Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

8 May 2002, 01:30 PM

From a data base on aerial DSO awards (still being assembled, so please do not be too harsh):

KENNEDY-COCHRAN-PATRICK, William John Charles, Lieutenant and Temporary Captain, MC, Royal Flying Corps - No.23 Squadron - Distinguished Service Order - awarded as per London Gazette dated 17 September 1917. See article in British edition, Cross and Cockade, Volume 14 No.3 (Autumn 1983). Who's Who in Aviation, 1928 (London, Airways Publications, 1928, copy consulted in Canada Air Museum, Ottawa) identifies him as Major Charles Kennedy Cochran-Patrick, DSO, MC, FRGS, AFRAeS, RB; born in Edinburgh, 1896; commanded a squadron in 1917; "at end of war was in charge of aerial fighting training at Air Ministry, and in this capacity read lecture to Royal Aeronautical Society on Aerial Fighting Tactics; went to South America in 1921 as Manager of first commercial air survey ever undertaken by a British firm; since then has undertaken survey work in Burma, England and Rhodesia; Director of the Aircraft Operating Company, at present managing their African Air Survey Expedition."

For conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty on numerous occasions in destroying and driving down hostile machines, frequently engaging the enemy with great dash and a fine offensive spirit when encountered in superior numbers. By his cool judgment and splendid fearlessness he has instilled confidence in all around him, his brilliant leadership being chiefly responsible for his numerous successes.

8 May 2002, 01:45 PM

May I now cock a skeptical eyebrow and query the assertion that Bishop had been secretly recommended for a VC well before the events that were eventually cited in that award ?

When rules were followed, ALL recommendations were secret in that they were NOT to be disclosed to the intended recipient until they had been approved. *This applied (and still does - when the rules are respected) to all awards, VC, MC, etc.

Methinks (and I am open to correction) that a recommendation for a VC has been confused with a recommendation for an earlier - and lesser award. *To quote chapter and verse, Bishop was awarded an MC on 26 May 1917 with the following citation:

"For conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty. *He attacked a hostile balloon on the ground, dispersed the crew and destroyed the balloon, and also drove down a hostile machine which attacked him. *He has on several other occasions brought down hostile machines."

Recommendations for awards were often more detailed than the final published citations, and such was the case with his MC. * Public Record Office Air 1/1515 has the recommendation sent by Commander, 3rd Brigade, Royal Flying Corps to Headquarters, Royal Flying Corps, 8 April 1917:

"For skill and gallantry. *On the 7th April he came down to 50 feet, attacked a hostile kite balloon on the ground near Remy, dispersing the balloon crew in all directions and destroying the balloon, although attacked by an enemy machine which he drove down.

"Previously on the 25th March near St.Leger assisted in bringing down a hostile aeroplane which he followed almost to the ground.

"On the 31st March he shot down an Albatross Scout near Gavrelle.

"On the 6th April he drove down single handed an Albatross Scout near Cherisy."

Again, he was awarded a DSO as per London Gazette of 18 June 1917. *The published citation read:

"For conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty. While in a single seater he attacked three hostile machines, two of which he brought down, although in the meantime he was himself attacked by four other hostile machines. *His courage and determination have set a fine example to others."

Public Record Office Air 1/1515 has the recommendation sent by Commander, 3rd Brigade, Royal Flying Corps to Headquarters, Royal Flying Corps on 7 May 1917, and as with the MC, the recommendation is much more verbose than the published citation:

"Very conspicuous gallantry and skill. *On the 2nd May near Dury, Captain Bishop on a single-seater attacked three hostile machines. *He fired 15 rounds into the rear machine which fell completely out of control and was seen to crash. *He was then attacked by a two-seater machine into which he fired 40 rounds, whereupon the hostile machine fell in a spinning nose dive completely out of control, although in the meantime Captain Bishop was attacked by four other hostile machines.

"Previously, on the 23rd April, he attacked a hostile two-seater machine ding artillery work at close range, forcing it to land near Vitry. *He then followed the machine down to the ground and emptied a drum of ammunition into the machine. Neither the pilot nor the observer was seen to get out of their machine. *In the sam flight he attacked three Albatross Scouts which were attacking another machine, shooting one down, which was seen to crash and driving the other two away.

"During the last month this officer has destroyed thirteen hostile machines and two kite balloons and has frequently gone down to very low altitudes on the other side of the lines to obtain these successes. *His courage and determination have set an excellent example to other pilots of this Brigade."

Now, where is that "secret" VC recommendation ? Perhaps it has been confused with the original DSO recommendation.

8 May 2002, 02:19 PM

Except ...
Warneford was flying a Morane Saulnier 'L' (armed with a carbine and some bombs he apparently chucked over the side of the cockpit to down the Zep)
Although I can't speak to the ease of restarting the Morane Saulnier, the experts seem to be of the opinion that the combination of the Nieuport's peculiar "throttle" and light weight made it all but impossible to start solo.

So, if according to an earlier post this was IMPOSSIBLE to do then I suppose one has to put Warneford on a list of liars along with Fry.

Billy_Bishop · 8 May 2002, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Al,
A little logic is called for here. Do you really think that Willie Fry would have said that B landed and then took off again if it was impossible to do in a Nieuport. *As for Caldwell's doubts about B not being aired until 1977 - well, you're almost exactly 60 years out
Alex

To the best of my knowledge, limited as it is, there is no other known instance of anyone landing a Nieuport, letting the engine idle and then take off again.

As for Caldwell, if he aired those doubts before 1977, he kept it very quiet.

Al

pspiranha · 8 May 2002, 02:28 PM

Steven,

Thank you for the info.

Regards,

David Johnson

Billy_Bishop · 8 May 2002, 02:28 PM

Quote:

[ *In Victoria Cross, WWI Airmen and Their Aircraft by Alex Revell,( Flying Machine Press, *ISBN 1-891268-00-7) it tells of the action for which Flight sub-Lt Reginald Warneford received the Victoria Cross.

Apparently, the destruction of Zeppelin LZ.37 damaged his aircraft. *With a dead engine he was forced to land behind enemy lines ( it's interesting to note that there were no "witnesses" around. *Warneford didn't have the luxury of being able to fly around *looking for a suitably smooth spot where there was no one nearby). *A frantic inspection revealed the damage and after about a quarter hour he had managed to perform a quick repair. He then SINGLEHANDEDLY restarted the ROTARY engine, hopped back into the aircraft and limped it back across the lines.

So, if according to an earlier post this was IMPOSSIBLE to do then I suppose one has to put Warneford on a list of liars along with Fry.

V/R,

David Johnson

According to the VC citation, this occured in 1915. Anyone know what type of aircraft Warnford was flying. How powerful was the engine? I believe I specifically mentioned the Nieuport 17, or at least the Nieuport, and was referring to the model 17, since that is what Bishop flew.

Also, according to the VC Citation, it didn't say whether or not Warneford had help or not.

Tell you what though, I'll take back "impossible" and replace it with what Bob Bradford said, "RIDICULOUS!!"

VBR,

Al Lowe

Tom_Cervo · 8 May 2002, 03:21 PM

"According to the VC citation, this occured in 1915. *Anyone know what type of aircraft Warnford was flying. *How powerful was the engine? *I believe I specifically mentioned the Nieuport 17, or at least the Nieuport, and was referring to the model 17, since that is what Bishop flew.

Also, according to the VC Citation, it didn't say whether or not Warneford had help or not.

Tell you what though, I'll take back "impossible" and replace it with what Bob Bradford said, "RIDICULOUS!!"

VBR,

Al Lowe"

Al, in a previous remark, you mentioned Markham's article and said that his comments on the endurance of a Nieuport 17 were at variance with your own reading. Looking back at that article, Markham used a simple chart to illustrate his point that Bishop had quite enough fuel to complete his mission, so long as he spent much of it at the 7000 ft altitude quoted in his report--the higher you flew, the longer your gas held out. In other words, Markham PROVED that Bishop could flown the mission he reported.
Now I could say that Warneford flew a MS.3 Type L with an 80 hp Gnome rotary, and that Bishop flew a Nieuport 17C with a Le Rhone 110 hp 9J rotary--but would that mean anything to you?

Billy_Bishop · 8 May 2002, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Except ...
Warneford was flying a Morane Saulnier 'L' (armed with a carbine and some bombs he apparently chucked over the side of the cockpit to down the Zep)
Although I can't speak to the ease of restarting the Morane Saulnier, the experts seem to be of the opinion that the combination of the Nieuport's peculiar "throttle" and light weight made it all but impossible to start solo.

So, if according to an earlier post this was IMPOSSIBLE to do then I suppose one has to put Warneford on a list of liars along with Fry.

According to Kenneth Munson's Aircraft of WWI, the Morane Saulnier L was powered by an 80 hp Gnome or Le Rhone engine. It had a top speed of 71mph at sea level.

The Nieuport 17 had either a 110 hp or 120 hp Le Rhone engine.

Since the VC citation does not specify whether Warneford was actually alone when he started his engine, I can't say much more. I know Mr. Revell's book claims Warneford did it single haned, but what is the source for that claim? Did he write his combat report in a way to indicate he had no or little help in taking off?

For that matter, how much faster does the engine on a Morane L idle than the engine on a Nieuport 17?

All I know is what Bob Bradford said. And I figure he should know. He was part of the group that maintained a replica Nieuport 17 in Bishop's colors for several years, until it crashed.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Billy_Bishop · 8 May 2002, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Al, in a previous remark, you mentioned Markham's article and said that his comments on the endurance of a Nieuport 17 were at variance with your own reading. Looking back at that article, Markham used a simple chart to illustrate his point that Bishop had quite enough fuel to complete his mission, so long as he spent much of it at the 7000 ft altitude quoted in his report--the higher *you flew, the longer your gas held out. In other words, Markham PROVED that Bishop could flown the mission he reported.
Now I could say that Warneford flew a MS.3 Type L with an 80 hp Gnome rotary, and that Bishop flew a Nieuport 17C with a Le Rhone 110 hp 9J rotary--but would that mean anything to you?

Well, yeah. Warneford, flew a heavier plane with a weaker engine, whilst Bishop flew a lighter machine with a more powerful engine.

Thanks!!!!

VBR,

Al Lowe

8 May 2002, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Steven,

Thank you for the info.

Regards,

David Johnson

David,

Please thank Hugh as well. I know he's been at this a lot longer than I have - No Offense, Sir!

His information is quite extensive as well. As for his comments regarding the "secret" VC recommendation, I don't know off the top of my head if there is any solid proof that Scott recommended Bishop for the VC prior to the 2 June incident. I'll have to review my notes and see if I can provide any additional information.