When the rookie pilot
Frank Luke filed his first combat reports that read at all like some of Bishop's, his squadron mates took offense and questioned his veracity. Apparently some of Bishop's associates did likewise, but his superiors clearly did not. In a rookie pilot I would ascribe such *reports to youthful exuberance and undue optimism, not dishonesty. In Bishop's case the fact that his early reports resulted in confirmed victories undoubtedly reduced the pressure to report his results more conservatively. In Luke's case the hostility of his compatriots and the lack of confirmation made him take too many risks. The differences are probably due more to the way others reacted to these pilots, than to differences in their personal character. If Bishop's VC mission had resulted in derision and scorn rather than a medal, he might have lived just as spectacularly short a life as Frank Luke.
[/QUOTE]
Luke's first claim was doubted because of his inexperience and his lone witness, and he also had a problem with being a bit of an outsider--a Westerner and a new boy. It did not take very long for the men of his squadron and group to accept his claims, and by the time of his loss he was the local hero. He's also been cited in the Grub Street books for making very accurate claims, which would argue for the superior SA that he demonstrated. Not many men lasted long attacking balloons; he just pushed his skill a bit too far.
Even his final mission seems a very near run thing--a grain or two of powder less in his fatal bullet would have left him alive.