America's Hundred Thousand Production Totals

Francis Dean in America's Hundred Thousand has a table of the 8
main WWII fighter types, by numbers produced and I am wondering
about the differences he has with the USAAF Statistical digest.

The big difference is the P-40 production June to August 1942,
Dean says 560 the Digest says 1,158. As a result mainly of
this Dean's P-40 production grand total is around 600 less than
other references at 13,143, versus 13,738 in the digest for
example.

For the P-39 the period July to November 1942 Dean says 835
produced the digest says 784. Overall Dean says 9,547 P-39s
built, the digest says 9,588.

Normally Dean's figures track the digest's very well, even down to
the monthly totals.

What I am after is any information about the P-39 and P-40 lines
in the above time periods and also a monthly breakdown of the
Grumman production (factory acceptances) from, ideally, April
1944 when F7F Tigercat deliveries started through to December
1945. A breakdown of Wildcat production by month in 1945
would useful as would similar figures for the F4U-4.

The rest is for those who are interested in a detailed comparison
between the various production figures, including more detail
on the P-39 and P-40.

P-38, Dean includes the production of F-4 and F-5 (unarmed
reconnaissance versions of the P-38) under P-38. His monthly
figures are identical to the digests except for August 1944 when
he is 2 less. He also has the 1945 yearly total include 3 aircraft
not accounted for in the monthly totals. There were 500 F-4 and
F-5 produced, plus other P-38s were converted.

P-47, identical, with Dean giving the September to December
1945 production figures, the digest stops in August 1945.

P-51, as with the P-38 the reconnaissance version of the P-51,
the F-6 is included in the totals, but not the A-36 variant. The two
sources are identical to the end of 1944. Dean gives the total
production for 1945, the digest until the end of August. The
digest says 299 F-6 were produced to end August 1945.

Wildcat, the digest gives only yearly totals, and they are consistent
with Dean as are the Hellcat figures, once you know the 1942 Hellcat
(10) and 1943 Wildcat (100) production at Grumman.

P-40, until June 1942 the figures are close to identical (difference
of 2 in January 1941, 1 in May 1942, out of around 4,770 built to
end May 1942). Then comes the upheaval, table is date, Dean, Digest,

6/42 / 282 / 347
7/42 / 135 / 421
8/42 / 143 / 390
Totals / 560 / 1158

Normal service then resumes in September, with Dean being 1 less
than the digest, same total in October, Dean 3 more in November,
same total in December 1942. The figures are then identical until
deliveries end in November 1944.

Which are correct?

P-39, until July 1942 the figures are close to identical (difference of
1 in April 1942 out of around 1,425 built to end April 1942). Then
comes the upheaval, table is date, Dean, Digest,

7/42 / 255 / 170
8/42 / 309 / 60
9/42 / 0 / 132
10/42 / 3 / 145
11/42 / 268 / 277
Totals / 835 / 784

Normal service resumes in December, Dean being 3 less. The figures
are then identical until deliveries end in August 1944.

Which are correct?

Corsair, apart from the Statistical Digest's yearly figures Barrett Tillman
in The F4U in World War II and Korea gives monthly figures until December
1945, Dean gives monthly figures until December 1944. It is interesting
that the figures he gives in the table are not consistent, the monthly figures
do not always add up to the yearly totals, the yearly figures are also different
from those in the Corsair chapter.

Dean's yearly totals from 1940 to 1945 in the table are given as,

1, 0, 178, 2293, 5380, 3578

If I punch the monthly numbers into a spreadsheet the totals are

1, 0, 178, 2287, 5440, 3578 (there is only a yearly total for 1945)

Go to the Corsair chapter and the numbers are

1, 0, 178, 2298, 5372, 3578.

Barrett Tillman's figures are

0, 0, 178, 2298, 5372, 3567 (3385 January to August 1945)
(so he misses the 1940 delivery of the prototype).

The USAAF digest's figures are

0, 0, 178, 2293, 5380, 3387 (to end August) so around 3569 for 1945,
Using Tillman's figures for September to December 1945.

Following my analysis, detailed below, I make the figures as

1, 0, 2293, 5380, 3385 (to 8/45) or 3567 for all of 1945 with the note
the 1945 figures are the least certain and Dean claims another 11
Corsairs were built in 1945.

So the overall totals are Dean table grand total 11,484, me adding
up the table's yearly figures 11,430, me adding up the monthly
figures 11,484, but a typo of 60 aircraft reduces this to 11,424,
Tillman 11,415, Digest 11,420 using the Tillman figures for the
final 4 months of 1945. I think the total is around 11,419 using my
choice of production figures.

Differences between Dean, Tillman and my ideas on them,

10/42 Dean 1 more
11/42 Dean 1 less, so leave these two months alone.
8/43 Dean 6 less, assume Dean in error, as this means the totals then
add up to the Digest total Naval fighters figure for the month. It also
means the Dean yearly total for 1943 equals the sum of the monthly
totals instead of being 6 more.

1/44 Dean 1 more, assumed correct as the numbers then add up to
the Digest total.

2/44 Dean 60 more, this appears to be a typo, the Hellcat production
figure copied into the Corsair column, using the Tillman figure means
the totals then add up to the Digest figure.

4/44 Tigercat production starts so from now on there is the uncertainty
of how many F7Fs in a given month. I have no F7F production figures.

10/44 Dean 2 more, 12/44 Dean 5 more. I use the larger figures since
this means the difference between the Digest total for Naval fighters
for 1944 and my spreadsheet is then 71. Which would be the 67 non
F6Fs from Grumman, 3 Ryan Fireballs and 1 XF14C-2. The Grummans
would probably be all F7Fs and I assume the total includes the 2
prototypes, with the possibility the total includes one or more F8F
prototypes.

Dean's monthly figures stop in December 1944. F8F Bearcat deliveries
start in February 1945.

The difference between the figures for the Corsair (Tillman), Wildcat
and Hellcat (both from Dean) and the Statistical Digest Naval fighters
total for the time period January to August 1945 is 377. Non F6F
production from Grumman is 336, then add 39 Ryan Fireballs, total 375.
Good enough when you consider the possible errors, perhaps the
delivery of the XF15C-1 prototype plus the possibility that Tillman has
underestimated 1945 Corsair production, being 11 less than the Dean figure.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:35:02 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
wrote:

The big difference is the P-40 production June to August 1942,
Dean says 560 the Digest says 1,158. As a result mainly of
this Dean's P-40 production grand total is around 600 less than
other references at 13,143, versus 13,738 in the digest for
example.

Are these figures for production totals as calculated by the
manufacturer, or delivery totals to the USAAF?

I can't really help with this, other than to wonder if lend-lease
allocations might be responsible, in terms of aircraft delivered
against USAAF contracts being exported before being included in USAAF
delivery statistics. Even if that was the case, I don't know why
allocations should suddenly alter the totals in that period alone if
earlier lend-lease allocations (e.g. for the 400-plus P-40E's
delivered as Kittyhawk IA's to the British in early 1942) were
recorded in the statistics accurately.

Having said that, the British only got about 272 Kittyhawks in total
between the beginning of June and the end of August 1942, with a
further 36 or so from their allocations going to Australia and New
Zealand. Diversions to Canada from British Kittyhawk allocations seem
to have dried up by then. Equally, none of the British allocation
went to Russia at that point (although 170 of their allocation of
P-40M's did in 1943).

I don't know about US Kittyhawk allocations (e.g. lend-lease
diversions to Russia from USAAF allocations had been delivered and
taken on charge by the USAAF, as opposed to being delivered direct
from the factory as in the case of British lend-lease allocations) ,
but the British allocations seem to account for less than 50% of your
total discrepancy, so the issue of lend-lease allocation seems less
than credible.

On the other hand, procurement contract discrepancies might account
for it. Production of the F and K models should account for
deliveries in June - August 1942. I think 600 P-40F's were ear-marked
for an "R" designation for training. While that total would match
your total discrepancy, they should still be recorded against P40
deliveries to USAAF contracts, especially as I don't know if any were
actually re-designated in the event.

The P-40K's being produced at the same time had a similarly suggestive
number total associated with their procurement. While more than a
thousand K's were made, originally 600 of these were on order for
China (taken over by the USAAF after Pearl Harbor) and about 190 of
that total were diverted to the British to repay them for the 100
Tomahawks they'd had diverted to the AVG in 1941. Perhaps this
ex-Chinese order was complicating the paperwork; aircraft from this
order seem to be being delivered to the RAF for delivery to the Middle
East in August or September 1942 (where they turned up in operational
squadrons a couple of months later). Again, however, the same problem
arises in that these aircraft were still produced for and delivered
against existing USAAF contracts, and should be counted in both
production and service delivery statistics in either of your sources.

To continue on the 600-aircraft theme, I think 600 P-40M's were made,
and only for delivery via lend-lease (i.e. with no USAAF use) which
would tie in with your total discrepancy better than the F's (more
than that were delivered), but they only started production in August
(IIRC), so I can't see them causing such a major discrepancy in the
July-August delivery statistics. The K had been in scale production
for a couple of months before the start of the period in question, so
it seems a much more likely candidate.

None of this, of course, answers your question. Sorry.

My own personal feeling is that the 50% reduction in statistics for
P-40 deliveries in July-September 1942 seems to reflect somebody
missing out one or other of the two main variants being produced at
that time (the F and K) from the total. I suspect that the K's are
the most likely candidate, as the M's coming into scale production by
the last quarter and being included in the statisics might re-align
them with the USAAF totals if the F's or K's had been missed out for a
period.

Gavin Bailey





--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

ny information about the P-39 and P-40 lines

Bowers's book on the Curtiss fighters seems very detailed.

In trying to trace the history of the P-40s that went to Burma for the
American Volunteer Group, I found a couple of conflictions in Dean's
book. It's hard to over-emphasize the assistance that an editor gives
to a manuscript in production, and it's my guess that Schiffer simply
doesn't edit its books. I'm sure there are mistakes in America's
Hundred Thousand for that reason.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

I can't really help with this, other than to wonder if lend-lease
allocations might be responsible, in terms of aircraft delivered
against USAAF

All air force Lend-Lease aircraft were first taken into the air force,
so should be included in USAAF deliveries.

This extended even to aircraft the USAAF never adopted, notably the
Vultee P-66s that show on the air force books. They went straight to
China, or rather India.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

On Wed, 12 May 2004 05:10:57 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:

All air force Lend-Lease aircraft were first taken into the air force,
so should be included in USAAF deliveries.

What do you mean by "taken in", though? All lend-lease aircraft were
ordered against USAAF or USN contracts, and were allocated US service
ID numbers. This does not mean they were ever taken on strength by
the US services, however. Most lend-lease Kittyhawks were shipped
direct from the factory to the port where they were exported, with
little beyond paper records (and the relevant allocated US serial
being sprayed on the airframe) recording their production against US
procurement contracts.

This extended even to aircraft the USAAF never adopted, notably the
Vultee P-66s that show on the air force books. They went straight to
China, or rather India.

Sure, but this is why I asked about the provenance of the figures
involved, e.g. for for production totals as calculated by the
manufacturer, or delivery totals to the USAAF (i.e. actually received
by the USAAF as the end-user). While the P-40s in question were all
"USAAF aircraft", some were never formally in the hands of a USAAF
unit of any kind.

Gavin Bailey


--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

This will probably appear in the wrong place thanks to a buggy news server.

Presidente Alcazar wrote in message ...
On Wed, 12 May 2004 15:35:02 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
wrote:

The big difference is the P-40 production June to August 1942,
Dean says 560 the Digest says 1,158. As a result mainly of
this Dean's P-40 production grand total is around 600 less than
other references at 13,143, versus 13,738 in the digest for
example.

Are these figures for production totals as calculated by the
manufacturer, or delivery totals to the USAAF?

The USAAF statistical digest uses the definition factory acceptances
which I understand means when the aircraft has been certified as being
of acceptable quality, as opposed to just pushed out the factory door
(usually called manufactured), or arriving at the relevant new military
aircraft depot (usually called delivered).

The above definition is for tables 74 (all military by basic types and
month), 75 (by factory by year) and 76 (USAAF aircraft only, by model
by month). Table 79 is factory deliveries, not acceptances, by recipient
country by month by basic type (e.g fighters).

As a result the totals in table 79 are different to the other tables, since
it is measuring production at a different point.

Dean and the Digest match each other very well except for those few
months of P-39 and P-40 production. Other references I have tried
support the digest. So it appears Dean is incorrect.

I will put the differences back up,

P-40, until June 1942 the figures are close to identical (difference
of 2 in January 1941, 1 in May 1942, out of around 4,770 built to
end May 1942). Then comes the upheaval, table is date, Dean, Digest,

6/42 / 282 / 347
7/42 / 135 / 421
8/42 / 143 / 390
Totals / 560 / 1158

I can't really help with this, other than to wonder if lend-lease
allocations might be responsible, in terms of aircraft delivered
against USAAF contracts being exported before being included in USAAF
delivery statistics. Even if that was the case, I don't know why
allocations should suddenly alter the totals in that period alone if
earlier lend-lease allocations (e.g. for the 400-plus P-40E's
delivered as Kittyhawk IA's to the British in early 1942) were
recorded in the statistics accurately.

Lend Lease aircraft all went through the US military procurement
system and were given relevant AAF/Navy serial numbers before
being sent to an ally.

Using Dean's chronology the K model was being produced in
May 1942, the long fuselage version in October 1942, the M
model began appearing in November 1942.

In 1942, using the Digest's table 79, the fighters delivered total was
10,721, of which 5,213 were for the USAAF, 1,259 for the USN,
2,397 for the British Empire, 1,136 for the USSR, 11 for China and
56 for other foreign governments.

So it is possible the P-39 and P-40 shipments for a small time
period were not recorded in the document's Dean uses. In the
three months June to August 1942 the British were allocated 537
fighters, the USSR 340.

Remembering the production figures are factory acceptances, the
allocations are factory deliveries, so they are not measuring the same
thing.

In June the difference between Dean and the Digest is 65, the Digest
says 103 fighters to the British and 168 to the USSR. In July the
difference is 286, the digest says the British received 279 fighters and
the USSR 64. In August the difference is 247 and the digest says the
British received 155 and the USSR 108 fighters, total 263.

So yes the numbers superficially look like somehow Dean's source
eliminates Lend Lease aircraft, but of course not all Lend Lease types
were P-40s. The British were mainly receiving P-40s but also F4Fs,
the USSR was receiving most of the P-39 exports.

Having said that, the British only got about 272 Kittyhawks in total
between the beginning of June and the end of August 1942, with a
further 36 or so from their allocations going to Australia and New
Zealand. Diversions to Canada from British Kittyhawk allocations seem
to have dried up by then. Equally, none of the British allocation
went to Russia at that point (although 170 of their allocation of
P-40M's did in 1943).

The point here would be the British figures would quite probably
be when the aircraft arrived in theatre, an ocean voyage from the
factory in the US.

I don't know about US Kittyhawk allocations (e.g. lend-lease
diversions to Russia from USAAF allocations had been delivered and
taken on charge by the USAAF, as opposed to being delivered direct
from the factory as in the case of British lend-lease allocations) ,
but the British allocations seem to account for less than 50% of your
total discrepancy, so the issue of lend-lease allocation seems less
than credible.

On the other hand, procurement contract discrepancies might account
for it. Production of the F and K models should account for
deliveries in June - August 1942. I think 600 P-40F's were ear-marked
for an "R" designation for training. While that total would match
your total discrepancy, they should still be recorded against P40
deliveries to USAAF contracts, especially as I don't know if any were
actually re-designated in the event.

That is another possibility, the systematic exclusion of a given model
for a particular reason.

The trouble with this as an explanation is the P-39 figures, where
Dean ends up with a larger total than the Digest

P-39, until July 1942 the figures are close to identical (difference of
1 in April 1942 out of around 1,425 built to end April 1942). Then
comes the upheaval, table is date, Dean, Digest,

7/42 / 255 / 170
8/42 / 309 / 60
9/42 / 0 / 132
10/42 / 3 / 145
11/42 / 268 / 277
Totals / 835 / 784

So if the problem is P-40s being missed because of systematic error
in counting Lend Lease or a given model something else is happening
for the P-39. The first P-39 K and Ls were delivered in July 1942, the
P-39D-2 for the RAF began deliveries in June 1942.

The similarities in the problems in the P-39 and P-40 figures are the
overlap in the time frame, the fact both had only one production line,
with both plants being in Buffalo NY.

It is not like I can see the numbers being put in the wrong columns or
add the different monthly totals and end up in agreement.

The P-40K's being produced at the same time had a similarly suggestive
number total associated with their procurement. While more than a
thousand K's were made, originally 600 of these were on order for
China (taken over by the USAAF after Pearl Harbor) and about 190 of
that total were diverted to the British to repay them for the 100
Tomahawks they'd had diverted to the AVG in 1941. Perhaps this
ex-Chinese order was complicating the paperwork; aircraft from this
order seem to be being delivered to the RAF for delivery to the Middle
East in August or September 1942 (where they turned up in operational
squadrons a couple of months later). Again, however, the same problem
arises in that these aircraft were still produced for and delivered
against existing USAAF contracts, and should be counted in both
production and service delivery statistics in either of your sources.

To continue on the 600-aircraft theme, I think 600 P-40M's were made,
and only for delivery via lend-lease (i.e. with no USAAF use) which
would tie in with your total discrepancy better than the F's (more
than that were delivered), but they only started production in August
(IIRC), so I can't see them causing such a major discrepancy in the
July-August delivery statistics. The K had been in scale production
for a couple of months before the start of the period in question, so
it seems a much more likely candidate.

None of this, of course, answers your question. Sorry.

No problems, thanks for the reply.

My own personal feeling is that the 50% reduction in statistics for
P-40 deliveries in July-September 1942 seems to reflect somebody
missing out one or other of the two main variants being produced at
that time (the F and K) from the total. I suspect that the K's are
the most likely candidate, as the M's coming into scale production by
the last quarter and being included in the statisics might re-align
them with the USAAF totals if the F's or K's had been missed out for a
period.

As far as I can tell Dean is incorrect, he is very much concentrating on
the engineering of the aircraft and has made an error in the production
counts, which were outside his main focus.

I totalled up Dean's breakdown of P-40s by model type, it comes to
14,047 versus his table total of 13,143, and the digest's total of
13,738.

For the P-39 it is 9,529 in the by model type list, 9,547 in his table and
the digest says 9,588.

Interestingly the P-38, 47, 51, 61, 63, Buffalo, Wildcat, Hellcat and
Corsair breakdowns by model type all are totalled on the page, and
the totals agree with the table at the front of the book. The P-39 and
P-40 breakdowns by model do not have a total, indicating somebody
noticed a problem.

I will stick to the digest figures.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

While the P-40s in question were all
"USAAF aircraft", some were never formally in the hands of a USAAF
unit of any kind.

Oh, certainly. But when you look at USAAF procurement, as in Fahey's
"Gray Book", the lend-lease aircraft are there. As I recall, the P-66s
are there, for example.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

On Thu, 13 May 2004 18:02:04 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
wrote:

Dean and the Digest match each other very well except for those few
months of P-39 and P-40 production. Other references I have tried
support the digest. So it appears Dean is incorrect.

That was my assumption: I was merely wondering out loud what systemic
error could account for the discrepancy, if any.

So yes the numbers superficially look like somehow Dean's source
eliminates Lend Lease aircraft, but of course not all Lend Lease types
were P-40s. The British were mainly receiving P-40s but also F4Fs,
the USSR was receiving most of the P-39 exports.

Yes, but many of these came from the British lend-lease allocation -
no Airacobras were being exported to the UK by mid-1942. I don't
think that should have any impact on the accounting, though.

The point here would be the British figures would quite probably
be when the aircraft arrived in theatre, an ocean voyage from the
factory in the US.

In this case I was using British Air Commision records of aircraft
exported from the US, which doesn't inlcude diversions elsewhere to
other national accounts (e.g. Kittyhawks exported to the Middle East
on British account which were then transferred to the French or USAAF
in-theatre) or losses en route. At least in the first half of 1942,
where I was actually checking individual aircraft deliveries, exports,
losses and arrivals in theatre for RAF Kittyhawks in the surviving
original records in my research.

[snip P-39 production]

So if the problem is P-40s being missed because of systematic error
in counting Lend Lease or a given model something else is happening
for the P-39.

It certainly looks like it. I'm less familiar with P-39 production,
but I can't account for any type/model designation discrepancies at
that time with them, although I could venture some opinions if it
involved an earlier chronological opinion.

I will stick to the digest figures.

Please post an explanation for the discrepancy if you can ever
discover one, though.

Gavin Bailey

--

Now see message: "Boot sector corrupt. System halted. All data lost."
Spend thousands of dollar on top grade windows system. Result better
than expected. What your problem? - Bart Kwan En

Geoffrey Sinclair wrote in message ...

Reprise,

"Francis Dean in America's Hundred Thousand has a table of the 8
main WWII fighter types, by numbers produced and I am wondering
about the differences he has with the USAAF Statistical digest."

I contacted his publisher and was informed Mr Dean sadly died last
year, so that ends the chance of consulting with him over the production
figures he presents. His book is clearly on the technical aspects of the
various fighter designs and his production figures have a few errors in
them, mainly minor.

I posted to the newsgroup about the P-39 and P-40, here is a follow up.

When in doubt reach for other references to try and resolve the
differences, so I have,

USAAF Statistical Digest, or SD
America's Hundred Thousand by Dean
The American Fighter by Angelucci and Bowers, or TAF
The Complete book of Fighters by Green and Swanborough or TCBOF

TAF is good because it includes the USAAF serial numbers by
version produced of each fighter type presented.

P-39

The raw total production figures given are, in order,

9,528 Dean, list by versions of the P-39, excluding prototype
9,547 Dean, production numbers table, excluding the prototype
9,558 TCBOF, including prototype
9,585 TAF, probably excluding the prototype, the total given in the text
9,588 SD, excluding the prototype
10,016 TAF, adding up the serial numbers, prototype excluded.

The number of P-39s produced has the complication of the P-400
or Airacobra I production that did not receive USAAF serials, most
of which ended up in the USAAF as the P-400 or in the USSR,
some 675 aircraft. There were also significant losses at sea of
P-400/Airacobra I and P-39

The Dean list by versions has 863 D (37mm cannon) D-1 (20 mm
cannon for USAAF) and D-2 (20 mm cannon for RAF) in total. TAF
notes there were 60 D, 705 D-1 and 158 D-2, so 863 D-1 and
D-2, with 60 more D models than Dean, the difference between
Dean and the SD is 60.

As for the serial number list the difference is the result of serials
being allocated for one version but built as another, and so the
serials are reported twice. Mainly some 369 D models, when
the D was reordered as the D-1 also 35 N-3 models that are
also reported under the N-1 list.

The rest of the difference appears to be changes when the second
order for 394 D models serials 41-6722 to 41-7115 was changed
to D-1s. It appears of the original order 41-7053 to 7056 and
41-7059 to 7079 were not built as D, D-1 or D-2s.

Instead 41-7053 to 7076 were built as J models, with 41-7057
and 41-7058 being reported as both D-1 and Js. Most probably
the serials for the D-1s should be the two "missing" ones, 41-7077
and 41-7078, that is the serials from the original D order TAF does
not list against another version. If this is correct then all the serials
in the original D order are used by various P-39s.

Take away the duplicates, 369 D models, 24 J models and 35 N-3
models and the serial numbers total becomes 9,588 excluding the
prototype or the same as the SD.

So the Dean production table figures for the July to December 1942
period for the P-39 are incorrect as they give a figure of about 40
less than were built, also the list by model type is missing 60 D models.

P-40

The raw totals are, in order,

13,143 Dean production table, excluding the prototype
13,738 SD, excluding the prototype (same total for TAF in the text)
13,755 TAF adding up the serial numbers allocated, prototype excluded
14,047 Dean list by versions of the P-40, excluding the prototype

The P-40 list traces are complicated by the fact not all production was
given USAAF serials, the pre lend lease orders by France and Britain,
that eventually had some 1,740 aircraft built to fill. Also the initial French
order for 185 was cut to 140 by the British when they took it over. Then
add the diversions of aircraft from these orders and Lend Lease
allocations to the USSR, the AVG, Egypt, Turkey, Free French and the
aircraft lost at sea. Even some of the non lend lease British aircraft ending
up with the USAAF.

The difference between the SD and TAF serial numbers is simply the
17 serials TAF gives for the P-40G, all P-40Gs were conversions and
the serials also appear in the P-40F list. Take 17 away from 13,755
and you are at 13,738, then add in the prototype.

Something similar happens in the Dean list by versions, the P-40Gs
are counted as production not conversion and some of the lend
lease allocations are double counted, so subtract 44 P-40G and
250 Kittihawk IIs and you end up at 13,753. Most of the rest of the
difference is Dean stating there were 4 less P-40N-40s, the last
version, than the serial number lists.

So the Dean production table has a major error in the June, July and
August 1942 P-40 production figures, resulting in a total of nearly 600
less than the correct figure. Deans list by model type goes the other
way, double counting some production. The USAAF statistical digest
would appear to be the correct source for monthly production figures
and this also applies to the production figures presented for the other
types in the book.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

On Wed, 26 May 2004 16:34:02 +1000, "Geoffrey Sinclair"
wrote:

the P-40Gs
are counted as production not conversion and some of the lend
lease allocations are double counted, so subtract 44 P-40G and
250 Kittihawk IIs and you end up at 13,753. Most of the rest of the
difference is Dean stating there were 4 less P-40N-40s, the last
version, than the serial number lists.

I'm delighted someone is working this out. Will it be published
somewhere, as website or article or book?

(Of course, most historians would be content to round it up to 14,000
aircraft. I follow a rule that once you get past 100, it's very
difficult to be precise about anything.)


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com