INTERESTING FACT OF THE DAY

C/O Wikipedia. "The solution was to place commonly used letter-pairs (like "th" or "st") so that their typebars were not neighboring, avoiding jams. Contrary to popular belief,[5] the QWERTY layout was not designed to slow the typist down,[6] but rather to speed up typing by preventing jams.[4][7] There is also evidence that, aside from the issue of jamming, keys being farther apart increases typing speed on its own, because it encourages alternation between the hands."

Also, they were altered to be arranged diagonally apart to increase distance between neighbouring keys.

Originally Posted by Matt-EUC

C/O Wikipedia. "The solution was to place commonly used letter-pairs (like "th" or "st") so that their typebars were not neighboring, avoiding jams. Contrary to popular belief,[5] the QWERTY layout was not designed to slow the typist down,[6] but rather to speed up typing by preventing jams.[4][7] There is also evidence that, aside from the issue of jamming, keys being farther apart increases typing speed on its own, because it encourages alternation between the hands."

Originally Posted by Matt-EUC

C/O Wikipedia. "The solution was to place commonly used letter-pairs (like "th" or "st") so that their typebars were not neighboring

not keys, which are pretty close.

In fact those commonly used combinations (apart from "TH") are from the same hand, "ST", "ER", "ES", "ED" are all in the left hand. I did also say in my original post that the reason for slowing down the typist was to prevent jams. Ok that statement wasn't entirely correct, they wanted to slow down specific pairs, as these are common and will become quicker with practice, leading to jams, I do take that point.

Originally Posted by Matt-EUC

Also, they were altered to be arranged diagonally apart to increase distance between neighbouring keys.

Yes, i.e. to prevent hitting two at the same time.

[L3nny]

This was on QI last night, co-incidence?

Originally Posted by L3nny

This was on QI last night, co-incidence?

haha, was it? Or it could be that I am a researcher for QI. This particular bit I got argued down by my colleagues.

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by ClunkintheUK

I thought they were referred to as cannon too, because they were pretty big. I was remembering a story from way back when we went to the Imperial War Museum as a kid.

In this instance, cannon fired explosive rounds as opposed to bullets.

Also you may have something about the belts, as I have discovered that Martin-Baker (they of the ejector seat fame) developed a belt feed system for the cannon in 1941 which was known as the MKII. I cannot find anything about the length of ammunition belts. The MKII was not fitted to the Spitfire due to space problems in the thin wing of that aircraft. Later Hurricanes were fitted with four such cannon. The cannon were less reliable than the Brownings in these installations. So these belt fed cannons did not see widespread service until the introduction of the Typhoon in 1941, intended as a replacement for the Hurricane.

You, Sir, are a nerd. In a good way. though if they were not widespread, it is unlikely that the phrase would have entered the lexicon.

Though perhaps if they were unreliable, giving someone the whole 9 yards would be note worthy, in that you managed to fire them before the mechanism jammed. I doubt it, but I'd love to save the story.

[ophic]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

The cannon were less reliable than the Brownings in these installations.

I thought the pilots just hated them because the convergence point was dictated to be set too far away for them to hit anything.

[Luckypants]

In both installations the main problem was with icing of the cannon at altitude, leading to jamming. In the Spitfire they mounted the gun on it's side which led to mechanical jamming in dog-fight manoeuvres. Hence the reliability issues. I believe the 'cone of fire' convergence was further out than with the brownings but due to the heavier fire power it was less critical to have all the projectiles hitting one spot. As later aircraft were designed to accommodate these weapons, both problems were overcome.

These issues were mainly present in wing mounted applications forced on the designers by a single engine 'blocking' the fuselage. On aircraft such as the Mosquito or Beaufighter they were mounted in the nose and were very effective.