Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

[pspiranha]

Part 1
>>>Well, I guess I'll have to start looking at all the articles that use the word "Miraculous" again. *Obviously, anyone or any event marked as such is not to be believed!!<<<

Your glossing over and generalizing here. *By using the word miraculous he made the only statement that an enlisted man could say without getting himself *into a whole heap of trouble with his CO. *By this time it was obvious to anyone with eyes that Bishop was the CO's "fairhaired boy" and saying something outright against him was sure to bring down the wrath from on-high. *Again look at what happened to Fry. *An experienced flyer and defacto flight leader, since Bishop wasn't required to lead his own flight, was shipped out at a time when such experienced aviators were sorely needed.

>>>>And actually, there are any number of angles that the bullets could have come from and NOT have hit Bishop in the head. *Anything from 45 to 150 degrees and more. *The problem is, we don't REALLY know EXACTLY where those "bullet" holes were. *We have a rough idea, and that is all. *<<<<

As the point of impact is moved further back along the fuselage the possible angle can be increased without the bullet flight path intersecting Bishop. However, it was plainly stated that they were just behind his head which I take to mean that they were fairly close to the pilot. *Conversely, the closer to the pilot the shaper the angle of the firing weapon becomes.

>>>For that matter, the "bullet" holes, MIGHT have been caused by flak.<<<

By this I suppose you mean anti-aircraft artillery. *Jagged pieces of shell casing as opposed to aerodynamicly shaped bullets. Do you really think that the men who spent the better part of their waking hours repairing and preparing these aircraft couldn't tell the differance between a bullet hole and one caused by a shell fragment?

>>>But since it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Bishop to land his plane, take the gun off shoot his plane then take off again UNLESS he had assistance, we have to assume one of two things. *Either he DID have assistance, or the damage caused was REAL battle damage caused by the enemy.<<<

Ah there is that word - " Impossible"! *Why is it impossible? *He himself stated that he landed in a field and asked a French agriculural worker for directions. How did the aircraft remain stationary long enough for him to query the Frenchman? We know that a LeRhone engine can be set to run at a lower RPM by fiddling with the air/fuel mixture and I believe the spark advace can also be adjusted. *I understand that it was not a good idea to leave the engine running like this for an extended period because of cooling problems but we don't really know how long that is.

And for that matter why was it impossible to shut it off? *Was Bishop unaware of how to start an aircraft engine? *

Here is the scenerio..... *Bishop spots an empty field with no one visibly in the area. *Comes in and lands the plane. *Once down he taxis to a spot of his choosing and sets the fuel-air mixture/ spark advance to make the engine run slower. *That done he then shuts it off, removes the Lewis gun ( a task that sounds rather difficult to perform in-flight since one also needed to remove the firing cable- a job I should think requiring both hands to perform- no auto pilots, remember). and procedes to *methodically produce some battle damage. *Once that is done the Lewis now makes a handy improvised wheel chock. *Turning the switch back on he gives the prop a swing or two, ( the engine is still warm) ducks under the wing and into the cockpit. A little fiddling with the spark advance/air-fuel mixture and the wheel can now overcome the improved wheel chock and he is off and away.

Is all of that really IMPOSSIBLE? *It could not POSSIBLY have happened that way?



>>>Four years in the Army, 10 years in Law Enforcement. *And I have seen some tight groupings on moving targets with full and semi-auto weapons. <<<

Really? *Against targets traveling at speeds between 60-100mph and moving in three dimensions? By God I want THAT man on my side!!!!!!
end of part 1

[pspiranha]

part 2
>>>Just because there were "a dozen" or so holes in a certain position, does not mean they all got there at the same instant. *<<<

Perhps not, in the strictest sense, but to say that subsequent bursts managed to hit the same area stretches believability beyond the breaking point.


>>>Strange, no one else mentioned cordite burns.<<<

No one else mentioned it, or no one else wrote it down?

>>>And apparently Wing had different ideas. *Otherwise Bishop would not have received the VC.<<<

If we have seen anything in the history of the first world war it is that the rear echelon people were horribly out of touch with the realities of the front. *Millions of lives were thrown away on useless frontal assaults for little or no gain. *Why are we to believe that WING was any more informed? *For the most part I tend to believe that WING depended primarily on it's Squadron Commanders to verify most things. *Micro-managing the squadrons would have been extremely difficult in those days and totally unproductive. *


>>>>Actually, according to the list in Dan McCaffery's book, Bishop received credit for 3 balloons. *But knowing how Wing confirmed or denied claims, there must have been something in other reports that convinced them to confirm his claims.
And in addition to those two shared claims, Bishop had witnesses for 20-30 claims. *These were confirmed by various sources, AA batteries, other pilots, both those from 60 Squadron and others from squadrons other than 60 Squadron. *And at least one by confirmed by R.A.Little.<<<<<

All very interesting. *Are these reports on your website? *If they are you should direct these published historians (Alex Revell, Norman Franks et al) to them. *That many witnessed claims should go a long way toward readjusting their thinking. *

I did see the photocopy of the Bishop/ Little report here. *Out of curiosity, was the copy so poor as to prevent Little's signature from being visible?

I saw a reference earlier about Bishop's "badly damaged plane". *This is the same badly damaged plane that was patched up and flown that same day by Bishop to go on a visit to another squadron.

A tip of the hat to you Al. *Stick to your guns. *It has been enjoyable to debate this with you these, what... three years now?

Paintball guns? *LOL !!! *I played paintball for over 8 years ( starting back in the days of the old Nelspot 007 bolt action pistol, with extremely expensive 10 round tubes of oil based paint pellets - up through the Semi-auto and auto guns where water based paint was purchased in case lots for tournaments) and I can recall some EXTREMELY painful hits!!!!!

Best Regards,

David Johnson

[Ron_F]

Part 1
[b
Ah there is that word - " Impossible"! *Why is it impossible? *He himself stated that he landed in a field and asked a French agriculural worker for directions. How did the aircraft remain stationary long enough for him to query the Frenchman? We know that a LeRhone engine can be set to run at a lower RPM by fiddling with the air/fuel mixture and I believe the spark advace can also be adjusted. *I understand that it was not a good idea to leave the engine running like this for an extended period because of cooling problems but we don't really know how long that is.

And for that matter why was it impossible to shut it off? *Was Bishop unaware of how to start an aircraft engine? *

Here is the scenerio..... *Bishop spots an empty field with no one visibly in the area. *Comes in and lands the plane. *Once down he taxis to a spot of his choosing and sets the fuel-air mixture/ spark advance to make the engine run slower. *That done he then shuts it off, removes the Lewis gun ( a task that sounds rather difficult to perform in-flight since one also needed to remove the firing cable- a job I should think requiring both hands to perform- no auto pilots, remember). and procedes to *methodically produce some battle damage. *Once that is done the Lewis now makes a handy improvised wheel chock. *Turning the switch back on he gives the prop a swing or two, ( the engine is still warm) ducks under the wing and into the cockpit. A little fiddling with the spark advance/air-fuel mixture and the wheel can now overcome the improved wheel chock and he is off and away.

Is all of that really IMPOSSIBLE? *It could not POSSIBLY have happened that way?

where, oh where is this report that he landed in a farmers field? what report is this? no book of his, his sons, nor 60 squadron bio book, nor RFC communique states thus. he went from the attack, skirted 4 albatros, then landed finally at Filescamp.

as to the landing at a field, the throttle is controlled by a button that retards the spark in the plugs known as a blip throttle, and is held down by a button IIRC. so, unless he had tape, i doubt he could do that.
if someone knows otherwise, then correct me.

as to the Lewis gun, it CAN be taken off, difficult, but it can be done by BB who was familiar with the gun, so says Mr Bradford, Director of National Aviation Museum in Ottawa. which has a replica (at time of the book, hanging a legend.

as to using it as a chalk, well, since he wouldnt be able to keep the engine down to get out, how could he? not to mention, the time it would take to find a suitable field like an aerodrome, smooth and open, to land the plane. a farmers field would have to be found, thats mown down enough, with no furrows, irregularities (how could he tell?).
he would also have to stop the plane, (no brakes), without ground looping the plane, without help to help him steer.
even IF he stopped it, took off the Lewis, then used it as a chalk, which its not shaped as one, i doubt it would hold the plane anyways.

and if he could stop the engine, get out to shoot his plane, and safely start it up, why not put the lewis back on? lazy? it was a gun that was owned by the government, and shot well im sure. dont know if they kept the same gun or not....

and correct me if im wrong any of those who own replicas or been to Rhinebeck, that people are needed to hold down the tail to start the plane. and i think they are started at power, then reduced. so, he would probably be sliced up when started. correct me if im wrong.
hanging a legend makes the point that the entire area near the front was chewed up, but id defer that to those who might know..

now, i wait for Al to show....

[Billy_Bishop]

Just a little "quicky" here. Bishop NEVER said he landed in a field, left his engine running and went to check with a farmer about where he was. Not directly.

FRY said that Bishop TOLD him, this. The SAME Willy Fry who says Bishop shot up his machine on the ground to make it look like he was in a fight.

I didn't want to touch on this because I didn't want to say anything directly negative about him. But, if you read what Fry claims Bishop told him, then you begin to see where things are headed.

Why? I REALLY don't know why. And since Fry is dead, I'll NEVER know why. So I don't want to speculate any more.

What I do know is this. Bob Bradford, formerly of the Canadian War Museum says it's IMPOSSIBLE for one person to land a Nieuport, get out, shoot it up, get back in and take off without help on the ground.

So, WHERE is Bishop's help?

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Billy_Bishop]

Here is the scenerio..... *Bishop spots an empty field with no one visibly in the area. *Comes in and lands the plane. *Once down he taxis to a spot of his choosing and sets the fuel-air mixture/ spark advance to make the engine run slower. *That done he then shuts it off, removes the Lewis gun ( a task that sounds rather difficult to perform in-flight since one also needed to remove the firing cable- a job I should think requiring both hands to perform- no auto pilots, remember). and procedes to *methodically produce some battle damage. *Once that is done the Lewis now makes a handy improvised wheel chock. *Turning the switch back on he gives the prop a swing or two, ( the engine is still warm) ducks under the wing and into the cockpit. A little fiddling with the spark advance/air-fuel mixture and the wheel can now overcome the improved wheel chock and he is off and away.

Is all of that really IMPOSSIBLE? *It could not POSSIBLY have happened that way?

Except, since the Le Rhone idles at 45%, when Bishop starts the engine, without his body weight in the cockpit, the machine noses over, due to the improvised wheel chock (Lewis gun) into the mud, and CRACK, no more propellor. *End of flight.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Billy_Bishop]

Paintball guns? *LOL !!! *I played paintball for over 8 years ( starting back in the days of the old Nelspot 007 bolt action pistol, with extremely expensive 10 round tubes of oil based paint pellets - up through the Semi-auto and auto guns where water based paint was purchased in case lots for tournaments) and I can recall some EXTREMELY painful hits!!!!!

Best Regards,

David Johnson

Sounds like we both started about the same time. And yes, those things do sting, still, not nearly as bad as getting hit with a fist!!

VBR,

Al Lowe

Except, since the Le Rhone idles at 45%, when Bishop starts the engine, without his body weight in the cockpit, the machine noses over, due to the improvised wheel chock (Lewis gun) into the mud, and CRACK, no more propellor. End of flight.

Aren't we forgetting one key comment about Bishop's flying - the fact that while he was an average pilot and a great shot, his landing skills were, to say the least, less than adequate?

I find it very difficult to believe that he managed to land this aircraft perfectly, stop it (even to an idle), perform this inquisition of a farmer (remembering that Bishop, as far as we know, didn't speak French)..and then take off..

[Ron_F]

steven,

i had forgotten about his landing skills, and the language barrier...

good shot!

steven,

i had forgotten about his landing skills, and the language barrier...

good shot!

Ron,

Thanks! The landing issue is one that I've used for the past 12 years. The language one actually hit me today since it reminds me of my own problems with a lack of French Language profile.

Gentlemen,
A few quick points, if I may?

Paintballs? Oh, gentlemen, PLEASE... I thought we were, at least, grown men here. Might I suggest pellets? As in, PELLETS? We could wear goggles to protect the eyes... then again, if you do lose an eye, too ____ing bad, I always say...

Now for Bishop...

I'm planning a new thread, concerning BB and his Lewis [no relation-C.L.] gun; I'll post it later this week, after consulting HANGING A LEGEND...

Now about this nonsense concerning the re-starting of a rotary engine single-handedly... I want to use that word again -- NONSENSE. Because that's exactly what it is -- when you claim that a pilot on the ground CANNOT single-handedly restart his engine, for whatever reason. Again, NONSENSE.

How can I be so damn sure? You, my fellow Forumites, should know that I rarely stick my neck out, because the times I have -- well, let's just let it go at that.

Another thing is that I've noticed that my posts are getting longer and longer. This HAS worried me -- is this the first sign of the onset of old age? At least, male menopause? Whatever...

So I'm going to tell you why the idea that you CAN'T land your aircraft and single-handedly restart the engine is nonsense, and I'm going to do it using only ONE word:

WARNEFORD.

Thank you.

Today is the anniversary of Ball's demise; did any of you take a moment to remember him?

VBR,
Captain Lewis