In Billy Bishop's defence, there's a video out there on RUclips where another of Canada's great WW1 aces, Raymond Collishaw, says in an interview that Bishop was the greatest fighter pilot he had ever known. On a side note, although Collishaw was credited with 60 WW1 victories he was rumored to have had scored many many more before hanging up his flying goggles. Collishaw was said to have passed off a few kills to other, especially newer, pilots under his command during the Great War. Then he scored multiple victories while fighting for White Russia during their Revolution. And perhaps more in the Middle East prior to WW2. I don't have an exact count but I recall my father (ex-RCAF) saying many people believed Collishaw shot down over 100 aircraft in all.
Such a fine documentary. In my eyes Billy Bishop will always be a Canadian ace. Screw the naysayers. With all those downs to his name why would he bother to make up such a story. Jealous armchair aviators wishing they were there. I did my commercial fw with the Chinese Airforce (Central Airways) at the now Billy Bishop airfield and my private license at Markham Airport under the wing of a Polish air ace Jan Falkowski. Brings back such memories.
I can't help but think of many other situations where servicemen would generically identify the enemy's machines incorrectly. For example, Allied forces in WWII would regularly identify Nazi tanks almost exclusively as Tigers or Panthers, and Japanese fighters as Zeroes when in fact they were often other models. The visible differences in the German WW1 Albatross models would not be as obvious to an attacking pilot as it seems to have been suggested, as they were a progression of one design, and not a series of "clean slate" models with significant visible changes. Much like the French Nieuport models of WWI were often very difficult to differentiate, or in a more modern context, to identify the different Mark of Spitfire while engaging it in a fight would have been to Axis pilots in WWII. Also, considering how fragile the Nieuport 17 actually was, and was known to be to it's pilots, the idea that a pilot would intentionally shoot one up to simulate battle damage, then intend to take off, fly, and land it would be kin to loading 5 of the 6 chambers of a revolver and then playing Russian roulette. Maybe someone with extreme battle stress who could no longer handle the terrible fear might do that, and fake a crash to get himself out of the war, but it would not be a wise move to try and get away with if you were trying to fraudulently self promote yourself. The high risks of take off and landings in sound aircraft were already treacherous enough, often being equally compared to actual aerial combat as far as aircraft lost and pilots injured or killed. It would be the same as someone who can't swim tying an anchor around their feet and then drilling holes in their boat in the middle of an Atlantic storm, with the idea of being able to tell some grand story when they finally reached the harbor a significant distance away. An extremely poor gamble, at best. Whether Billy embellished his exploits or not, he still had to do them in the first place to have a factual event to put some window dressings on, since there was an excellent chance that someone would witness it with or without his knowledge. The very fact that he did have so many of his victories witnessed and corroborated, plus actually made it through the war means he was an excellent, top 1% tier combat pilot, and that really can't be called into question.
I Think those who try to discredit him are wrong, point 1 you need at the time someone to start the spinner , point 2 to leave the plane running unoccupied was impossible at that period, point 3 to find a suitable place to land is unlikely . Point 4 to shoot up your own plane is highly risky . The airfield attack was planned with Albert Ball , who was killed before, I do doubt that Ball was shot down as was claimed by the Red Barons Brother , as his claim was a 3 wing stutter, and ball was flying a Se a 5 two winger plane not a 3 wing plane , the false report on Ball , it was undone by a German captain Hailer on the ground , who witnessed the crash saying Ball came out the low cloud upside down, and not a mark on him , and his back was broken , the plane never caught fire , which is in line was another pilot who broke off low on fuel having took off the same time as Ball , the S E A 5 was prone to fuel problems , it is likely this is also what killed the Ace James McCudden .
Thank you! I was born in 1967 and Billy Bishop was a hero of mine. My first model airplane was a Nieuport 17.
Very well done
Thank you so much Diana for this wonderful work. I'm speechless, other than to say, "God Bless You!"
Great free video. Thank you. 😉😂😉😉😄😂😉😄😋😉😄😋😙😄😋😙😄😙😋😄😋😙😄😋😙😄😙😋😄😉😂😃😃😉😁😉😃😁😁😃😉😉😃😁😉😃😂😉😂😃😉😋😃😙😎😎😎
Thank you for posting this excellent documentary. Very interesting to learn about the namesake of Billy Bishop Airport. Beautiful narration as well!
You are blessed young lady, thank you for your efforts.
Thank you for your Courage.
Billy is a Canadian to be one to be remembered.
Yes he is
We MUST remember our past to know wear are going.
In Billy Bishop's defence, there's a video out there on RUclips where another of Canada's great WW1 aces, Raymond Collishaw, says in an interview that Bishop was the greatest fighter pilot he had ever known.
On a side note, although Collishaw was credited with 60 WW1 victories he was rumored to have had scored many many more before hanging up his flying goggles. Collishaw was said to have passed off a few kills to other, especially newer, pilots under his command during the Great War. Then he scored multiple victories while fighting for White Russia during their Revolution. And perhaps more in the Middle East prior to WW2.
I don't have an exact count but I recall my father (ex-RCAF) saying many people believed Collishaw shot down over 100 aircraft in all.
Such a fine documentary. In my eyes Billy Bishop will always be a Canadian ace. Screw the naysayers.
With all those downs to his name why would he bother to make up such a story. Jealous armchair aviators wishing they were there.
I did my commercial fw with the Chinese Airforce (Central Airways) at the now Billy Bishop airfield and my private license at Markham Airport under the wing of a Polish air ace Jan Falkowski. Brings back such memories.
This is my cousin thank you for making this
I can't help but think of many other situations where servicemen would generically identify the enemy's machines incorrectly. For example, Allied forces in WWII would regularly identify Nazi tanks almost exclusively as Tigers or Panthers, and Japanese fighters as Zeroes when in fact they were often other models. The visible differences in the German WW1 Albatross models would not be as obvious to an attacking pilot as it seems to have been suggested, as they were a progression of one design, and not a series of "clean slate" models with significant visible changes. Much like the French Nieuport models of WWI were often very difficult to differentiate, or in a more modern context, to identify the different Mark of Spitfire while engaging it in a fight would have been to Axis pilots in WWII. Also, considering how fragile the Nieuport 17 actually was, and was known to be to it's pilots, the idea that a pilot would intentionally shoot one up to simulate battle damage, then intend to take off, fly, and land it would be kin to loading 5 of the 6 chambers of a revolver and then playing Russian roulette. Maybe someone with extreme battle stress who could no longer handle the terrible fear might do that, and fake a crash to get himself out of the war, but it would not be a wise move to try and get away with if you were trying to fraudulently self promote yourself. The high risks of take off and landings in sound aircraft were already treacherous enough, often being equally compared to actual aerial combat as far as aircraft lost and pilots injured or killed. It would be the same as someone who can't swim tying an anchor around their feet and then drilling holes in their boat in the middle of an Atlantic storm, with the idea of being able to tell some grand story when they finally reached the harbor a significant distance away. An extremely poor gamble, at best. Whether Billy embellished his exploits or not, he still had to do them in the first place to have a factual event to put some window dressings on, since there was an excellent chance that someone would witness it with or without his knowledge. The very fact that he did have so many of his victories witnessed and corroborated, plus actually made it through the war means he was an excellent, top 1% tier combat pilot, and that really can't be called into question.
Canadian heros are still North American.Like Eddie Rickenbacker is an American hero from the same war,WW1.
Only a wanna-be has been looser would try to bring someone like Billy Bishop down to their level would seek to gain by impugning his reputation.
I Think those who try to discredit him are wrong, point 1 you need at the time someone to start the spinner , point 2 to leave the plane running unoccupied was impossible at that period, point 3 to find a suitable place to land is unlikely . Point 4 to shoot up your own plane is highly risky . The airfield attack was planned with Albert Ball , who was killed before, I do doubt that Ball was shot down as was claimed by the Red Barons Brother , as his claim was a 3 wing stutter, and ball was flying a Se a 5 two winger plane not a 3 wing plane , the false report on Ball , it was undone by a German captain Hailer on the ground , who witnessed the crash saying Ball came out the low cloud upside down, and not a mark on him , and his back was broken , the plane never caught fire , which is in line was another pilot who broke off low on fuel having took off the same time as Ball , the S E A 5 was prone to fuel problems , it is likely this is also what killed the Ace James McCudden .
The world needs less conspiracy theory clowns weaving their bizarre and convoluted theories of imaginary villains.
A lot of great men from Owen Sound fought in the First World War.
He is my uncle on my dad's side
He is my cousin as well