Quote:
Al,
You say you don't agree with Phil's article. Fine - that your privilige but why don't you tell us why you don't. Lets have *reasons, at least. Take the parts of his conclusions you don't agree with and lets hear contrary evidence you've unearthed. Or is it don't like, not don't agree.
Regards
Alex
|
Well, for one, Mr. Markham mentions the range of the Nieuport 17 and that for Bishop to be able to fly to the Estourmel area and return would require him to fly at a specific altitude for most of his time in the air. *
In general I don't have a problem with that (generalized) statement, but, I've seen, in various books the endurance of the Nieuport 17 varies from a low of 1 and 3/4 hours to over 2 and 1/4 hours, with little or no mention at what heights these endurance levels were reached.
Not having been there myself, I find it difficult to believe that I could say Bishop didn't have enough fuel. *In addition to which, his landing on his own side of the lines to get directions MIGHT be a way to explain his time away yet not running out of fuel.
Then there is the treatment of the "evidence" as presented by Phil Townsend, first in Dan McCaffery's book, then later examined by Phil Markham, in which Townsend RE-Qualifies his remarks as Hearsay. *Still, it is my understanding that Townsend did not rescend his statement, only qualified it.
Those are my key issues. *
I'll have to read over the article again to see what else I disageed with.
VBR,
Al Lowe