

[bleuair]

for future reference in general, should I stick with what it auto-fills as(L-39C), or should I put the model it is registered as(L-39ZA) and maybe add a comment to screener explaining the situation?

if I may add to this thoughtful question: there's no general rule. The data in autofill could be wrong, too. Maybe just in details, but still. The registries are sometimes too general when they refer to the type certificate model but the aircraft is known as a different edition.
Adding a comment to screeners ALWAYS helps, either you get more information or the database improves (as with this case here, thanks).

[JuklicekCZ]

Hello, I'm a bit unsure here.
From my point of view, this L-39 was indeed made as a ZA variant with respect to the FAA registers, however, the difference between ZA and C is mostly, that C is a trainer variant, and ZA is additionally equipped with under-wing pylons to fit bombs and external cannon.
However, when sold to private individuals, the aircraft should be de-militarized, thus no guns can be fitted anymore, while the capability to carry weapons is the whole point of the Z marking. Shouldn't that then be considered as a conversion/downgrade to the C variant?