Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

Billy_Bishop · 13 May 2002, 02:54 PM

Quote:

*Maybe after landing he took the gun off so he could shoot some holes in his plane. *Then he could not get it back on, so he just left it!
* * * * * Richard

Now see that part, REALLY doesn't make sense. Bishop used to practice with HIS gun as much as possible. To do this, he would remove the gun from his machine, go to the range, do his target practice. Clean his gun, and put it back on his machine.

For further reference see http://www.billybishop.net/bishopF.html .

VBR,

Al Lowe

13 May 2002, 04:09 PM

Dear Al & Richard,
The following is Fry's own words. I apologize to C & C and to Alex Revell, as it is used without permission, but I've posted it here so as to "set the record straight":

"I have been at some pains to try to explain clearly the method by which the Lewis gun on the Nieuport was fired, and by chance have since noticed the illustration on the loose cover of my copy of Bishop's son's book about his father's exploit. The illustration gives an idea of the strength of the cable, which was made up from many, some say fifty or so, thin steel strands held together by rubber sheathing from which it will be gathered that the cable could not have been broken or torn away by throwing the gun overboard in flight. A cutting tool would have been necessary to detach it and no pilot in the Squadron carried one in his machine. As I have said before, the cable was firmly attached at both extremities by what I remember to have been by being sealed together by soldering or, in some cases, by a special little clamp fitting. It was all very primitive and 'make do' in those early days."

Al, you most certainly have the book cited; would you be able to scan and post this illustration?

VBR,
Captain "Cooked Goose" Lewis

Billy_Bishop · 13 May 2002, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Dear Al & Richard,
*The following is Fry's own words. I apologize to C & C and to Alex Revell, as it is used without permission, but I've posted it here so as to "set the record straight":

* "I have been at some pains to try to explain clearly the method by which the Lewis gun on the Nieuport was fired, and by chance have since noticed the illustration on the loose cover of my copy of Bishop's son's book about his father's exploit. The illustration gives an idea of the strength of the cable, which was made up from many, some say fifty or so, thin steel strands held together by rubber sheathing from which it will be gathered that the cable could not have been broken or torn away by throwing the gun overboard in flight. A cutting tool would have been necessary to detach it and no pilot in the Squadron carried one in his machine. As I have said before, the cable was firmly attached at both extremities by what I remember to have been by being sealed together by soldering or, in some cases, by a special little clamp fitting. It was all very primitive and 'make do' in those early days."

*Al, you most certainly have the book cited; would you be able to scan and post this illustration?

VBR,
Captain "Cooked Goose" Lewis

If you're talking about a picture of Bishop with the Lewis in the "down" position, it would do no good either way. *By virtue of how he is holding the gun, and from the angle the picture was taken, the connection of the Bowden cable to the Lewis gun is not visible.

However, I would like to point out that Mr. Fry forgot one thing. *By his very description, he makes it sound like the installation of the gun is semi-permanent. *

How, were the guns removed for cleaning and maintenance? *Those cables could not have been attached as he describes. *It just would not "fly."

You simply can't be cutting the cable every time you have to do maintenance on one of the guns. *

And FYI, the Bowden cable was originally designed for use on bicycles. *Take a look at the brake cable on one. *THAT is where the Bowden cable came from.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Tom_Cervo · 14 May 2002, 07:09 PM

Quote:

If you're talking about a picture of Bishop with the Lewis in the "down" position, it would do no good either way. *By virtue of how he is hold the gun, and from the angle the picture was taken, the connection of the Bowden cable to the Lewis gun is not visible.

However, I would like to point out that Mr. Fry forgot one thing. *By his very description, he makes it sound like the installation of the gun is semi-permanent. *

How, were the guns removed for cleaning and maintenance? *Those cables could not have been attached as he describes. *It just would not "fly."

You simply can't be cutting the cable every time you have to do maintenance on one of the guns. *

And FYI, the Bowden cable was originally designed for use on bicycles. *Take a look at the brake cable on one. *THAT is where the Bowden cable came from.

VBR,

Al Lowe

The picture of Bishop is fairly widespread and appears on the back of the dust jacket of Arthur Bishop's book, at least in the States. It also appears in David Baker's Famous Flyers: 'Billy' Bishop, the second, and unfortunately last book in the series, published in 1990 by Outline Press in the UK. It's possibly the finest collection of photographs and illustrations dealing with Bishop, and I'm citing from it--and if you don't have it, Al, get it, and thank me later.
The "gun back" photo is on page 80. Bishop holds the Lewis gun up at about a 75 degree angle. The photo was taken by a newspaer photographer and is very sharp. It shows the details of the gun mount very clearly, but not the Bowden-trigger attachment.
However, page 80 of the color section shows what looks like the very similar mounting in an SE 5 from the RAF museum, and the Bowden-trigger attachement seems very clear. In front of the trigger guard is a rectangular box or guard, about an inch-inch and a half long and 3/8 square. The Bowden goes through this to the gun itself--it's obviously not a part of the gun, but a well made add-on. It seems to be attached to the gun with two *very small screws or bolts. (The picture is from the left)
An armorer might undo this with a small screwdriver in a few minutes. Without a tool, you'd need a cold chisel. The cable itself may have been screwed in like a modern remote photo shutter; it may have been soldered and resoldered. It's the guard that would have been impossible to remove without a tool. Now all we need is a clear picture of the arrangement on a Nieuport. Anyone?

15 May 2002, 02:03 AM

Here is the diagram of the "standard" Foster mount and Bowden cables from Harry Woodman's book "Early Aircraft Armament", page 57. *The trigger cable attached to the front of the trigger guard, using a small bolt or screw. Its attachment is obviously less sturdy than the attachment of the gun itself to its mount.

Once the gun is removed from its mount, I see no problem with yanking it out of the plane with the Bowden cable still attached. Only the connection of the Bowden cable to the joystick would impede the process. I have not seen the hardware that attaches the lower end of the cable to the grip on the joystick, but it is the real impediment, not the upper attachment point. I would guess that it is no more sturdy than the bolt holding the cable to the gun.

Tom_Cervo · 15 May 2002, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Here is the diagram of the "standard" Foster mount and Bowden cables from Harry Woodman's book "Early Aircraft Armament", page 57. *The trigger cable attached to the front of the trigger guard, using a small bolt or screw. Its attachment is obviously less sturdy than the attachment of the gun itself to its mount.

Once the gun is removed from its mount, I see no problem with yanking it out of the plane with the Bowden cable still attached. Only the connection of the Bowden cable to the joystick would impede the process.

<<Yes. I think the joystick would be the hard part, especially when the gun is dragging behind the plane in the slipstream. Any advantage from the lessened drag would be offset by the pilot struggling to hold the joystick with such a counterweight pulling against him.>>TC

I have not seen the hardware that attaches the lower end of the cable to the grip on the joystick, but it is the real impediment, not the upper attachment point. I would guess that it is no more sturdy than the bolt holding the cable to the gun.

Probably a few twists of the wrist with a screwdriver, but without it you could pull all day. The point is that if Bishop was said that he did all this in the air while flying, it's no wonder that a few eyebrows were raised.

Billy_Bishop · 15 May 2002, 07:18 AM

Quote:

The "gun back" photo is on page 80. Bishop holds the Lewis gun up at about a 75 degree angle. The photo was taken by a newspaer photographer and is very sharp. It shows the details of the gun mount very clearly, but not the Bowden-trigger attachment.

Hi Tom,

I think I said that already. And yes, I do have that picture. TONS of that picture in fact.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Billy_Bishop · 15 May 2002, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Probably a few twists of the wrist with a screwdriver, but without it you could pull all day. The point is that if Bishop was said that he did all this in the air while flying, it's no wonder that a few eyebrows were raised.

It has been my experience that a large number of common screws can be quickly and effectively unscrewed with the small blade of a pocket knife, or similar device.

Frankly, I don't see that he'd have all that much difficulty undoing the thing. After all, he had considerable experience removing it for target practice.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Billy_Bishop · 15 May 2002, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Here is the diagram of the "standard" Foster mount and Bowden cables from Harry Woodman's book "Early Aircraft Armament", page 57. *The trigger cable attached to the front of the trigger guard, using a small bolt or screw. Its attachment is obviously less sturdy than the attachment of the gun itself to its mount.

Once the gun is removed from its mount, I see no problem with yanking it out of the plane with the Bowden cable still attached. Only the connection of the Bowden cable to the joystick would impede the process. I have not seen the hardware that attaches the lower end of the cable to the grip on the joystick, but it is the real impediment, not the upper attachment point. I would guess that it is no more sturdy than the bolt holding the cable to the gun.

Thanks for the picture by the way. 8)

VBR,

Al Lowe

NeilE · 15 May 2002, 08:08 AM

Hi All;

After reading this, the eleventy-umpteenth chapter here on the pros and cons of the Bishop debate, I admit to being thoroughly bored by the whole matter. Looking at the matter objectively, there seems to be no way to prove empirically whether Bishop was a fraud or not. being brutally frank, it may not even matter.

Ultimately it doesn't matter how many poor unfortunates Bishop and the others shot down. Their efforts were more or less peripheral to the war effort. What did matter was the fighter pilots' reason for being - the two seater artillery/infantry spotters.

The contribution of these on both sides to the war effort was immense. If they did their jobs right, and they often did, the fate of hundreds, sometimes thousands of men was decided - a lot more than seventy-two (or less or more depending on who you believe).

I think its about time the 'hidden' or 'obscured' histories of the air war were researched and studied - for example, the hundreds of unsung Canadian two seater crews who risked their lives and died daily to do their jobs properly. If as much time was spent researching these and others of the 'unknown air war' (the average fighter pilots with little or no score, two seaters, ground crews etc) as on the so-called 'aces', then our body of knowledge would be rich indeed.

Yes, 'aces' had their part, as did all fighter crews, but we must remember the notion of the 'ace' is essentially propagandistic, and the fact we still discuss them today is a tribute to the effectiveness of that propaganda.

I'm not saying don't study

Billy Bishop or the other aces, just to put them in their proper historical perspective, to look deeper than 'victory scores' (I prefer kills - it puts the whole bloody business into perspective), rather than waste time on interminable debates that are ultimately pointless.

No offence meant

Regards

Neil