On 11/07/2020 10:08, alan_m wrote:
On 11/07/2020 08:02, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
BBC News article claiming a 13 year olds intricate calculations
persuaded them to fit 8 browning guns rather than the four planned.
Obviously chances are improved of bringing down an enemy aircraft, the
more guns are being fired, but what is the intricate calculation
needed to prove that?

It seems the guns were aimed to coincide at a range of 250 yards. 250
yards seems awfully distant to me, what they show of the films of the
time, it seems much less than 250 yards, maybe as little as 50 yards,
unless the used telephoto lens?


I remember reading something once where it was said that squadrons with
better kill rates adjusted their guns closer. As it wasn't official
policy the recommendations to do so were not "officially" passed on.

From post war accounts I've seen the Germans had much better armament
and could do a lot more damage to an aircraft but were hampered during
the Battle of Britain from doing so by the amount of fuel they had to
stay in the combat zone.

Arguments have raged, but in general the German pilots were better and
the ME109 had a cannon. BIG help. BUT UK had radar and home turf.
ME109 faster in a dive and had fuel injection so didn't cut under
negative G. Spitty could turn tighter. ME109 a bitch on the ground.
Spitty not great. Hurricane tough and forgiving and very stable gun wise
with a thicker stiffer wing and much easier to repair. And we had lots

But the spitty had the development potential - we had to wait for the
Hawker Tempest/Mustang really for a better day fighter than a spitfire
And that (Tempest) was a ******* engine - the Napier Sabre - and so much
CO on the cockpit they ran on oxygen all flight

The Tempest was flawed, but it really had what you needed in late war
years. Speed, firepower, tough, able to fight at altitude. The late
model spitfires no longer had Merlins and were almost new aircraft


--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)