Curtis PN-1 - History

Curtis PN-1 - History

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Manufacturer: Curtiss

Type: Fighter

First Flight:1921

Power Plant: 1230HP Liberty L-825

Wingspan: 30ft 10inch

Range: 255mi

Length: 23ft 6inch

Max Speed: 108MPH

Weight: 2,311lbs (gross)

Cold War: General Curtis LeMay, Father of the Strategic Air Command

Curtis LeMay (November 15, 1906NOctober 1, 1990) was a U.S. Air Force general who became famous for leading a bombing campaign in the Pacific during World War II. After the war, he served as the leader of the Strategic Air Command, the U.S. military division responsible for most of the country's nuclear weapons. LeMay later ran as George Wallace's running mate in the 1968 presidential election.

Fast Facts: Curtis LeMay

  • Known For: LeMay was an important U.S. Army Air Corps leader during World War II and led the Strategic Air Command during the early years of the Cold War.
  • Born: November 15, 1906 in Columbus, Ohio
  • Parents: Erving and Arizona LeMay
  • Died: October 1, 1990 at March Air Force Base, California
  • Education: Ohio State University (B.S. in Civil Engineering)
  • Awards and Honors: U.S. Distinguished Service Cross, French Legion of Honour, British Distinguished Flying Cross
  • Spouse: Helen Estelle Maitland (m. 1934–1992)
  • Children: Patricia Jane LeMay Lodge

Operational history [ edit | edit source ]

On June 23, 1924, taking off at 3:58 A.M., Army test pilot First Lieutenant Russell Maughan left Mitchel Field, New York, in PW-8 24-204, modified with additional fuel and oil tanks, made a dawn-to-dusk transcontinental flight across the US. Η] Refueling five times, he landed at Crissy Field, San Francisco, California, at 9:46 p.m., one minute before dusk, covering 2,670 mi (4,297 km) in 20 hours and 48 minutes. His flight time included four planned 30-minute stops at McCook Field, Ohio Saint Joseph, Missouri Cheyenne, Wyoming and Salduro Siding, Utah and an unplanned stop in North Platte, Nebraska for additional fuel when a muddy field in Missouri did not permit him to take on a full load. He also lost an hour at McCook to repair a broken fuel valve after an over-eager mechanic had over-torqued the valve, damaging it.

The original fifteen P-1s served in the 27th and 94th Pursuit Squadrons, 1st Pursuit Group, Selfridge Field, Michigan. The first Hawk to serve with the Air Corps in quantity was the P-1A (17th, 27th, and 94th Pursuit Squadrons) beginning in 1925. In October 1928 the largest order of 33 P-1s was made. These were delivered by April 1929 as P-1Cs. Γ]

The AT-4 and AT-5 trainer variants served with the 43rd Pursuit Squadron (School) at Kelly Field, Texas. Γ]

The Meaning of the Chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 –by Gerhard F. Hasel

In Origins 7:23-37,Dr. Hasel presented arguments showing that the genealogies found in Genesis 5 and 11 were unique to biblical literature and that they should be read as given. This companion article further examines these chronogenealogies and the meaning of the literary figures used in the text. Using literary and archaeological-historical data, Dr. Hasel compares the biblical text to extrabiblical literature and history. Also included are analyses of other theories of interpretation.

What are the implications of accepting a literal interpretation of the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11? The author answers this question and replies to traditional arguments against a literal reading.


The study of Genesis 5 and 11 reveals that the question of the meaning of the genealogies is very complex. This complexity is highlighted by the fact that there are various textual recensions of the chronological data and numbers (Hasel 1980) and by the fact that "the principal sources" (Kitchen 1966, p. 35) of the chronological data for both the antediluvian and postdiluvian periods are present only in these two chapters. Furthermore, the comparative material relating to genealogies within and outside Scripture renders Genesis 5 and 11 unique in the Bible and the ancient Near East (Hartman 1972 Hasel 1978), because in no other case is the literary form "genealogy" joined with chronological information as it is in these two chapters. This phenomenon has led scholarship to distinguish Genesis 5 and 11:10-26 from later genealogical lists (Johnson 1969, p. 28) in both the Old (cf. 1 Chronicles 1-9 Ezra-Nehemiah) and the New Testaments (cf. Matthew 1:1-17 Luke 3:23-33). In recognition of this unique literary form with time specifications, these genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are designated as "chronogenealogies." The joining of the lines of descent with time aspects has had and still has a determining function in the discussions of the meaning of these chapters. This must continue to be important on methodological grounds, because a unilinear comparison of genealogies whether biblical or nonbiblical that lack the combination of line of descent and life spans with Genesis is an inadequate procedure for uncovering the true meaning of Genesis 5 and 11:10-26.

Today's scholarship has a radically new attitude toward chronological data provided in the Bible. The critical attitude of an earlier generation of scholars, such as was typical of Julius Wellhausen and his followers at the turn of the century who viewed chronological information in the Bible as mere window dressing to enhance the verisimilitude of the historical vehicle of Bible writers for their expression of faith, is no longer in vogue. The change was caused by the fact that in the past five decades the accuracy of the chronological information in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament, was verified repeatedly. "The most impressive example of this is seen in the work of E. R. Thiele on the records of the kings of Israel and Judah" (Oswalt 1979, p. 673), who has demonstrated that the mysterious numbers of the Hebrew kings (Thiele 1965, 1977) reveal an "uncanny accuracy of the recorded figures" (Oswalt 1979, p. 673) and provide correlations with dates and events in the history of the ancient Near East.

The fantastic breakthrough in the chronology of the Hebrew kings that had defied any kind of real solution for two millennia may serve as an encouragement not to dismiss too easily chronological data in other parts of Scripture, including the figures of Genesis 5 and 11. The chronological information in Genesis 5 and 11 is data that must not be completely disregarded (see Wilson 1977, pp. 158-168). It is one of three types of chronological data in the Old Testament. The other types consist of 1) royal annals and chronicles and 2) random chronological statements (e.g., Genesis 15:13 Exodus 12:40 and 1 Kings 6:1). This article will discuss the meaning of the chronological data in Genesis 5 and 11. A significant number of suggestions have been made about the meaning of the figures and thus about these two chapters, and we will strive to describe and evaluate these attempts. This will mean that both internal (the matters of line of descent and biblical genealogical lists) and external (various archaeological and historical phenomena) data will have to be considered. Once these types of data have received some attention, we will be able to describe briefly and to assess various prominent nonhistorical and historical interpretations of Genesis 5 and 11.


One of the most basic issues in the assessment of the meaning of Genesis 5 and 11 is the question of whether these chapters contain a continuous or discontinuous line of descent.

A. Internal Literary Data: the Formula of Descent

In the words of K. A. Kitchen the formula "'A begat B' may often mean simply that 'A begat (the line culminating in) B' in this case, one cannot use these genealogies to fix the date of the flood or of earliest Man" (Kitchen 1966, p. 39). However, the biblical formula in Genesis 5 and 11 is not simply "A begat B." Instead, with the exception of a few minor variations, it is consistently, "When PN1 had lived x years, he fathered PN2. And PN1 lived after he fathered PN2y years, and he fathered other sons and daughters. And all the days of PN1 were z years." A reduction of this stereotyped literary formula with its inseparable interconnection of line of descent and years before the birth of the named son followed by the subsequent years of life to simply "A begat B" is an oversimplification. It distorts drastically the components of the formula. This unwarranted procedure leads Kitchen and other interpreters (cf. Green 1979, pp. 49-50, and followers) to argue that the line of descent in Genesis 5 and 11 is discontinuous.

The formula of descent in Genesis 5 and 11 manifests a rather fixed literary structure that does not yield to a minimalist reduction. It manifests interlocking components such as descent information with spans of years that are correctly computed in each instance. Indeed, this interlocking nature of the information provided is forceful internal evidence that, instead of having a broken or discontinuous line of descent, the material in Genesis 5 and 11 presents a continuous line of descent. In view of this internal evidence, certain scholars seek time and again to bring external data to bear on the issue. It is mandatory to look at some of the argumentation from archaeology and history.

B. Archaeological-Historical Data

In straightforward language it is noted that the date of the flood at

. . . about 2300 B.C. . . . is excluded by the Mesopotamian evidence, because it would fall some 300 or 400 years after the period of Gilgamesh of Uruk for whom . . . the Flood was already an event in the distant past. Likewise the appearing of earliest men . . . in about 4000 B.C., would seem to clash rather badly with not just centuries but whole millennia of preliterate civilizations throughout the Ancient Near East . . . (Kitchen 1966, pp. 36-37).

Before we give attention to the "Mesopotamian evidence" it may be advisable to consider the suggestion that the flood took place at about 2300 B.C. The latter date roughly reflects a computation of the spans of time of the textual recension preserved in the Hebrew text as transmitted by the Masoretes. However, the Hebrew Masoretic text (MT), some major manuscripts of the Septuagint (LXX) versions (manuscripts Alexandrinus and Vaticanus), and the Samaritan Pentateuch have divergent figures. The Jewish historian Josephus of the first century is known to quote from the shorter Hebrew figures as well as from longer ones (Hasel 1980), testifying to the existence of both the Greek and "the Hebrew figures and their [the latter] being regarded as of value in the first century of our era" (Jones 1909, p. 48). By adding up the ages of each patriarch at the time of the birth of the named son, the following figures are obtained in the respective textual versions (allowing one year for the flood and one year to the birth of Shem's son).

Some scholars add another 60 years to the time from Shem to Abraham, figuring that Terah was not 70 years old when Abraham was born (cf. Genesis 11:26) rather, he was 130 years old, for Abraham was 75 when he left for Palestine after Terah's death at the age of 205 (Genesis 11:32 12:4 Acts 7:4). In order to determine the date of the flood, we must also know the date of Abraham's birth. Several items of chronological information in Scripture aid in arriving at his approximate birth date. The first appears in 1 Kings 6:1 where it is stated that Solomon's temple was begun 480 years after the Exodus. Since this occurred in the fourth year of Solomon in ca. 971/970 B.C. (on the basis of a four-year co-regency with David), the Exodus would be dated ca.1450 B.C. In the Hebrew text of Exodus 12:40 it is reported that the Israelites dwelt for 430 years in Egypt.

Let us parenthetically refer briefly to the textual variation in Exodus 12:40. Depending on whether one follows the reading of the Hebrew text (MT) for this verse ("the sons of Israel lived in Egypt 430 years") or the Greek (LXX) translation ("the sojournings of the sons of Israel in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan was 430 years"), an early or late chronology for the birth of Abraham can be determined. If one follows the Greek version, then one figures usually 215 years in Egypt and 215 years of Israel in Canaan. In other words, the Egyptian period is only 215 years long, whereas in the MT it is 430 years long. According to the Hebrew text Abraham's birth is 215 years earlier. If one takes the 430 years of an Egyptian sojourn of the MT and adds them to the year 1450 B.C. for the Exodus, one arrives at a date of ca. 1880 B.C. for the descent into Egypt. Then, by adding Jacob's age at the entry into Egypt (130 years, Genesis 47:9), Isaac's age at Jacob's birth (60 years, Genesis 25:26) and Abraham's age at Isaac's birth (100 years, Genesis 21:5), the year of ca. 2170 B.C. is reached for the date of Abraham's birth. If one follows the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Exodus 12:40, one will arrive at a later time for Abraham's birth, because the Egyptian sojourn according to this text is 215 years shorter. Thus this shorter reckoning would lead to the birth of Abraham at ca. 1955 B.C. Without allowing for the co-regency of Solomon with David (1 Kings 6:1) one can arrive at the birth of Abraham at ca. 1950 (Horn 1960, p. 8).

A reckoning of the date of the flood depends on the year of the birth of Abraham. If one selects the late date for the birth of Abraham at ca. 1955 B.C. and adds the 292 years from his birth to the flood according to the Hebrew text (MT), the flood would have occurred at ca. 2247 B.C. But if one follows the MT and calculates the birth of Abraham at ca. 2170 B.C., then the flood would have occurred in ca. 2462 B.C. on the basis of the 292 years in the MT between the birth of Abraham and the flood. Or, if one takes the figures of either 1072 or 1172 of the Septuagint manuscripts for the span of time between Abraham's birth in ca. 2170 B.C. and the flood, the date of the flood would be reckoned accordingly to have taken place either in ca. 3242 B.C. or 3342 B.C. The Samaritan Pentateuch and Josephus have slightly shorter time spans for the same periods, namely 942 years for the former and 983 years for the latter. These figures would lead to a date for the flood in either ca. 3112 B.C. for the Samaritan Pentateuch and ca. 3153 B.C. for Josephus (see Chart B).

If Abraham was born when Terah was 130 years old, as may be indicated in Genesis 11:32 12:4 Acts 7:4 (because Abraham was 75 years old when he left Haran after Terah had died at the age of 205), then one needs to add in each case 60 years to the B.C. years of the flood. Accordingly the flood would have occurred at ca. 2522 B.C. (MT), 3302 B.C. (LXX Alex.), 3402 B.C. (LXX Vat.), 3172 B.C. (Sam Pent.), and 3213 B.C. (Josephus) (see Chart C).

The respective dates for the flood are figured on the information of the textual recensions of the biblical text (MT and two major LXX manuscripts) and the Samaritan Pentateuch as well as the ancient historian Josephus. The problem of the priority of the differing figures in these recensions has been discussed in an earlier essay (Hasel 1980). No simple solution is presently known.

Without doubt, the figure and dates obtained from the Septuagint texts are the most attractive from the viewpoint of currently known historical data from Egypt and Mesopotamia. An awareness of the problems of the shifting of Egyptian chronology (Horn 1959) is important:

Generally, the more distant the time, the more imprecise and inaccurate are the dates. . . . Before about 2200 B.C. the margin of error is roughly ± fifty years and the date for the beginning of the dynastic period (First Dynasty) stills shows wide variation among historians (DeVries 1976, p. 254).

Despite these immense problems, Egyptian history is generally believed to begin at about 3000 B.C., ±100 years. The Egyptian chronology for this early period is but a "relative chronology." The same is true of the early chronology of Mesopotamia. R. D. Tindel remarks cogently, "It is not possible to establish a coherent chronology for the period prior to Sargon of Akkad" (Tindel 1976, p. 161), who founded the Akkadian Empire at ca. 2350 B.C. As far as Mesopotamia is concerned, "it is not until about 2500 B.C. that there are sufficient records to permit a coherent history" (Tindel 1976, p. 158), because the cultures that employed the cuneiform (wedge-shaped) system of writing "never developed a uniform system of dating" (Tindel 1976, p. 158). Scholars have to construct a coherent chronology from various systems and bits of information, then fit everything together and date the whole in terms of years B.C. These scholarly reconstructions are but relative. No absoluteness must be assigned to them. They are subject to change as new discoveries alter old relative chronological suggestions. Thus scholarship of the ancient Near East speaks of "relative chronology" for this early period. An "absolute chronology" is not to be had before ca. 2000 B.C., depending on sightings of Venus or various eclipses and the like. Thus caution is in order so that biblical materials are not prematurely judged inaccurate or invalid on grounds which scholars are careful enough to regard as relative.

The reconstructions of prehistoric periods of time are even more relative and hypothetical. They lack scientific controls needed for absolute dating. Even refinements in radiocarbon dating methods have not achieved reliable correlations. "As a result, specimens whose age can be fixed beyond doubt historically have produced radiocarbon dates centuries outside the allowable margins of error" (Tindel 1976, p. 158). A truly scientific approach to early world chronologies will not accord to "relative chronology" an absolute status which may serve as a sound basis for decisions concerning personal faith and confidence in the fidelity of the Bible.

Some students of Genesis have suggested that Genesis 5 and 11 are dependent upon ancient Near Eastern genealogies (Cassuto 1961, pp. 254-267 von Rad 1961, p. 69 Speiser 1964, p. 41 Johnson 1969, pp. 28-31 Wilson 1977, p. 166). Recent discoveries of genealogies show that the Israelites were not the only ancient people who kept genealogical records. There are royal and nonroyal genealogies from Mesopotamia and genealogies of other peoples (Wilson 1977, pp. 56-136). Scholars are largely in agrrement that the closest parallel to Genesis 5 and 11 is the Sumerian King List (SKL) which arranges dynasties in linear succession. The date of SKL is the first dynasty of Isin (ca. 2000 B.C.) or possibly earlier (Rowton 1960, pp. 158-162). Several scholars have claimed that Genesis 5 and 11 is dependent on SKL and thus cannot be regarded as a reliable index of time. Such claims have led to careful examinations of the relationship between SKL and Genesis 5 and 11. The results of these investigations are summarized as follows: 1) Genesis 5 and 11 contain Semitic names, but SKL has non-Semitic names which cannot be harmonized with each other 2) the biblical genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 have numbers for "years of life," whereas SKL has numbers for "years of reign," i.e., the contrast is between longevity and years of rulership 3) the line of descent in the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 is opposed by the succession of kings in SKL 4) Genesis 5 has ten antediluvian patriarchs, whereas SKL in its various recensions has seven, eight, nine, or ten antediluvian kings 5) Genesis 11 has nine postdiluvian patriarchs but SKL has thirty-nine postdiluvian kings 6) Genesis 5 and 11 trace ancestors in terms of line of descent, while SKL emphasizes that kingship can reside in only one city at a time 7) Genesis 5 and 11 are chronogenealogies, whereas SKL is a list of city dynasties with their respective rulers 8) the structure of Genesis 5 and 11 is not identical with the structure of SKL and 9) Genesis 5 and 11 are line of descent genealogies containing chronological information, but SKL is a list of (successive) dynasties to which genealogical notices are attached for several kings, usually for only two or three generations and only twice for five generations. These and other differences (Hasel 1978, pp. 361-374) confirm that SKL is not a source directly or indirectly for Genesis 5 and 11 (Hartman 1972, p. 32). Indeed, Genesis 5 and 11:10-26 is without a parallel in the ancient world. Thus it is most precarious and methodologically unsound to interpret the biblical chronogenealogies on the basis of ancient Near Eastern materials. The proper function and meaning can be determined in their own contextual settings in Genesis 1-11 and the Bible as a whole.

C. Biblical-Genealogical Data

Is it true that the genealogical data in the Bible clearly prove that Genesis 5 and 11 has a discontinuous line of descent? A number of students of the genealogies of the Bible have used the discontinuous nature of certain biblical genealogies to argue that the same holds true for Genesis 5 and 11 (cf. Horn 1960, p. 196 Kitchen 1966, p. 37 Geraty 1974, pp. 9-12). There are several considerations that call for comment.

It is suggested that the structure of Genesis 5 and 11 with ten antediluvian and ten postdiluvian patriarchs is an intentional arrangement, just as the genealogy in Matthew 1:1-17 has three sets of fourteen ancestors each. This symmetry is thought to suggest an intentional arrangement and not a true continuous line of descent.

As far as the genealogy in Matthew is concerned, the schematization is apparent and can be supported by comparison with genealogical data in the OT. Can the same be demonstrated for Genesis 5 and 11? Is there a ten-plus-ten scheme in Genesis 5 and 11? A simple counting of patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11 reveals that there is no schematic ten-ten sequence. In Genesis 5 there is a line of ten patriarchs from Adam to Noah who had three sons, but in Genesis 11:26 the line of patriarchs consists of only nine members from Shem to Terah who "became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran" (Genesis 11:26, New American Standard Bible). If Abraham is to be counted as the tenth patriarch in Genesis 11, then consistency requires that Shem is counted as the eleventh patriarch in Genesis 5, because each genealogy concludes with a patriarch for whom three sons are mentioned. It appears that a comparison of Genesis 5:32 and 11:26 reveals that there are no grounds to count one of the three sons in one instance and not in the other, when in fact the formula is the same. Thus, if one counts in Genesis 5 ten patriarchs, consistency demands the counting of nine patriarchs in Genesis 11, or, vice versa, if one counts eleven in Genesis 5, then one needs to count ten in Genesis 11. The figures 10/9 to 11/10 respectively can hardly qualify as an intentional arrangement or a symmetry. In short, the alleged "symmetry of ten generations before the Flood and ten generations after the Flood" (Kitchen 1966, p. 37 cf. Geraty 1974, p. 15) is non-existent in the Hebrew text. Thus the analogy with the three series of fourteen generations in Matthew 1:1-17 is a non sequitur.
Let us return briefly to the matter of the "second" Cainan (Kenan) which is found in certain Septuagint manuscripts, making ten generations in the Greek translation alone (and in the pseudepigraphical book of Jubilees). The Septuagint assigns to Cainan (Kenan) 130 years before the birth of his son and 330 years thereafter. The fact that these figures are identical with the ones of Selach who follows him makes the existence of this Cainan suspect. The question as to what text is original is assessed by J. Skinner as follows: "That this is a secondary alteration [in the LXX] is almost certain, because (a) it is wanting in 1 Ch 1:18,24 LXX (b) Kenan already occurs in the former genealogy (5:9ff.) and (c) the figures [assigned to Kenan] simply duplicate those of Shelach" (Skinner 1930, p.231). It seems reasonable to assume that this "second" Cainan (Kenan) is a later scribal addition in the Septuagint. It may be occasioned by an attempt to schematize, which is characteristic of the Septuagint version in Genesis 5 and 11.

The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:1-17 is selective and discontinuous. For example, in Matthew 1:8 it is stated that "Joram begat Uzziah" but passages such as 2 Kings 8:25,11:2 14:1, 21 indicate that the continuous line of descent from Joram to Uzziah was Joram-Ahaziah-Joash-Amaziah-Uzziah. Three intermediary generations were omitted. The intent of Matthew 1:8 according to Kitchen is thus "Joram begat (the line culminating in) Uzziah" (Kitchen 1966, p. 38). As far as Matthew is concerned, this is quite correct, but the chronological conclusion drawn from this genealogical data, namely that "A begat (the line culminating in) B" as far as "chronology is concerned" (Kitchen 1966, p. 38) is unwarranted. The data of Matthew do not support a chronological argument because the Matthean genealogy lacks in toto any kind of chronological or time information. Matthew speaks of father-son or ancestor-descendant relationships, but it does not contain a genealogy with time specifications. The literary form of Matthew's genealogy is not that of a chronogenealogy. This point is too obvious for the careful reader and does not need to be belabored.

The formulae used in Matthew and Genesis 5 and 11 are radically different. We have noted already that Genesis 5 has a consistent formula, with few minor exceptions, that reads, "When PN1 had lived x years, he fathered PN2. And PN1 lived after he fathered PN2y years, and he fathered other sons and daughters. And all the days of PN1 were z years." Genesis 11 has essentially the same formula, but omits consistently the last clause, "And all the days of PN1 were z years." The formula in Matthew on the contrary is simply, "PN1 begat PN2" with slight variations when the mother of PN2 is also mentioned.

Those who suggest an analogy between Genesis 5 and 11 and Matthew 1 (or other genealogies in the Bible) are faced with momentous difficulties: 1) Genesis 5 and 11 do not have a ten-ten schema that would correspond to Matthew's fourteen-fourteen-fourteen generation schema. Genesis 5 lists ten generations and Genesis 11 only nine. 2) The structures of the formulae in Genesis 5 and 11 are diverse from the ones in other genealogies. 3) Only Genesis 5 and 11 have time specifications, and they reflect the literary form of chronogenealogy. 4) The supposition that Genesis 5 and 11 are discontinuous "leaves the Bible's detailed list of figures as generally pointless and also posits an unusually high proportion of omitted links" (Payne 1976, p. 831).
Our considerations of the biblical evidence regarding the question of the continuous line of descent in Genesis 5 and 11:10-26 has indicated that the arguments against the apparent continuous line of descent in these chapters are far from compelling. The fact that some biblical genealogies have a discontinuous line of descent and in turn lack any interlocking chronological information of spans of life can hardly function as a key to determine that Genesis 5 and 11 are also discontinuous. The internal nature of Genesis 5 and 11, the usage of their own formula, and the interlocking nature of the time specifications do not allow that these chronogenealogies are anything but presenting a continuous line of descent. Where this is denied, it has to be frankly admitted that it is done at the expense of the unique nature of the material in Genesis 5 and 11 when compared to similar material in the Bible and the ancient Near East. In other words, the uniqueness of Genesis 5 and 11 in both their literary forms and contents must be disregarded and leveled out to bring these chapters to the place where a one-by-one correspondence with other genealogies or lists can be meaningful. We question the soundness of this methodological procedure.

As regards the archaeological-historical and prehistorical time frames that stand in tension with the computation of the chronological information of Genesis 5 and 11, the issues turn around the validity and force of one over the other. Here the question of the historicity of Genesis 5 and 11, the authority of the biblical materials when in conflict with historical reconstruction and/or scientific interpretations, and related matters appear in full force. There is a scholarly tradition that argues that wherever and whenever the conclusions of historians, scientists, sociologists, etc., are in disagreement with the Bible, the Bible will have to be reinterpreted to be brought into harmony with these conclusions. Another scholarly position is not so ready to yield everything outside of faith and conduct to the norms of the investigator, but maintains that where the Bible impinges on subjects such as history, geography, ethnology, botany, astronomy, etc., it is trustworthy. Thus the Word of God is seen to impinge on historical, scientific and other phenomena. For them the subordinating of biblical reports to modern scientific reconstructions and interpretations remains highly problematic and reverses the structure of authority.


There are two major types of interpretations of the chronological information in Genesis 5 and 11. These types of interpretation are closely associated with the stance taken by the respective interpreters on the textual, historical-archaeological, biblical-genealogical, and literary forms. It will be our attempt to describe succinctly positions for both the non-historical and the historical interpretations. In addition to being descriptive, we will attempt to be evaluative, indicating respective strengths and weaknesses wherever possible.

A. Non-Historical Interpretations

There are several interpretations of Genesis 5 and 11 which are non-historical. They share in common the view that the figures or time specifications have meaning, but that this meaning is found in either a system or schema and lacks any historical-chronological significance for the construction of a chronology.

1.- The "Great Year" System
A schematization of Genesis 5 and 11 as well as all Old Testament chronology was popularized by the famous OT critic Julius Wellhausen. He, as with others before him (e.g., T. Noeldeke and A. Dillmann), suggested that the figures in Genesis 5 and 11 along with other OT chronological information reflect an artificial schema. These critics shared a generally low view of the historical value of the OT and particularly its chronological data which they believed reflected a schematization of exilic origins. Following earlier scholars, Wellhausen suggested that the schema of a "Great Year" of 4000 years is followed, i.e., the period from Adam to the Exodus is 2666 years or 26 2/3 generations of 100 years each. This is 2/3 of a world cycle of 4000 years (Wellhausen 1965, p. 308). The remaining 1/3 of the "Great Year" of 4000 years is accounted for from the building of Solomon's temple 480 years after the Exodus (1 Kings 6:1), i.e., A.M. 3146, and an additional 430 years assigned to the kings of Judah reaching down to the fall of Jerusalem (see Curtis 1898, pp. 401-403). To this must be added 50 years for the exile. The computation of these years add up to A.M. 3626 which is correlated with the edict of Cyrus in 538 B.C. From there to the rededication of the Temple by the Maccabees in 164 B.C. is 374 years and completes the "Great Year" of 4000 years (cf. Johnson 1969, p. 32 Kuhl 1961, p. 62).

This schematic hypothesis is very problematic, because of difficulties in computing in order to arrive at certain spans of time needed for the "Great Year." Several such problems may be mentioned. 1) The year A.M. 2666 from Adam to the Exodus is incorrect. The Masoretic text provides from Adam to Abraham 1948 years to which must be added the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 and 290 years of Genesis 21:5 25:26 47:9. The total amounts to 2668 years and not 2666 years. In other words, the year of the flood is missing as is the time to the birth of Shem's son. 2) The period of the Judean kings from the building of the Temple in 970 B.C. down to 586 B.C., the destruction of Jerusalem, is 384 years and not 430 years. There is a discrepancy of 46 years. 3) The captivity did not last 50 years but 70 years (Jeremiah 25:1), the first 19 years of captivity having begun in 605 B.C. (Daniel 1:1), are concurrent with the period of Judean kings. From 586 B.C. to 538 B.C. there are but 48 years. 4) It does not fit the best chronological evidence at hand for the schema to come out to 164 B.C. 5) Furthermore, the assumption that the biblical chronology was revised in the Maccabean period is without textual and historical support (Johnson 1969, pp. 32-33) and contradicted by the canonization of the OT (Leiman 1976). This and similar schematic systems (cf. Skinner 1930, pp. 234-235) hardly recommend themselves on the basis of the current state of archaeological and historical information.

2. The "Secret System"
Two Swedish scholars have attempted to correlate the entire OT chronology from creation to the return from Exile on the basis of what they consider to be a "secret system" which they believe Hebrew scribes devised. They believe that these scribes corrected the Hebrew text of the OT to suit their scribal schematization (Stenring 1966 Larsson 1973).

Stenring's study is influenced by Jewish cabalistic speculations. His hypothesis is built upon the view that there was originally a twelve-book canon of the OT which contained only the Pentateuch, the historical books (Former Prophets) and 1-2 Chronicles, including Ezra 1:1-3:7, and Jeremiah and Ezekiel. This supposedly original canon experienced a scribal redaction with a "chronology [that] seems to have been deliberately hidden" (Larsson 1973, p. 3). The chronological dates were correct, "not always historically, of course, but as part of a system" (Larsson 1973, p. 7). The secret system of the scribes consisted of the taking of the lunar calendar of 354 days, a solar calendar of 365 days, and the Canopus intercalated calendar of 366 days. These three calendars started from the first day of creation and ran parallel thereafter (Stenring 1966, pp. 8-10). The test for this hypothesis was applied by the mathematician Larsson on the basis of statistical probability.

The figures of Genesis 5 and 11 are part of the "secret system" of Hebrew scribes as is all chronological information in the OT. The figures that Stenring and Larsson have for Genesis 5 are 1657 years with the lunar calendar, 1607 with the solar calendar, and 1606 years with the standard (intercalated) calendar (Larsson 1973, p. 104). The birth of Abraham took place respectively in the years 1880, 1823, and 1822 from creation (Larsson 1973, p. 106). These figures are part of the "secret system" and are not to be correlated with historical dates.

Among advantages of this "secret system" is the fact that the chronological information in Genesis 5 and 11 as well as the entire OT is taken seriously and consecutively computed. Among the weaknesses are: 1) Its failure to correlate the information with extrabiblical data (DeVries 1976, p. 162) 2) the lack of evidence for the large-scale revision of the chronological information of the OT by Hebrew scribes 3) the lack of evidence for the supposed twelve book canon 4) the alleged arbitrariness of Hebrew scribes with this type of information when the OT has by and large a strong sense of history and 5) the fact that the most difficult chronological area in the OT, i.e., the numbers of the Hebrew kings, has been successfully solved in recent years by sound correlations with extrabiblical literary and historical data. The Bible's chronology is not systematically schematic. It demonstrates itself to be historical time and again.

3. Systems of Figures
Various scholars attach meaning to the figures in Genesis 5 and 11 on the basis of a variety of systems. In some instances the systems of figures are part of numerology and in others they are not.

The famous Jewish exegete U. Cassuto suggests that the figures in Genesis 5 (and 11) "are multiples of five with the addition of seven" (Cassuto 1961, p. 260). An earlier attempt notes that the figures for the antediluvian patriarchs can be computed by 39 × 42 years and the period of time from creation to Abraham's entry into Canaan by 6 × 7 × 7 × 7 or 42 × 49 years (Fischer 1911, pp. 242, 251). It is striking that in the latter case the textual information has to be adjusted to fit the scheme.

Another scholar builds his system on the sum of certain numbers such as 735 which is 15 × 49, i.e., the ages of begetting Noah, Shem, and Arphachshad total 500 + 100 + 135 = 735 or 15 jubilees of 49 years (Meysing 1962, 1965). According to this system Abraham was born "exactly 40 jubilees after 1 A.M." (Meysing 1962, p. 28). For this system to work, because there is a discrepancy of computation, the child needs to be born in each instance exactly nine months, or ¾ of one year, after it was fathered according to the biblical text. Even if this precision were granted — and the text knows nothing of this — there is still a computational discrepancy of several months that has to be left out of consideration. The text also gives no hint why one should add the ages of but three — and why these three — patriarchs to arrive at the 15 × 49 = 735 years.

Other attempts suggest a symmetrical or symbolical system of the number "seven" (Makleot 1956/7, pp. 234-236) or claims that there is a "seventh generation" convention (Sasson 1976, p. 355).

These systems of figures share in common the view that there is some kind of meaning behind the figures, the key of which has to be recovered. The suggested keys do not fit as easily as one thinks. At times the text is adjusted to make the key fit at other times the suggestion is forced to add time information outside Genesis 5 and 11. The disparity between the various systems has not recommended them to many scholars. Yet they are serious attempts to find meaning in the figures of Genesis 5 and 11. The figures are not simply dismissed as meaningless.

4. The Discontinuous System
The discontinuous system holds that the lists of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 and 11 is discontinuous. It "assume[s] that a number of links have dropped out and that only a number of patriarchs are listed" (Horn 1975, p. 340). Based upon this assumption is the conclusion, "We see in the genealogical lists of Genesis 5 and 11 no absolutely complete records, but only selections or excerpts of longer lists of generations" (Horn 1975, p. 341). Those who accept the hypothesis of a discontinuous system without a direct succession of one generation to another, from father to son, do so because the creation of man in the near past "is untenable in the light of attested archaeological facts" (Unger 1960, p. 202) and/or because anthropological study does not support it (Kitchen 1966, pp. 35-36). Scholars adopting the hypothesis of a discontinuous system deny that the length between creation and flood can be determined by the figures provided in Genesis 5 (cf. Horn 1975, p. 340) so that "a theory of disconnected patriarchs could thus allow Adam to be dated 100,000 B.C. or earlier" (Payne 1976, p. 831).

Among the advantages of the discontinuous system of interpreting Genesis 5 and 11 is the unlimited freedom it gives to anthropology and archaeology for both historical and prehistorical periods and "the deductions of science" (Green 1979, p. 50). There are also major problems. 1) The theory that Genesis 5 and 11 are selections or excerpts of longer lists of generations is built on historical and scientific premises not present within Scripture. 2) The alleged analogy with other biblical genealogies is dubious on account of the different forms, structures, and purposes of the genealogies in Scripture (see above II.A,C). 3) There is an inability to account for the meaning of the numbers to the birth of the named son. If the sole purpose of the figures had been to indicate the loss of vitality due to sin, then the fathering of the first-named son would be unnecessary. 4) The invitation to add up the numbers is implicit because in the case of each antediluvian patriarch the figures provided before the birth of the named son and the figures provided for the subsequent life-span is added up to provide the total life-span. It is not unreasonable to continue that lead and add up the numbers for the entire periods from Adam to Noah and then from Seth to Terah.

B. Historical Interpretations

At present there are two major historical interpretations, i.e., interpretations that do not dismiss the figures in Genesis 5 and 11 as non-historical. We will describe the more recent approach first and then depict the standard historical interpretation.

1. Successive Method of Reckoning
This method of reckoning counts the years of successive patriarchs. It follows an observation of W. F. Albright who suggested that ancient Near Eastern peoples "dated long periods of lifetimes, not by generations" (Albright 1961, p. 50). An application of this "counting by 'successive' patriarchs [in Genesis 5] would mean, e.g., that while Adam begat an ancestor of Seth when he was 130 (Gen. 5:3), Seth (5:6-8) actually arose as Scripture's next prominent figure only after Adam's full life of 930 years (5:4)" (Payne 1976, p. 831). According to this "successive" reckoning the flood occurred 3284 years before Abraham and the creation of Adam 8225 years before the flood (Payne 1976, p. 831), i.e., in 5458 B.C. and 13,683 B.C. respectively, if the birth of Abraham is dated to ca. 2170 B.C.

The successive method of reckoning is an accommodation to the needs of current historical study of the ancient world. History based on written records began in both Mesopotamia and Egypt at ca. 3000 B.C. This approach accounts admirably for the historical periods of the ancient Near East. However, the first indications of sedentary life in the Near East is presently dated between 9000 and 7000 B.C. The relative chronology also dates the beginnings of Jericho to ca. 7000 B.C. Thus a flood at about 5500 B.C. is of help, but if the dating procedures for the prehistoric period, i.e., before ca. 3000 B.C., are accepted, then this successive method of reckoning would still not be long enough.

A distinct difficulty of the successive method of reckoning is evident in the biblical text. The repeated phrase "and he fathered PN" (wayyôled É et-PN) appears fifteen times in the OT all of them in Genesis 5 and 11. In two additional instances the names of three sons are provided (Genesis 5:32 11:26). The same verbal form as in this phrase (i.e., wayyôled) is employed another sixteen times in the phrase "and he fathered (other) sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:4, 7, 10, etc. 11:11, 13, 17, etc.). Remaining usages of this verbal form in the Hiphil in the book of Genesis reveal that the expression "and he fathered" (wayyôled) is used in the sense of a direct physical offspring (Genesis 5:3 6:10). A direct physical offspring is evident in each of the remaining usages of the Hiphil of wayyôled, "and he fathered," in the OT (Judges 11:1 1 Chronicles 8:9 14:3 2 Chronicles 11:21 13:21 24:3). The same expression reappears twice in the genealogies in 1 Chronicles where the wording "and Abraham fathered Isaac" (1 Chronicles 1:34 cf. 5:37 [6:11]) rules out that the named son is but a distant descendant of the patriarch instead of a direct physical offspring. Thus the phrase "and he fathered PN" in Genesis 5 and 11 cannot mean Adam "begat an ancestor of Seth." The view that Seth and any named son in Genesis 5 and 11 is but a distant descendant falters in view of the evidence of the Hebrew language used.

2. Overlapping Method of Reckoning
This approach is one that is employed for about two millennia. It counts for each patriarch only the years prior to the birth of his named son. The most famous system of "overlapping" reckoning is that used by Archbishop James Ussher as advocated in his Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti (1650-54). His system met with so much success that the dates he presented have been entered into the margins of English Bibles since 1679. Ussher calculated the birth of Jesus to have occurred in 4 B.C. and fixed the date for creation at 4004 B.C. Although many NT scholars today subscribe to Ussher's date for the birth of Jesus, the fact that his chronology places the beginning of creation exactly 4000 years before the birth of Jesus has led to the suggestion that Ussher's calculation of 4004 B.C., although dependent upon his reconstruction of OT chronological material, may have been influenced by a Jewish midrash quoted twice in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 97a Abod. Zar. 9a).This midrash speaks of two times two millennia (i.e., 4000 years) before the age of the Messiah was to begin, an age that also is to last two millennia (Leeman 1977). However this may be, Ussher did not yet understand the period of the Hebrew kings and thus dated the building of the Temple in Solomon's fourth year (1 Kings 6:1) to 1012 B.C., whereas current knowledge makes it possible to pinpoint it to 970 B.C. He dated the Exodus to 1491 B.C., whereas we reckon it to have taken place in ca. 1450 B.C. The birth of Abraham is dated to ca. 1995 B.C. which means that Ussher followed the Septuagint reading for Exodus 12:40. Reckoning back from this date by means of Genesis 11, Ussher arrived at this date and at the date of 2349 B.C. for the flood. In arriving at this date and at the date of 4004 B.C. for creation, Ussher selected data from the Hebrew text and the Greek Septuagint translation. Ussher's date of 4004 B.C. can no longer stand, because there is no sound rationale for the selective use of chronological data from the Hebrew text (MT) and/or the Greek translation (LXX).

Approximate dates for the flood as derived from the overlapping method have already been shown in Charts B and C above. The figures and dates in Charts A-C have been presented to indicate the variations in the major textual recensions. The difficult matter of the priority of the respective figures has been discussed previously (Hasel 1980). Many Christians still believe that reckoning by the overlapping method is the one most consistent with the biblical text.

The major weakness of the overlapping method of reckoning is its head-on conflict with standard interpretations of time needed for prehistoric and historical reconstructions. These kinds of conflicts have led certain scholars to posit gaps in the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 and to argue for a discontinuous line of descent. Serious problems in these approaches and the dubious nature of the arguments used in their support were analyzed above. In this writer's opinion the basic issue is whether modern reconstructions of ancient history and prehistory are an authoritative norm for the interpretation or reinterpretation of the Bible. If this is the case, then modern man's historical and scientific endeavors are raised to the level of an absolute norm. It follows that the Bible must yield in these areas of conflict. A contrary view is that ultimate authority for knowledge and faith is provided in the superior revelation of God in the Bible, and whenever biblical information impinges on matters of history, age of the earth, origins, etc., the data observed must be interpreted and reconstructed in view of this superior divine revelation which is supremely embodied in the Bible.

Some would argue that Genesis 1-11, including the genealogies, are but theology and not history, that is, these chapters are primeval history in the sense that they do not provide us verifiable history, but rather testimonies that emphasize that God is Creator, Sustainer, Savior and Judge. This view is also an accommodation to the physical and life sciences and is the result of an acceptance of modernistic and/or evolutionary patterns of the origin and history of our planet and life thereon.


There is no doubt that time and its progression functions in a most profound way in the Bible. This is evident from the beginning. Genesis creation is intended to be the beginning or opening of history. History begins with time and space and consists of functions in time and space. The Genesis creation account is part of a history which contains numbers and time sequences. The genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11:10-26 contribute to the progression of time in Scripture. They trace humankind in time and through time forward to two heroes: Noah, who survives the flood with his family, and Terah, who becomes the father of the progenitor of God's people. The succession from father to son together with the spans of time indicates God's blessing and grace in view of sin and death. People spread to the farthest reaches of time (Genesis 5 and 11) and space (Genesis 10). It was God's purpose that humankind proceed in an unbroken chain of generations in space and time. In this sense, Genesis 5 and 11:10-26 is both historical and theological, linking Adam with the rest of humankind and God with man in the realm of the reaches of space and time. Genesis 5 and 11:10-26 provide the time framework and human chain that link God's people with the man whom God created as the climax of the six-day creation event of this planet.

  • Albright, W. F.1961. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163:36-54.
  • Cassuto, U. 1961. A commentary on the book of Genesis: from Adam to Noah. Magnes Press, Jerusalem.
  • Curtis, E. L. 1898. Chronology of the OT. Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, pp. 401-403. Scribner's Sons, New York.
  • DeVries, C. 1976. Chronology of Egypt. Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, pp. 253-255. Abingdon Press, Nashville.
  • DeVries, S.J. 1976. Chronology of the OT. Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, pp. 161-166. Abingdon Press, Nashville.
  • Fischer, O. 1971. Die Chronologie des Priesterkodex und ihre Umgestaltungen. Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 31:241-255.
  • Geraty, L. T. 1974. The Genesis genealogies as an index of time. Spectrum 6(1-2):5-18.
  • Green, W. H. 1979. The unity of the book of Genesis. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  • Hartman, T. C. 1972. Some thoughts on the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5 and 11B. Journal of Biblical Literature 91:25-32.
  • Hasel, G. F. 1978. The genealogies of Gen 5 and 11 and their alleged Babylonian background. Andrews University Seminary Studies 16:361-374.
  • Hasel, G. F. 1980. Genesis 5 and 11: chronogenealogies in the biblical history of beginnings. Origins 7:23-37.
  • Horn, S. H. 1959. A revolution in the early chronology of Egypt. Ministry (June 1959), pp. 29-33.
  • Horn, S. H. 1960. Seventh-day Adventist Bible dictionary. Review & Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C.
  • Horn, S. H. 1975. Chronology of the OT. In C. F. Pfeiffer et al., eds. Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, Vol.1, pp. 339-346. Moody Press, Chicago.
  • Johnson, M. D. 1969. The purpose of the biblical genealogies. Cambridge University Press. New York.
  • Jones, F. A. 1909. The dates of Genesis. A comparison of the biblical chronology with that of other nations. Kingsgate Press, London.
  • Kitchen, K. A. 1966. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.
  • Kuhl, C. 1961. The Old Testament. John Knox Press, Richmond, Virginia.
  • Larsson, G. 1973. The secret system. Brill, Leiden.
  • Leeman, S. 1977. Was Bishop Ussher's chronology influenced by a midrash? Semeia 8:127-130.
  • Leiman, Z. 1976. The canonization of Hebrew scriptures. Shoestring Press, Hamden, Connecticut.
  • Makleot, S. 1956/7. Zur Zahlemsymmetry in der Adamiten- und Semitenliste. Bibel und Liturgie 24:234-236.
  • Meysing, J. 1962. The biblical chronologies of the patriarchs. Christian News from Israel 13(3-4):26-30.
  • Meysing, J. 1965. Contribution a l'etude des genealogies bibliques. Revue des Sciences Religieuses 39:209-229.
  • Oswalt, J. N. 1979. Chronology of the OT. In G. W. Bromiley, ed. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Revised, Vol.1, pp. 673-685. Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  • Payne, J. B. 1976. Chronology of the Old Testament. Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  • Rowton, M. B. 1960. The date of the Sumerian King List. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 19:158-162.
  • Sasson, J. M. 1976. Seventh generation. Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, pp. 354-356. Abingdon Press, Nashville.
  • Skinner, J. 1930. Genesis. 2nd ed. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh.
  • Speiser, E. A. 1964. Genesis. Doubleday, Garden City, New York.
  • Stenring, R. 1966. The enclosed garden. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.
  • Thiele, E. R. 1965. The mysterious numbers of the Hebrew kings. Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
  • Tindel, R. D. 1976. Mesopotamian chronology. Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, pp. 158-161. Abingdon Press, Nashville.
  • Unger, M. F. 1960. Unger's Bible dictionary. Moody Press, Chicago.
  • von Rad, G. 1961. Genesis: a commentary. Westminster Press, Philadelphia.
  • Wellhausen, J. 1965. Prolegomenon to the history of ancient Israel. Reprint of the 1883 edition. Meridian Books, Cleveland.
  • Wilson, R. R. 1977. Genealogy and history in the biblical world. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Related Articles

Beauty and Intelligent Design –by Bernard Brandstater

We are warned in Romans 1:20 that those who observe God’s handiwork yet do not believe “are without excuse.” Before the artist-Creator we must stand in awe.

CURTIS Genealogy

WikiTree is a community of genealogists growing an increasingly-accurate collaborative family tree that's 100% free for everyone forever. Please join us.

Please join us in collaborating on CURTIS family trees. We need the help of good genealogists to grow a completely free shared family tree to connect us all.


The aircraftofCurtiss

At the urging of the Aeronautical Society of New York to represent it in the 1909 Gordon Bennett Cup Race .

The first Curtiss-built aeroplane designated as such was the single-seat model ordered by the Aeronautical Society of New York on 2 March, .

In 1909, Glenn Curtiss decided to try for the $10,000 prize posted by the New York World newspaper for the first .

The first successful flight of what was originally called a hydroaeroplane or simply hydro, but is now known as a seaplane, .

The Model D was typical of the relatively obsolescent landplane types being built at the time in the United States, .

The second Curtiss hydro was a notable exception to the standard pusher design. The un-named machine that Curtiss used for his flight .

The first Curtiss flying-boat, tried at San Diego on 10 January, 1912, was more a hydro than a true boat. A .

The definitive 1913 Model F was used by the US Army as well as the US Navy, and sold to .

The Curtiss JN-4 two-seat biplane soon acquired the nickname 'Jenny' which was used widely during the inter-war years. It was .

At the beginning of 1915 there appeared the prototype Curtiss Model R, which was in 1935 given the retrospective designation .

The S-2 was essentially lhe Model S-1 fitted with new wings and a strut arrangement that eliminalcd the need .

Four examples of the Model L-2 triplane were built, three for the US Navy and one for the US Army.

Also called Baby Scout, the original Model S-1 was the smallest aeroplane that Curtiss could build around the 90hp OX engine. Construction .

At the time of its construction in 1915-16, the Curtiss Model T flying boat was the largest seaplane in the world. .

During 1917 the US Navy Bureau of Construction and Repair collaborated with Glenn Curtiss in an effort to produce a .

Essentially a triplane derivative of the S-2 Wireless (signifying lack of wing bracing wires) unarmed biplane "scout", the S-3, or "Triplane .

A refined version of the S-3 with revised strutting carrying the centre section of the upper wing and the root attachments .

The Curtiss H.16, the prototype of which appeared at the end of 1917, was the largest and most effective American .

This was a triplane similar to the S-3 intended as a seaplane Scout for the US Navy. This was .

In early 1917, before the wartime ban on private flying in the US, the famous aviatrix Katherine Stinson commissioned Curtiss to .

During 1917, the US Navy issued the Curtiss company with a contract for five single-seat fighting scout float seaplanes powered by a .

The CB (Curtiss Battleplane), unofficially known as the "Liberty Battler", was an experimental two-seat fighter developed and flown early in 1918 as .

Designed by Capt B L Smith of the US Marine Corps as a two-seat patrol fighter floatplane for use in the .

The third HA float fighter prototype embodied considerable redesign as the HA-2. Powered by a 12- cylinder Liberty 12 water-cooled engine, .

Designed by Charles B Kirkham, the Curtiss 18-T twoseat fighter triplane was ordered by the US Navy on 30 March 1918 when .

US Army interest in the 18-T prompted Curtiss to offer the same basic design in two-bay biplane configuration, and an order .

The first single-seat fighter of indigenous US design to achieve production status, the Model D was conceived around the 300hp Hispano-Suiza H .

Designed by the US Army Engineering Division as a specialised single-seat night fighter, two prototypes of the PN-1 were built by Curtiss, .

With the usual US Army/US Navy rivalry, the US Army decided it must have racing aircraft, Curtiss building for them .

Progenitor of the famous Hawk series of fighters, the PW-8 (the "PW" prefix indicating "Pursuit Water-cooled") was a single-seat two-bay fighter biplane .

The first Curtiss fighter built under the US Navy designating system combining type, sequence of design and manufacturer, the F4C-1 (F2C and .

In March 1925, the US Navy ordered nine P-1s with provision for float operation as F6Cs (the F5C designation was not .

On 7 March 1925, Curtiss was awarded a contract for 15 production examples of the XPW-8B as the P-1, this being .

The first Curtiss biplane to bear the name Falcon was the Liberty-powered Curtiss L-113 (Model 37) which appeared in 1924. .

The first radial-engined Hawk resulted from the mating of a P-1A airframe with a 390hp Curtiss R-1454 engine as the XP-3 .

Installation of the new 600hp Curtiss V-1570-1 Conqueror engine in a P-2 airframe for participation in the September 1927 air races at .

The first Curtiss fighter designed from the outset for shipboard use as opposed to being an adaptation of a land-based fighter, the .

In development at the same time as the Keystone XB-1, the Curtiss XB-2 was quite similar but proved to be the superior aircraft. .

To meet a US Marine Corps requirement for a two-seat fighter with bombing and observation capability, Curtiss adapted the airframe of the .

A USAAC contract placed on 14 May 1927 called for five aircraft with airframes essentially similar to that of the P-1, .

On 18 June 1928, the USAAC placed a contract with Curtiss for one prototype of the XP-10 single-seat fighter powered by a .

Although designated in the F8C series, the XF8C-2 and XF8C-4 differed extensively from the F8C-1 and -3, and were dual-role .

The XP-17 comprised the airframe of the first P-1 mated to the new 480hp Wright V-1460-3 Tornado inverted inline air-cooled engine, .

During 1928, the 600hp Curtiss H-1640 Chieftain 12- cylinder air-cooled radial appeared to show promise as a fighter power plant, and Curtiss .

Designed to meet a lightweight shipboard fighter requirement - other contenders being the Berliner Joyce XFJ-1 and General Aviation XFA-1 - the .

The quest for speed led to the production of two competing monoplane prototypes to meet a US Army attack bomber .

In 1931, the third production P-6 (which had been converted to P-6A standard) was withdrawn from service and returned to Curtiss .

Not to be confused with the Curtiss B-2 or its 18-passenger Condor airliner development, the Condor was a 15-passenger commercial .

The XP-31 or Curtiss Shrike of 1932-3 was an all-metal, low wing, strut-braced fighter design which drew heavily upon the .

The Curtiss XP-23 was the last biplane in the pursuit series. In most respects an entirely new design and a .

The first YA-8 was used to test the feasibility of producing a radial engine-powered version of the Curtiss A-8. .

The Hawk II was essentially an export version of the XF11C-2 with a Wright R-1820F-3 Cyclone rated at 710hp at 1676m .

The fourth production F11C-2 (Goshawk) was completed with manually-operated retractable main undercarriage members accommodated by a deepened forward fuselage. It was powered .

Based on a US Navy Bureau of Aeronautics design for a two-seat fighter, the XF12C-1 all-metal parasol monoplane, ordered on 30 June .

Perhaps the most unusual single-seat fighter developed by Curtiss was the Model 70, which was designed from the outset to be flown .

On 16 April 1932, the US Navy ordered two prototypes of a new shipboard fighter under the designations XF11C-1 and XF11C-2, the .

The US Army had ordered 46 of the A-8B Shrike, but maintenance problems with the liquid-cooled engines of the .

Last of the Curtiss biplanes to be used operationally by the US Navy, the SOC Seagull has a service history .

Requiring a new two-seat fighter, the US Navy ordered a prototype from Curtiss in 1932 under the designation XF12C-1. .

The P-36 or Curtiss Model 75 Hawk, commonly called the Mohawk, began life as a private venture, soldiered bravely .

Soon after receiving an order from the USAAC for an evaluation quantity of its Model 75 fighter, Curtiss began to consider .

The CW-19L Coupe was designed by George Page as an advanced all-metal two-seat cantilever low-wing monoplane for the private owner. .

Designed by Donovan R Berlin to participate in a USAAC fighter contest scheduled to take place on 27 May 1935, the Model .

The export version of the BF2C-1, the Hawk III, differed from the US Navy fighter-bomber in reverting to the wooden wing .

The 'long-nosed' P-37 was a Curtiss attempt in the late 1930s to couple the P-36 Mohawk design with the .

One of the early production Curtiss P-36 aircraft was given an 864.4kW Allison V-1710-19 (G-13) engine (and designated XP-40) instead .

Completed late in 1938 as a company-owned demonstrator, the Hawk 75-R was essentially similar to the USAAC's P-36A. Its Pratt & .

In 1938, chief engineer Willis Wells of the St Louis Airplane Division of the Curtiss-Wright Corporation began the development of a single-seat .

The Curtiss XP-42, a conversion of a P-36A Mohawk airframe, was employed as a testbed at Wright Field, Ohio, beginning .

In 1937 the US Navy invited proposals for the design of a scout monoplane which would offer improved performance over .

The experimental contract for the Helldiver was awarded by the US Navy on 15 May 1939 and the prototype XSB2C-1 .

The Commando was evolved from the Curtiss-Wright CW-20 which was originally laid out as a 36-passenger pressurised commercial transport in .

The prototype Curtiss Wright CW-22 two-seat low-wing general-purpose or advanced training monoplace was developed at the Curtiss-Wright St Louis factory in .

Prior to the final termination of P-40 development, some effort was expended in combining aerodynamic refinement with increased power to produce .

The P-60 designation applies to a family of widely different Curtiss fighters, each reflecting the urgency of the builder's unsuccessful .

The XP-46 of 1939 was a late attempt by Curtiss to capitalize on lessons from early fighting in Europe and .

In 1940, with Europe already at war, the US Army Air Corps knew that it was essential to begin preparations .

The Curtiss XP-55 Ascender is perhaps best known of the three pusher fighters built for a 1941 competition in response .

On 30 June 1941, Curtiss received a prototype development contract for the XF14C-1 single-seat shipboard fighter designed around the 2,200hp Lycoming XH-2470-4 liquid-cooled .

The Curtiss XP-62 was the final propeller-driven fighter built by its manufacturer and the second largest single-seat fighter of orthodox .

Development of the Curtiss SC Seahawk began in June 1942, when the US Navy requested the company to submit proposals .

In May 1944, Curtiss indicated to the AAF that it wished to abandon further work on the P-60 series fighters because .

In late 1943 Curtiss received a US Navy order for two single-seat torpedo-bomber aircraft prototypes under the designation XBTC-1. A .

US Navy interest in the mixed-power concept for shipboard fighters - aircraft employing a piston engine for cruise and an auxiliary turbojet .

The Curtiss XF-87 Blackhawk fighter was an eye-catching and truly graceful all-black aircraft which attracted plenty of attention in flights .

One of the most idiosyncratic documentary filmmakers working today, Adam Curtis has returned with an audacious study of our current climate in a six-part BBC series. Michael J. Brooks meets Curtis to find out more


Whenever faced with grumbling questions about the value of the BBC licence fee – why is Casualty still in a Saturday night slot after about 75 years, why is the news editorial often of questionable veracity or integrity? – to this writer, at least, the rebuttal is always: “Yeah but… Adam Curtis.”

At 65, having spent the best part of 40 years creating documentary films for the BBC, Adam Curtis has become a lauded yet still rather cult-like figure with a style and approach to storytelling that is entirely his own. He is easily the most intelligent and engaging documentary filmmaker working today, and his new series Can’t Get You Out of My Head: An Emotional History of the Modern World could be the finest work of his career.

Spanning eight hours over six episodes, the series presents an audacious and frequently mind-boggling attempt to explain how we got to the present moment: turbulent and chaotic times in which nothing ever fundamentally seems to change, during which those in power have lost the ability either to make sense of it or offer a way out to something better. It is an exploration of how, throughout history, different characters from all over the world have sought to break through the stasis and corruption of their time and transform reality – and how very often in so doing, have unleashed powerful forces that would ultimately lead to their destruction.

Adam Curtis being Adam Curtis, the films are awash with an extraordinary collage of sounds and musical set-pieces: the Mekons over a slideshow of conspiracy targets the Sex Pistols’ ‘Who Killed Bambi?’ over the Red Guards wreaking havoc across China Headless Heroes’ poignant version of ‘True Love Will Find You in the End’ The Specials’ ‘Do Nothing’ Schneider TM’s glitchy reworking of ‘There is a Light That Never Goes Out’.

As is also characteristic of Curtis, multiple narrative plates are kept masterfully spinning in the air throughout, criss-crossing and interlinking in fascinating ways: the two friends behind the Discordianism movement who set out to demonstrate the insanity of conspiracies Jiang Qing, whose frustrated acting ambitions would see her unleash furious anger through her husband Mao’s Cultural Revolution Daniel Kahneman trying to understand the human brain Michael X raging against ‘Englishism’ in 1960s Notting Hill Afeni Shakur (Tupac’s mother) running away from home to join the Black Panthers the opioid epidemic, MK:Ultra, Project Iceworm, the Soviet collapse, the Mau Mau uprising, Booleian logic, complexity theory, artificial intelligence, the JFK assassination, and so much more.

Even by Curtis’ standards, the pace of ideas is close to overwhelming at times, but still feels like genuinely essential viewing to grapple with the maelstrom of the present and attain something close to a clearer line of visibility through. I spoke with Curtis about the new series, the failure of any alternative vision to come to the fore, his unique filmmaking style, his relationship with music, and more.

The Quietus: The broad hypothesis of the series is one that you explored through the prism of Afghanistan in ‘Bitter Lake’ and the Soviet Union in ‘HyperNormalisation’. What drew you to the concept of widening the scope out further?

Adam Curtis: I became quite shocked by how extraordinary the disconnect had become. Although there was great hysteria over Brexit and Donald Trump, if you pulled back and looked at what was really happening over the past four years, nothing changed in terms of the structure of power.

The films attempt to look at all the different things from starting about 70 years ago onwards, that at that time seemed to be completely separate. On the one hand, you had a growing melancholy in this country about the loss of the Empire and an emergent anger among the white working class. On the other, labs in America were beginning to develop AI, and money was beginning to rise as a powerful force that would replace the old ideologies of the past. I wanted to trace how like little rivers these things were flowing towards the uncertainty of now, and how they joined up in really strange ways, often through the actions and emotions of particular characters.

In the last film, I say why I think we are in this state of stasis and offer three options of where we could choose to go in the future. I don’t tell you what the choice should be, but as a journalist I can point out the directions in which we might be going.


The series opens with a quote from the late David Graeber, but I wonder whether you also took inspiration from Mark Fisher, particularly his argument that at the libidinal level there may not actually be that much desire for a move beyond capitalism?

I knew Mark, he reached out to me when he started writing about how culture is haunting us as he had realised that I’d been writing about that too on my blog. And you are right, both Mark and I shared that suspicion.

One of the things the left has yet to face up to is that if it really wanted to change things, they would have to give up a lot of their own privileges as individuals in the interests of actually helping a lot of people outside the system who are living anxious and uncertain times. In the second film, I tell the story of Michael X, who was a gangster but became a heroic figure for the left in the mid-1960s. But when he came out of prison, he found that all his white supporters had suddenly gone into a kind of commercial lifestyle hippie-dom. I was interested in him as a character because, although he was a nasty and violent man, he had a wry understanding of English white radicalism, that quite a few of the people who dressed as radicals and danced to Black music were still the children of the people who had run the Empire. And might still be wanting to run things.

In the third film you tackle climate change, which you haven’t done to the same extent in your previous work…

I began to notice that since the 1990s the climate change movement had become possessed by a very narrow technocratic solution, focused on just holding the planet’s temperature stable, and I thought this was ignoring power. I wanted to show how coal has a really complex history, it was obviously a key agent of climate change, but was also one of the routes of collective power of the working class, out of which came socialism and all the ideas that you can actually confront and take on privileged power.

I’ve often thought that a lot of the technocratic solutions offered to people on things like climate change try to abstract themselves from the past – it’s a modernist approach to politics. A lot of people in the climate change movement are now realising that – Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Green New Deal are saying the same thing – they need to link it to changing structural power in society now, and I think that’s absolutely right.

You argue that no one is offering alternative visions of the future. Could you argue that in recent years we have seen relatively different visions come very close to power – Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour and Bernie Sanders both with flaws but at least willing to explore new ideas like Universal Basic Income and the Green New Deal?

But they still failed. You’ve got to accept the fact that you’re not giving people a powerful enough idea of an alternative future, one that will attract people who voted for Trump and Brexit, who you need on your side. If you look at what Sanders was saying in the 2016 campaign, it was almost word-for-word what Trump was saying – why have they shipped factories off to China, why are people living in derelict places addicted to opioids, why are we killing thousands of people in foreign wars, why is there so much corrupt lobbying? I still think he might have won in that moment, it’s terrible that the Democrats stitched him up. Remember that many of the people who voted for Trump in 2016 were the same people who voted for Obama, and unless the left really comes up with something bigger that can grab those people imaginatively then some really nasty people, much nastier than Trump, will.

One of the characters that appears in the series is Dominic Cummings. Despite his downfall, his story as a public figure feels incomplete. Do you think you’ll be covering him again in the years to come?

I had time for Cummings because compared to other politicians he actually had some ideas, even if they were completely bonkers. In the last film, I deal with the rise of complexity theory in the early-90s. It has become one of the great mythologies of our time, that through data you can know more about reality than humans do. Fundamentally this is flawed, because it accepts the system as it is, it never asks the question: who designed the system and in whose interest is that system designed? Cummings sensed the anger of places like the North-East, but because he’s a technocrat he didn’t see that by raising that anger it would also give rise to ghosts from the past, from a time when the Empire was falling apart and a magical nostalgic vision of England was invented, that was reaffirmed with the Second World War and later came up through Nigel Farage. So, he was doomed to fail.


You’ve developed such a distinctive visual style, already fully-formed with Pandora’s Box and The Living Dead in the early ‘90s. Did you always have a clear idea stylistically of what you wanted to achieve, or was it more a case of trial-and-error?

It was pure instinct. I was doing what a lot of people were doing in music in the early ’90s – sampling and reworking the past. Out of that did come an aesthetic, but to be honest I never thought it out. Often it came about because I wanted to tell stories about quite abstract things. For example, in Pandora’s Box I wanted to make a sort of funny film about economics. I was just starting out in TV and was almost in tears when editing because I could find nothing to illustrate it and I thought I was going to be sacked. Out of that desperation I started raiding the BBC archive, I remember I even had talking squirrels in it at one point. Stylistically, a lot was born out of that necessity to get things done to a deadline.

Some critics of your work – for example, The Loving Trap parody – argue that what you do is very skilfully create elaborate narratives which make connections and draw parallels that are then presented as objective truth. Do you sometimes worry about being dismissed as part of the ‘conspiracy’ problem?

That parody is very funny and clever, and it made me reflect on myself, which is good. But let’s be clear, I’ve never in any of my films put forward a conspiracy theory. Over the last 20 years, when the mainstream left and right in this country have essentially fused together, out of that has emerged a very strong consensus. In the face of that, the term ‘conspiracy theory’ has transformed itself into a shorthand to describe anyone who challenges that mainstream narrative. My job, which the BBC has tasked me to do, is to provoke people and ask them, “Have you thought about looking at the world this way?” To pull back a bit and look at what is happening in a different way. But that is not a conspiracy theory.

You feature your staple artists in these films – Nine Inch Nails, Aphex Twin – along with a wealth of obscure and interesting others. Are you a music magpie always searching for strange new sounds to use in your films?

No, I just like music, it’s as simple as that. I have in my head lots of music, I’m very picky, but there’s lots that I’m inspired by, usually things that have a kind of modern romanticism. Nine Inch Nails is a very good example, he somehow manages to take noise and make it emotional, as does Burial. They capture that modern mood, somehow raw and machine-like but suffused with deep feelings and melancholy. When I’m editing and I know I’m starting to create a mood, bits of music will pop into my head and I’ll try them out.

There’s a wonderful piece of dark ambient music that you use a lot in these films and also in HyperNormalisation, but I can’t track it down…

I know what you’re referring to. Ever since I started working with Massive Attack we’ve done little bits of music to stitch together between the songs in the shows that we did. It’s very much a collaborative process between me and Robert del Naja, and increasingly I’ve used those in my films. What I’ve discovered is that Massive Attack, as well as being a wonderful band, are also a great covers band, so I can ask them to do a bit of music that sounds like John Carpenter mixed with, for example, the Dead Kennedys! I’ve got a whole load of files from them that I use quite a lot.

And you also use layers of found sound that you record yourself?

Yes, just bits and bobs. There’ll be a strange noise at the end of some news footage and I’ll sometimes play with it acoustically as a kind of sound collage.


What this series showcases, as with your previous work, is your really eclectic taste in music. What’s the best gig you’ve ever been to?

It depends what you mean by best. Lying flat on my back on a pub table listening to Shane from The Pogues hit himself over a head with a tin tray as he sang was an extraordinary experience. But then gazing at Kanye West and Jay-Z perched on top of giant illuminated cubes at the O2 was musically a great experience – but also very strange, because it sort of symbolised what was happening to culture as the new technology rose up to embrace individualism and self-expression.

Two things were raised recently as sure contenders for a future Adam Curtis film. Firstly, the footage of the woman live-streaming her workout in Myanmar as the military coup rolled in behind…

People were saying the coup was a viral marketing campaign on my part. I got sent masses of those videos. Of course, I might have done one of them anonymously…!

Secondly, the Gamestop story. Do you think that perhaps represented the ghosts of the internet’s past, as an anarchic and democratising power re-emerging to take on the elites?

Initially I thought that, but it got more complicated. The Robinhood app portrayed itself as democratising the stock market, but I read that they got their real profits from selling on the data of the people who were doing the trading, just like social media when that was supposed to be a new democracy. And then all sorts of conspiracy theories started cropping up, saying that maybe the traders were actually the puppets of another set of hedge funds trying to destroy that hedge fund. And then the lefties piled in saying, “No it’s not revolutionary because they are trading in and reinforcing capitalism.” At which point I thought, this is typical of our time – what starts off as revolutionary has, within about three days, become a doom-laden mess of people eating each other, all unsure what the fuck it was about.

Why did you stop your BBC blog? Will you ever return to the written medium, with a book perhaps?

It’s quite exhausting and requires a kind of self-consciousness that gets a bit boring after a while, and I don’t want to be on social media. If you analyse my work, you’ll see I’m a very functional writer, there’s nothing fancy about my scripts at all, but I counterpoint what is quite a baroque and wild visual sense with a calm voice anchoring it. Every now and then I get publishers asking me about a book, but I don’t see the point, without the visuals and music I’d be throwing away 75% of what I’m good at.

When you complete a project of this scale, do you kick back for a while or are you always searching out new stories? Have you got your next project in mind already?

I don’t have a next project, but I come out of a journalistic tradition, so I just go and research stories. I have in the back of my mind that the things a lot of people are obsessed with at the moment, the magic of modern technology, may be seen quite soon as rather banal and mundane and a sort of con. I’ve noticed there are people within the advertising world beginning to question whether the idea that Google can actually target people as precisely as they claim might in itself be a bit of a con. Maybe it’s time to realise there are other things out there. So, my brain is tending that way.

‘Can’t Get You Out of My Head’ is now available on BBC iPlayer

Michael J. Brooks is a co-host of Creaky Chair Film Podcast which launches this month

Curtiss P-40 Warhawk development history

The Curtiss P-40 Warhawk evolved from the earlier Curtiss Hawk 75 (P-36 in American service). This radial engine powered fighter first flew in April 1935, and in 1937 was purchased by both the USAAF and the French. However, it soon became clear that the P-36 would not be able to compete with the best fighters being developed in Europe, such as the Supermarine Spitfire or Messerschmitt Bf 109. Accordingly it was decided to replace the radial engine with an Allison chemically cooled in-line engine. The first attempt to achieve this, the XP-37, suffered from poor visibility and an unreliable supercharger.

Work on the XP-40 began in 1938. This would use a modified P-36 fuselage, with the Allison V-1710-19 inline engine, producing 1,050 hp at 10,000 feet. Tests suggested the new aircraft would be fast, but at a relatively low altitude. Work on the prototype began under the terms of a contract issued on 30 July 1938. It first flew on 14 October 1938. The following January the XP-40 won a fighter contest, and the USAAF placed an order for 524 P-40s.

However, the new aircraft did not live up to expectations. Top speed was only 340 mph, twenty miles per hour slower than Curtiss had promised. It would take all of 1939 to fix this problem, until in December 1939 the XP-40 reached 366 mph at 15,000 feet. This put its top speed on a par with the Spitfire I, but at a much lower altitude &ndash the Spitfire peaked at 18,500 feet. The P-40 was now ready to enter full production. The P-40, or Curtiss Hawk H-81, entered production in March 1940. It was thus the most modern fighter available to the USAAF when American entered the Second World War.

The first 199 aircraft produced were simply designated P-40s. They carried two .50 calibre machine guns in the engine cowling, and one .30 calibre machine gun in each wing. The engine was an Allison V-1710-33, producing 1,090 hp. During the production run a second .30 calibre machine gun was added to each wing, giving the P-40 six guns. The production aircraft had a top speed of 357 mph at 15,000 feet, commendably close to that produced by the prototype. 200 of the initial order of 524 were produced before the order was deferred to allow Curtis to build 142 Hawk 81s for the French. This aircraft did not arrive in time for the battle of France, and were instead delivered to Britain, where they were known as Tomahawks.

When USAAF production resumed after the French order, the designation was altered to P-40B. This version adopted pilot armour, a bullet proof windscreen and self-sealing fuel tanks. These changes had to be made on just about every American aircraft in production at the time. The P-40B (Hawk H-81 A-2) could also carry bombs under each wing. The USAAF received 131 P-40Bs. Production of the P-40B began in January 1941, and ended in April of the same year.

The P-40C was the final Hawk 81 model (H-81 A-3). The main change was the addition of an extra fuel tank, capable of carrying 134 gallons. The P-40, P-40B and P-40C were known in RAF service as the Tomahawk, and also equipped the famous Flying Tigers in China. 193 P-40Cs were built for the USAAF, and were delivered between March and April 1941.

The P-40D saw a series of major changes to the aircraft. It used the Allison V-1710-39 engine, which offered more power at higher altitudes than the earlier engines. The two .50 calibre machine guns from the nose were moved to the wings, with the four .30 calibre guns. The type could also carry two 20mm cannon. The most obvious visual change saw the radiators moved forward, giving the aircraft its familiar &ldquoshark mouth&rdquo appearance. The amount of ammunition carried was increased to 615 rounds per gun. The P-40D could carry one 500lb bomb under the fuselage. Both Curtis and the RAF acknowledged the importance of these changes with a change of designation &ndash Curtis to Hawk 87A, and the RAF to Kittyhawk. However, only 42 P-40Ds were built, 22 for the USAAF and 20 for the RAF.

The main change made for the P-40E (Hawk 87A-3) was the replacement of all of the .30 calibre guns with .50 calibre machine guns. This gave the P-40E a total of six .50 calibre machine guns. Eight hundred and twenty of this model were produced for the USAAF.

This refers to 1,500 P-40Es produced to be supplies to the British under lend-lease. This type served with a variety of Commonwealth air forces as the Kittyhawk IA.

The P-40F (H-87D) saw a major change of engine, to the Packard Merlin XX. Otherwise the P-40F was very similar to the P-40E. During the production run the fuselage was made two feet longer, improving directional stability. In RAF service this was known as the Kittyhawk II. The Merlin engine gave the P-40 much better high altitude performance &ndash the Allison engine lost power above 15,000 feet, the Merlin kept going to 19,000 feet.

The P-40K was developed from the P-40E. The main change was the use of the Allison V-1710-73 engine. The extra power this gave caused the same problems as had been faced in the P-40F. The first reaction was to increase the size of the dorsal fin, but later in the production run the longer fuselage used in the P-40F was adopted. The USAAF took delivery of 1,300 P-40Ks. The RAF received 21 of these aircraft as Kittyhawk IIIs.

This was a development of the earlier P-40F, retaining the Packard Merlin. A great deal of effort went into reducing the weight of the aircraft, and indeed 450 lbs was removed. Amongst the changes was the removal of one gun from each wing, giving the P-40L a total of four wing mounted guns. However, the hoped for increase in speed did not materialise &ndash the P-40L was only 4 mph quicker than the P-40F. The RAF retained the Kittyhawk II designation for this version. Later production P-40Ls could carry rockets under the wings.

The P-40M (Kittyhawk III) was intended for the RAF. It resembled the P-40K, with a Allison V-1710-81 engine and six .50 calibre machine guns.

This version was produced in greater numbers than any other. 5,219 P-40Ns (Hawk H-87Ws) were built before production ended on 30 November 1944. It used the same Allison V-1710-81 engine as the P-40M. Like the P-40L, the number of guns was reduced to four, and other weight saving measures were taken. The result was a much improved top speed of 378 mph. During the production run the lost guns were replaced &ndash in the fighter bomber role the added firepower mattered more than that last bit of speed.

This was the final prototype P-40. It used a much more powerful Allison V-1710-121 engine, providing 1,425 hp. In tests it reached a top speed of 422 mph and 20,000ft, a great improvement on any earlier P-40. However, by that point in the war the Spitfire and Mustang offered much better performance, and the P-40Q was not developed any further.

Squadron Signal 026 Curtiss P-40 in action, Ernest R. McDowell. This is a good guide to the development of the P-40, a fighter than went through a more than usually complicated series of versions in US and British service. This book works through the main versions in US service, from the first development of the P-40 as an improved P-36 to its final production variants. [see more]

Curtis E. LeMay

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

Curtis E. LeMay, (born Nov. 15, 1906, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.—died Oct. 1, 1990, March Air Force Base, Calif.), U.S. Air Force officer whose expertise in strategic bombardment techniques was important during World War II and afterward.

Entering the U.S. Army Air Corps in 1928, LeMay advanced to the position of bombardment group commander by 1942. Flying with the 8th Air Force from England (1942–44), he became known for his development of advanced bomber tactics, including pattern bombing and the combat box formation. After commanding B-29s in India and China (1944), LeMay took over the 21st Bomber Command in the Mariana Islands (January 1945) in that post he planned and originated the low-altitude incendiary-bombing tactics that burned out parts of Tokyo and a number of other Japanese cities in an effort to force a surrender before the Allied invasion of Japan, which was planned for the end of that year.

After the war LeMay commanded the U.S. air forces in Europe, and in that capacity he directed the Berlin airlift in 1948. He headed the U.S. Strategic Air Command from 1948 to 1957 and built it into a global strike force. He was promoted to the rank of general in 1951. In 1957 he was named vice chief of staff and four years later chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force. He retired in 1965.

In 1968 he was the vice presidential candidate on the third-party (American Independent) ticket headed by George C. Wallace.

    operated 50 Hawk II. [4]
    received three P-6S fighters with the 450 hp (336 kW) Wasp radial engine.
  • Japan bought one P-6S, possibly updated with a Conqueror engine.
    received eight examples of a P-6D with the Conqueror engine in 1930, another six were license-built by Aviolanda in 1931 and sent to Dutch East Indies as well. Three P-6 were lost before war: two in midair collision on 27 February 1936 and one probably after crash-landing 5 February 1935.
    used the P-6S during the Chaco War. On 22 December 1932 a P-6 Hawk from Fortín Vitriones attacked Paraguayan gunboat ARP Tacuary which was anchored at Bahía Negra near ( Lua error in Module:Coordinates at line 668: callParserFunction: function "#coordinates" was not found. )

A single P-6E survives. The aircraft was donated to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum by Mr. Edward S. Perkins of Anniston, Alabama and restored by the School of Aeronautics at Purdue University. It is on indefinite loan and display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB near Dayton, Ohio. Originally s/n 32-261 and assigned to the 33rd Pursuit Squadron, it was dropped from records at Tampa Field, Florida, in September 1939. It was restored and marked as 32-240 of 17th Pursuit Squadron, missing on a flight over Lake Erie on 24 September 1932.

Watch the video: How One Man Changed the High Jump Forever. The Olympics on the Record