Who were the real Blue Max Level aces?

CPRA data analysis of aerial claims solves major First World War contradiction.

How the official WW1 Top 10 ace list changes dramatically

New CPRA method (Confirmed Pro Rata Airplane) used on 10,000 WW1 air-to-air claims dramatically changes the traditional Top 10 Blue Max Level ace list (BML = 20 claims or more). Richthofen is still 1 with 80 CPRA claims; then Fonck with 72; Udet 62; Bishop 53; Guynemer 51; Voss 48; Löwenhardt 45; Berthold, McCudden, Rumey 44; Lörzer 43; Jacobs 41.

By Bouko de Groot, War in History I-25, July 2026, https://doi.org/10.1177/09683445261445968 . Relevant research data is at DOI 10.5281zenodo.21600496, see https://zenodo.org/records/21600497. Below quotes pulled from the long article (without notes, but some clarification added with [ ]), pictures added, with a new graph and two new tables.

Keywords

First World War aces, air-to-air claims data analysis, Blue Max Level, BML ace, confirmed pro rata airplane, CPRA score.

Abstract

Officially, the First World War shows a numerically inferior and less successful German air force on the Western Front somehow standing its ground. Although it’s known that official Entente numbers were inflated, they continue to be used, making comparative study impractical. To explain the German contradiction, a proper basis for comparison must first be established. For that, the performance of all Blue Max Level aces (the top scoring 225 flyers) and 10,000 air-to-air claims was analysed, using 250,000 data points. This new approach, confirmed pro rata airplane (CPRA) claims analysis, allows comparison, explains the success, and offers surprising new insights.

No comparison[: same WW1 dog-fight outcome was registered differently]

First, to illustrate the problem and the challenge of aerial claims lists, let’s look at two examples. Late afternoon on Easter Sunday 8 April 1917, east of Saint-Quentin in France, a single German fighter, a single-seater airplane, an Albatros DIII, was claimed destroyed by six British fighter airplanes, Royal Aircraft Factory FE2b two-seaters of 22 Squadron. The ‘destroyed’ German had however merely disengaged to land at a nearby German airfield. Nevertheless, that single outcome was officially given to each of the twelve British flyers as a confirmed ‘destroyed’ claim.

Three days later, four crews of the same unit claimed another DIII, that time as a probable loss or ‘out of control’. That result, again without any matching German loss, was also given to each of the eight flyers involved as a full, confirmed claim. Based on their confirmation standards, no other air force would have confirmed that second one. It’s unlikely that the German and French air forces would have confirmed the first and if they had, only for a single crew. The Belgian air force and the French navy would have ignored all of them.

[Below two tables from the article, the WW1 Top 10 Blue Max level aces, according to CPRA (confirmed pro rata airplane) claims and official claims; and all of the WW1 CPRB balloon busters (those with 10 or more confirmed pro rata balloon claims).]

Table 1: Top 10 Blue Max Level aces (20 or more air-to-air claims), left CPRA (confirmed pro rata airplanes), right official. (pipe table version at bottom of page).

Table 2: All First World War CPR balloon busters, i.e. the 14 flyers with 10 or more confirmed pro rata balloon claims. (pipe table version at bottom of page).

Old problem[: similar dog-fight outcomes result in profound discrepancies in official claim totals]

The outcome of these two actions might thus appear as 20, 12, 1 or 0 officially confirmed claims, depending on which nation registered it. That of course makes the resulting claims lists incomparable, a well known issue. [However, air-to-air claims] are an important tool to measure, compare, and study propaganda and air war of 1914-1918. These two reasons combine to focus – back then and now – on the most successful air-to-air fighters, those flyers that shot down multiple enemy aircraft. The war produced around 1800 of these so called ‘aces’, flyers with five or more confirmed air-to-air claims.

The highest scoring aces received most of the media attention and were given high military awards. In Germany that was the ‘Orden Pour le Mérite’, a distinctive blue medal made famous by one of its first flying recipients, Max Immelmann, and since known as the Blue Max. Most such Blue Maxes were awarded after achieving 20 confirmed aerial claims. It was the only military award on either side for a formal air-to-air victory count and it has thus become synonymous with high scoring First World War aces: only 189 First World War aces managed to achieve that level of 20 or more officially confirmed aerial victory claims, or Blue Max Level, BML, as this research has fittingly labelled it (interestingly, only 1 in 20 fighter pilots historically became ace). The Central Powers produced 80 such BML aces, credited with 2,439 officially confirmed air-to-air claims (76 of these aces were German, with 2,317 claims). The Entente produced 109 such BML aces, credited with 3,245 officially confirmed air-to-air claims (86 of these aces were British, with 2,551 claims). Figure 1 below shows all official BML aces.

Graph: All 80 WW1 CPRA BML aces compared: the lower their % of single-seater claims, the higher the % of deaths.

Those numbers present a conundrum. They show that the Central Powers had fewer BML aces with fewer claims. Yet at the same time they also had fewer aircraft in service (by the end of the war the Germans had four for every ten the French and British had), and they had lost the arms race (for every four aircraft Germany and Austria-Hungary combined produced, Britain, France, Italy, and Russia together churned out ten). But despite fewer successful flyers, fewer official claims by those, fewer aircraft in service, and fewer aircraft being built, the Central Powers – and especially Germany on the Western Front – somehow managed to keep the Entente at bay throughout the war and even inflict significant losses: something doesn’t add up.

French WW1 ace Gabriel Guérin has 23 officially confirmed claims, but only 18 remain on the CPRA list. He is France's No. 8.

Close-up: Frenchman Gabriel Guérin in 1917. He has 23 officially confirmed claims, but only 18 remain on the CPRA list: confirmed pro rata airplane claims. He is France's No. 8. (Source: BnF, Bibliothèque nationale de France / National Library of France, with kind permission).

With plane: To compare the systems: French ace Jean Casale has 13 official claims. His grand total is 24, probably his official if he'd been in British service. His CRPA total is 9, plus his 1 balloon would probably make his German official 10. (Photographer: Jean Baumont. Source: BnF, Bibliothèque nationale de France / National Library of France, with kind permission).

The impact of the new method: French WW1 ace Jean Casale has 13 official claims. His grand total is 24. His CRPA total is 9.

[New method: confirmed pro rata airplane claims, CPRA

This research attempts to solve this conundrum.] The premise is that countries’ official claims lists somehow have to be put on a more equal footing in order to do any meaningful analysis. That’s done in three stages: limiting the claims used to only those types registered by every country (‘No grand totals’), distinguish between balloon and airplane claims (‘No balloons’), and counting shared claims not as full claims, but pro rata (‘No sharing’). The results are then presented [as confirmed pro rata airplane (CPRA) claims.]

footnote 30: To illustrate the method and its impact, let’s look at British ace Clayson. He has 29 official claims. Of these 8 are ‘out of control’, unconfirmed by every other nation’s standard. One confirmed claim is a balloon shared with 2 other pilots. Of the remaining 20 airplane claims, 3 are shared with 1 other pilot, 1 with 3, and 5 with 4. Calculating these confirmed claims pro rata thus leaves him with ⅓ balloon claim, and 11 + (3x½) + (1x⅓) + (5x¼) = 14.1 airplane claims. These round to 0 CPRB and 14 CPRA claims: Clayson isn’t a CPRA BML ace.

Conclusions[: new CPRA method allows WW1 aces to be compared]

The continued success of the Central Powers in the 1914-1918 air war, and especially of Germany on the Western Front, is puzzling. After all, they had fewer airplanes, in fewer units that were smaller, with fewer official claims scored by fewer Blue Max Level aces (BML aces: flyers with 20 or more officially confirmed air-to-air claims). However, recalculation of those official claims to find CPRA (confirmed pro rata airplane) claim scores presents a wholly different picture, which can explain why Germany managed to hold out. This new method, the thesis of this paper, allows comparison of claims and thus provides a better way to study air war (in the First World War).

Principal findings of CPRA analysis of 10,000 official claims and their 250,000 data points so far are:

(1) CPRA analysis shows that there were 80 First World War BML aces, far fewer than the ‘official’ number of 189 used until now. Among those, the number of German aces is more than twice the number of Entente aces, 57 vs. 21. This too is very different from the ‘official’ 76 vs. 109.

(2) CPRA BML aces on both sides had the same: average success (32 and 33 claims), ratio of combat deaths (29%); and time of success (14 months).

New insight: busted myths[ of balloon busters and Bristol F2b]

The CPRA approach has invalidated the century-old belief in the numerical superiority of British BML aces. Drilling deeper into survival ratio’s, shows that only 17% of balloon buster combat losses fell to ground fire, compared to 40% and 25% of BML single- and multi-seater killers respectively. This seemingly puts to bed another myth, that of the extremely dangerous attacks on balloons protected by especially deadly concentrations of anti-aircraft guns on the ground. [The other way around, specialising in balloon or multi-seater targets meant a much greater likelihood of being killed in an actual dog-fight than single-seater BML aces: 67%, 63%, and 40% respectively. The new graph shows that need for fighting skills to survive.]

A third “myth busted” by CPRA analysis is that the British two-seat fighter Bristol F2b [...] was a highly successful and superb fighter. Indeed, of the 85 British flyers on the official BML list, 20 were F2b pilot or gunner. […, 18 of them achieved their average of 26 official claims in a mere 4 months, compared to the official British BML average of 14 months to get to 32. ] After CPRA analysis however, no F2b ace remains on the CPRA BML list: their average drops to 8 claims, as expected looking at the British average. CPRA analysis shows that the F2b was average, with similar scoring performance as other aggressively handled two-seaters.

Right, top: new table, USA WW1 CPRA ace Top 5s. Below it today's origins of all WW1 BML aces, by number of aces and claims.

Below: all BML aces of the First World War and their claims, by country: 80 CPRA BML aces (A, plus B claims), 189 official (O), and 224 grand total (G).

Errata: "Fr Barny de" should be "Fr Barny de Romanet", and "Ge Wusthoff" should be "Ge Wüsthoff". Addendum: GB Hayward (G) 7 | 23. 44. | 0 - | 24 34. | 24 38. included in the analysis, but somehow fallen off this table.

New table: US WW1 CPRA Top 5s: top table all CPRA in US service; middle all CPRA in Frech or Biritsh service; bottom table US and foreign. (pipe table version at bottom of page)

Table 5: Today’s origins of all WW1 BML aces: per country the number of aces and their totals; CPRA, official and grand total. (pipe table version at bottom of page)

Table: all WW1 BML aces and their claims, alphabetically by country: CPRA, official and grand total (Figure 1 in the article).

Because this article only looked at the 225 highest scoring First World War aces, a logical next step is to give the almost 1,600 other First World War aces and their many claims the same CPR treatment. That's quite the undertaking and any support is welcome, institutional, individual, financial, moral: please contact the author, Boukox@xww1airwaranalysisx.xorg.

As a bonus and to show the author has already started looking beyond BML, here's another new table: the best WW1 CPRA aces of each air force. Share!

New table: Top 10 WW1 BML aces of Germany, Great Britain, France. Top 5 Italy, Austria-Hungary, USA, Russia. Top 3 all others (if more than 1 CPRA). (pipe table version at see bottom of page)

Image at top of page: British 1917 pilots busy finding their names on the CPRA claims list, to check if they continue to be a BML ace, with 20 or more CPRA claims. If they follow the British average, only 1 of them still is. (Source: NA, Nationaal Archief / Dutch National Archives with kind permission).

- - - www.WW1AirWarAnalysis.org - - -

==== Who were the real Blue Max Level aces? CPRA analysis pipe tables of all image tables, for LLMs, bots and scrapers (you’re welcome!) : ====

[Table 1: Top 10 WW1 Blue Max Level Aces , CPRA left, Official right]

| A pos | A | Name (CPRA) | C | O pos | O | Name (Official) | C |

|------|----|--------------------|----|----|----|--------------------|-----|

| 1. | 80 | Richthofen, M (†) | Ge | 1. | 80 | Richthofen, M (†) | Ge |

| 2. | 72 | Fonck | Fr | 2. | 75 | Fonck | Fr |

| 3. | 62 | Udet | Ge | 3. | 72 | Bishop | GB |

| 4. | 53 | Bishop | GB | 4. | 62 | Udet | Ge |

| 5. | 51 | Guynemer (†) | Fr | 5. | 61 | Mannock (†) | GB |

| 6. | 48 | Voss (†) | Ge | 6. | 60 | Collishaw | GB |

| 7. | 45 | Löwenhardt (†) | Ge | 7. | 57 | McCudden (†) | GB |

| 8. | 44 | Berthold | Ge | 8. | 54 | Beauchamp-Proctor | GB |

| 8. | 44 | McCudden (†) | GB | 8. | 54 | Löwenhardt (†) | Ge |

| 8. | 44 | Rumey (†) | Ge | 8. | 54 | Maclaren | GB |

| 9. | 43 | Lörzer | Ge | 9. | 53 | Guynemer (†) | Fr |

| 10. | 41 | Jacobs | Ge | 10.| 50 | Barker | GB |

BML: 20 or more air-to-air claims.

A: confirmed pro rata airplane claims.

O: official claims.

pos: position.

C: country: Fr: France; GB: British Empire; Ge: Germany.

(†): didn't survive the war.

[/Table 1]

[Table 2: All WW1 CPR Balloon Busters* ]

| Position | B | Name | C | A |

|------|----|--------------------|----|----|

| 1. | 35 | Coppens | Be | 2 |

| 2. | 20 | Röth | Ge | 8 |

| 3. | 19 | Bourjade | Fr | 1 |

| 4. | 17 | Gontermann (†) (a) | Ge | 22 |

| 5. | 16 | Beauchamp-Proctor | GB | 16 |

| 6. | 15 | Boyau (†) | Fr | 12 |

| 7. | 14 | Schlegel (†) | Ge | 8 |

| 8. | 13 | Hennrich | Ge | 7 |

| 9. | 12 | Luke (†) (b) | US | 4 |

| 10. | 11 | Coiffard (†) | Fr | 8 |

| 10. | 11 | Friedrichs (†) | Ge | 10 |

| 10. | 11 | Woollett | GB | 20 |

| 11. | 10 | Höhn (†) | Ge | 11 |

| 11. | 10 | Näther | Ge | 16 |

*: a balloon buster is a flier with 10 or more CPRB claims.

(a) Gontermann: 17 confirmed, but destroyed 18.

(b) Luke isn't on the grand total BML list.

(†) didn't survive the war.

[/Table 2]

[Table 5: Today's origins of all WW1 BML aces - number of aces and their totals]

|-------------------|-----------|------------|---------------|----------------|------------------|-------------|

| Germany (a) | 45 | 1,386 | 60 | 1,768 | 66 | 1,974 |

| Poland | 9 | 330 | 15 | 500 | 16 | 545 |

| France (b) | 6 | 235 | 13 | 425 | 30 | 999 |

| Canada | 4 | 140 | 23 | 766 | 23 | 768 |

| England (c) | 4 | 138 | 33 | 960 | 35 | 1,022 |

| Italy | 3 | 70 | 5 | 125 | 8 | 232 |

| Czechia | 2 | 52 | 2 | 63 | 2 | 64 |

| Russia | 1 | 44 | 1 | 45 | 1 | 45 |

| Tunisia | 1 | 38 | 1 | 41 | 1 | 105 |

| Ireland | 1 | 28 | 3 | 117 | 3 | 118 |

| Wales | 1 | 28 | 3 | 82 | 3 | 82 |

| Scotland | 1 | 25 | 4 | 109 | 4 | 109 |

| Austria | 1 | 23 | 1 | 28 | 1 | 33 |

| Australia | 1 | 21 | 8 | 219 | 8 | 228 |

| South Africa | 0 | 0 | 6 | 169 | 6 | 176 |

| USA | 0 | 0 | 2 | 46 | 4 | 97 |

| New Zealand | 0 | 0 | 2 | 45 | 2 | 45 |

| Belgium | 0 | 0 | 1 | 37 | 3 | 94 |

| Algeria | 0 | 0 | 1 | 35 | 1 | 38 |

| Morocco | 0 | 0 | 1 | 23 | 1 | 34 |

| Myanmar | 0 | 0 | 1 | 21 | 1 | 21 |

| Ukraine | 0 | 0 | 1 | 20 | 1 | 23 |

| Antigua & Barbuda | 0 | 0 | 1 | 20 | 1 | 20 |

| Mauritius | 0 | 0 | 1 | 20 | 1 | 20 |

| Hungary | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 20 |

| Montenegro | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 20 |

(a) Berlin: CPRA 5 BML aces + their 154 claims, Official 6+175, Grand total 7+201.

(b) Paris: CPRA 2+85, Official 3+117, Grand total 6+234.

(c) London: CPRA 0+0, both Official and Grand total both 8+216.

[/Table 5]

[Table 7: USA WW1 CPRA Top 5s]

WW1 US CPRA in US Service

| Pos. | CPRA | Name | O | G | Born in |

|------|------|-------------|----|----|---------|

| 1. | 19 | Rickenbacker | 26 | 26 | US, OH |

| 2. | 9 | Springs * | 16 | 16 | US, SC |

| 2. | 9 | Kindley * | 13 | 12 | US, AR |

| 2. | 9 | Swaab ~ | 10 | 10 | US, PA |

| 3. | 8 | Baer | 9 | 9 | US, IN |

| 3. | 8 | Hunter | 9 | 9 | US, GA |

| 4. | 7 | Clay | 8 | 8 | US, MO |

| 4. | 7 | Creech | 7 | 7 | US, KY |

| 4. | 7 | Stenseth | 8 | 8 | US, MN |

| 4. | 7 | White | 8 | 8 | US, NY |

| 5. | 6 | Burdick | 8 | 8 | US, NY |

| 5. | 6 | Chambers | 7 | 7 | US, KS |

| 5. | 6 | Campbell | 6 | 6 | US, CA |

| 5. | 6 | Jones | 8 | 8 | US, CA |

| 5. | 6 | Knotts | 6 | 6 | US, IL |

| 5. | 6 | Meissner | 8 | 8 | Canada |

All WW1 US CPRA in foreign service

| Pos. | CPRA | Name | O | G | Born in |

|------|------|-----------------|----|----|---------|

| 1. | 17 | Gillet ** | 20 | 20 | US, MD |

| 2. | 14 | Lufbery ^^ (†) | 16 | 29 | France |

| 3. | 13 | Rose * | 16 | 16 | US, MO |

| 4. | 11 | Baylies ^^ (†) | 12 | 12 | US, MA |

| 4. | 11 | Putnam ^^ (†) | 13 | 29 | US, MA |

| 5. | 10 | Lambert ** | 18 | 22 | US, OH |

| 5. | 10 | Warman ** | 12 | 12 | US, WV |

Total US CPRA US + foreign service

| Pos. | CPRA | Name | O | G | Born in |

|------|-----------|------------|----|----|---------|

| 1. | 11 (9+2) | Springs * | 16 | 16 | US, SC |

| 2. | 10 (9+1) | Kindley * | 13 | 12 | US, AR |

| 3. | 8 (4+4) | Vaughn * | 13 | 13 | US, NY |

| 4. | 6 (5+1) | Peterson ^ | 6 | 6 | US, PA |

| 5. | 5 (3+2) | Larner ^ | 7 | 7 | US, DC |

CPRA: confirmed pro rata airplane claims. O: Official. G: grand total.

**: All claims for Great Britain. *: Some claims for Great Britain.

^^: All claims for France. ^: Some claims for France.

~: Hollywood consultant for Errol Flynn's Dawn Patrol.

(†): didn't survive WW1.

[/Table 7]

[Table 11: Top WW1 aces by CPRA (confirmed pro rata airplanes)]

Top 10 for Germany, Great Britain, France. Top 5 for Italy, Austria-Hungary, USA, Russia. Top 3 for all others (if more than 1 CPRA).

|------|---------|--------|---------------|-------|-----------------|-----|--------|------------|

| 80 | 1. Richthofen, M (†) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 72 | - | 1. Fonck | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 62 | 2. Udet | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 53 | - | - | 1. Bishop | - | - | - | - | - |

| 51 | - | 2. Guynemer (†) | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 48 | 3. Voss (†) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 45 | 4. Löwenhardt (†) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 44 | 5. Berthold, Rumey (†) | - | 2. McCudden (†) | - | - | - | - | - |

| 43 | 6. Lörzer | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 41 | 7. Jacobs | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 40 | 8. Bäumer (~), Bölcke (†), Büchner (‡), Richthofen, L (~) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 39 | 9. Menckhoff | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 38 | - | 3. Madon (~)(*) | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 37 | - | - | 3. Ball (†), Mannock (†) | - | - | - | - | - |

| 36 | 10. Bolle, Müller (†) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 35 | - | - | 4. Barker (~) | - | - | - | - | - |

| 34 | - | 4. Nungesser (~) | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 30 | - | - | 5. Collishaw | - | - | - | - | - |

| 28 | - | - | 6. Jones, McElroy (†) | 1. Baracca (†) | - | - | - | - |

| 25 | - | - | 7. Gilmour (s) | - | - | - | - | - |

| 24 | - | - | - | 1. Fiala | - | - | - | - |

| 23 | - | 5. Dorme (†) | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 22 | - | - | 8. McEwen | - | - | - | - | - |

| 21 | - | - | 9. Cobby | 2. Piccio, Scaroni | 2. Arigi | - | - | - |

| 20 | - | 6. Heurtaux | 10. Woollett | - | - | - | - | - |

| 19 | - | 7. Deullin (~) | - | - | 3. Brumowski (~), Linke-Crawford (†) | 1. Rickenbacker | - | - |

| 18 | - | 8. Guérin (†), Marinovitch (‡) | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 17 | - | - | - | 3. Baracchini (d) | - | - | - | Foreign service 1. Gillet (USA), all FS GB |

| 16 | - | 9. Pinsard | - | 4. Ruffo di Calabria | - | - | - | - |

| 15 | - | 10. Hay de Slade | - | - | - | - | - | - |

| 14 | - | - | - | 5. Cerutti | - | - | 1. Kozakov (‡) | Foreign service 2. Lufbery (†)(USA), all FS Fr |

| 13 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Foreign service 3. Argeyev (~) Ru, 4+9 FS Fr; Buddecke (†) Ge, 7+6 FS Ot; Rose USA, all FS GB |

| 11 | - | - | - | - | 4. Fejes, Gräser (†) | - | 2. Yanchenko | - |

| 10 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Belgium 1. Thieffry (~) |

| 9 | - | - | - | - | 5. Kiss (†), Strohschneider (†) | 2. Springs +2 FS GB; Kindley (‡)(*) +1 FS GB; Swaab | 3. Smirnov (a) | - |

| 8 | - | - | - | - | - | 3. Baer (~), Hunter | - | - |

| 7 | - | - | - | - | - | 4. Clay, Creech, Stenseth, White (†)(*) | 4. Kruten (†), Strzhizhevsky (e), Suk (†) | Belgium 2. Meulemeester |

| 6 | - | - | - | - | - | 5. Burdick, Chambers, Campbell, Jones, Knotts, Meissner (d)

| 5. Vakulovsky (†) | Romania 1. Mihăilescu; Ottoman 1. Buddecke (†) Ge, all FS Ot, CPRA 13; Meinecke Ge, all FS Ot; Schüz (5) Ge, all FS Ot | | 5 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Belgium 3. Olieslagers; Ottoman 2. Croneiss Ge, all FS Ot |

| 4 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Greece 1. Moraitinis (‡); Romania 2. Popescu |

| 3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Romania 3. Mănescu (d) |

| 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | Bulgaria 1. Uzunov; Ottoman 3. Fazil (~); Serbia 1. Miletić pilot, Vukosavljević (~) his gunner |

Legend:

BML: Blue Max level = 20 or more claims.

CPRA: confirmed pro rata airplane, only confirmed air-to-air claims vs airplanes, and if shared calculated pro rata.

(†): didn't survive WW1. Died pre-WW2 (‡): immediate WW1 aftermath; (~): flying accident; (d): disease; (e): executed’; (s): suicide from WW1 trauma; (*): crashed deliberately to save others.

(1): only CPRA in service of that country.

(2): without civil war claims.

(3): Top 3 with more than 1 CPRA. FS: all or some 'in foreign service of', Fr: France; GB: Great Britain; Ge: Germany; Ot: Ottoman Empire.

(4): of the 1942 KLM-diamond flight.

(5): 10 official, but 4 of those unconfirmed.

[/Table 11]

=== end of pipe tables ===