On 13/07/2020 16:47, nightjar 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?

I have been looking into this and think there is a certain amount of
poetic licence in the claim. No doubt there was a Mr Hill who worked for
the Air Ministry, who thought that eight machine guns had to be better
than four and who recruited his daughter to do the maths that proved
just how much better they would be. However, there does not seem to be
any evidence that influenced the design of the Spitfire.

Could be called 'poetic license' could also be called 'presenting facts
in such a way as to advance a particular cause'(Women were involved in
everything and kept stupid men on track)
Yes Mr Hill did work for the air ministry but was it more a case of
"yes darling help daddy he has to do some very hard sums, now could you
add 15 and 21 for me"

Remember she was thirteen and daddy was an air ministry scientist who
could probably do all the calculations required .

Who here, with a daughter, has not had her 'hold' a piece of wood
you are sawing and said "what a good job you are doing"?

Also determining the (optimum?)gun fit is not 'designing' the aircraft.