Poor old Billy!

[Vin]

Michael,

Do you mean his markmanship or his mouthmanship ?


Vin

Vin:

Both.

FWIW, I always looked on Bishop as having been a decent sort, a good fighter. He seems to have been affected by the "stardom" he had put upon him (and which he may well have courted -- he was, after all, a young man and we all know what they're like). A late friend of mine knew Bishop during WWII and wasn't at all complimentary in his assessment of what the man had become by then. But that probably belongs outside the purview of this forum.

[Michael]

If you know your Church history you know that people who are anti-Bishop are either Congregationalists or at least Presbyterians. Those in favour are Episcopalians.

Michael

An interesting quote - one that says much about the cadet, whoever he was and virtually nothing about Bishop. Since we don't know what machine was being flown - we don't know if Bishop was limited by plane capabilities or by his ADMITTED mediocre flying abilities. It would have been more to the point if both Bishop and the Cadet had been in N. 17's or SE5's with ammo at the same time. I doubt the cadet would have made a decent landing.

Best Wishes,
John

[rammjaeger]

I guees poor old Billy would have claimed another 3 Germans in this case, John!

There's nothing in the newspaper account that puts Bishop in a bad light. According to the author, he put on a good show. Just because the cadet also flew well doesn't change that.

[alex_revell]

Bud,
It wasn't meant to put anybody in a bad light, just thrown in for a bit of light relief on the Bishop question.
Alex

Gentleman: What you folks ought to be thinking about is that cadet: If what he did by imitating Bishop's acrobatic stunts was so wrong that it warranted putting him under arrest,then why wasn't Bishop thrown in the monkey house for setting the example? Further: Did anyone think that that Canadian cadet was just another example of the excellent flying skills usually shown by Canadian flyers? Or did anyone think that the people who asked Bishop to stunt should have been thrown in the monkey house instead of the cadet?
Mention has been made that Bishopic was 'a lousy flyer." But what was the criteria for excellent flying in WWI? And who set that criteria? Some nonflyer or war correspondent or some ornithologist? Can birds, for instance, do loops, or barrel rolls, or immelmans, and falling leafs? The Dodo bird in the Pacific usually pancakes his landings and he looks awful coming in on the downwind leg, so he was given the name: Gooney bird, but they looked beautiful in flight.
In the long run, Bishop's contribution to the war effort in both wars was still greater than the contribution of all his detractors added up, and nothing can change that. What I am saying is: If Bishop had never gotten any medals at all, not even the good conduct medal, would it have made any difference in the effort he made to win the war?
VBRs Billy H 06/02/01

I had always thought that the extinct Dodo was a flightless bird.

regards,

MDD

[Billy_Bishop]

Actually, the Gooney is otherwise known as the...I'm gonna get it for this one, The Albatross. THAT is the Gooney Bird, at least according to National Geographic.

As to Bishop being a bad flyer, that was only true EARLY in his career. Like anything else, after a "breaking in period" he became quite a good pilot. If you'll notice, he flew Nieuport 17 No. B1556 for quite a while. And it later went on to Palestine to fly there.

He was supposedly quite handy with maneauvers too. He was known as the "Stunt Merchant" to most of his squadron mates. (All pilots were "merchants" or one sort or another in the RFC/RAF)

Out of Curiousty, anyone hear anything on a book by Brereton Greenhous titled something like "Brave Flyer, Bold Liar"??

VBR,

Al Lowe