Why the Fascination with Luke?

Ok, perhaps I'm a little slow, but I must admit that I don't get it. Why the fascination with Luke?

Certainly not the highest scoring pilot, likely not the most colorful, and definitely not the best (he was, after all, killed). Is everyone enamored with him just because he's american?

Graham

Perhaps because he was the leading ace in the United States Air Service at the time of his death and he scored a breath-taking, unequaled score of 15 balloons and 3 enemy planes in 17 days.

"The most extraordinary flyer ever produced by the American Army..." Harold Hartney in "Up and At 'Em"

Seems to me that balloon kills are more a measure of daring and luck than actual flying or shooting skill (at least relative to victories scored over other aircraft). So the fascination with Luke is because he was foolhardy?

Many pilots likely could have scored with the rapidity of Luke, had they been willing to throw caution to the wind and risk their own lives in an unreasonable fashion.

I guess I still don't get it.

Graham

I believe you answered your own question. Of the hundreds of aces who's names live on at The Aerodrome, not to mention the thousands of WWI pilots who never became aces, only Frank Luke was daring enough and lucky enough to score 18 victories in 17 days. Seems to me if "many pilots likely could have" they most likely would have...

"To get a balloon at all is a feat. To time its demise five hours ahead is beyond reason. And to do it at night is just not in the cards." General Billy Mitchell, moments before witnessing the results of Luke's night attack against a balloon near Verdun

[mike_baram]

Luke's bravado combined with the mystery surrounding the circumstances of his death. It's the stuff legends are made out of.

You don't seem to understand: the fact that a soldier gets killed does NOT exclude him from consideration as one of the greats. von Richthofen was killed, and he is mandatory for consideration; so was Mannock; so was Guynemer. For that matter, McCudden and Boelcke were killed as well, under vastly different circumstances. Barker SHOULD have been killed but luck rode with him. By your logic, anyone who survived the war by running from every fight and seldom fired a round is "greater" than those who destroyed dozens or scores of enemy aircraft before being KIA.
There's evidence that Luke CHOSE to die. Apparently he decided to shoot it out rather than surrender and (presumably) accept medical attention that might have saved his life. He was stubborn, rash, undisciplined--and a warrior for the ages.

Graham;
Luke was reckless, rebellous, brave, and handsome. This is the kind of man that Americans have always admired, be Billy the Kid, or James Dean. I believe that deep down there's a little bit of the rebel in all of us.
I admire your courage in taking on one of the icons of this forum. Could it be that you have a little of the rebel in you? Or do you tease rattlesnakes in your spare time?
Jeni

Certainly pilots who ran from every fight, and seldom fired a round, weren't greater than Luke. However, I believe that among the aces of the war, those pilots that survived definitely have a "leg up" as being better than their fallen counterparts. Fonck, Udet and Collishaw are prime examples ... the fact that they survived, in my mind, makes them better than Luke, Richthofen, Mannock, and so forth. They never met an aerial opponent who could kill them, and they never made a fatal mistake in combat.

Graham;
I understand where your coming from, but I don't think living though a war makes a man better or worse than one who gives that last full measure for his country. There just are too many other factors that occur in war that decides who lives and who doesn't. Last but not least, is old lady luck.
Jeni

Jeni,

Not a better man, but a better combat pilot! For example, MvR scored 80 (by most counts) victories before he made a fatal error. How many would Collishaw or Fonck have scored? Survival not only means that the pilot never "met his match", but it also means that his score was constrained by the end of hostilities. We seem to spend a lot of time idolizing those who gave their lives in the war ... those who did their jobs and survived deserve equal recognition, at least.

I'm a pretty firm believer that people make their own luck, or contribute to it dramatically. Mannock was unlucky to be hit by ground fire, but he could have avoided the situation.

If I have some "rebel" in me, it certainly isn't very much! Perhaps it's the opposite ... and anti-rebel... I prefer to see skill praised over daring. Sorry to disappoint : )

Graham