Hitech - quite correct, I could/should have just used sine(A), not cosine(B), but... same difference. Must have been at the third glass of wine stage.

Come to think of it, when I wrote that flight planning app, almost ALL the trig was done using Sine. Had to use Cosine for crosswind effect calculation as sine(70) = sine(110), sine(80) = sine(100) etc. I didn't know about the Windows calculator inverse trig functions - will use that from now on.
I would have thought that the greater the upward angle from which the guns are fired, the more rapid would be the loss of kinetic energy. A vertical shot upwards would be in greatest defiance of gravity, and therefore lose its kinetic energy more quickly than one fired at an upward angle of 20° - am I right? So the point about the ~43° is that there would, one assumes, be considerable loss of kinetic energy, and a fair amount of drop, ie the bullets don't fly from here to the moon in a straight line. That, plus the fact that he probably had to pull hard to get the nose up, therefore loaded airframe, would have made the shot very, very difficult.
Ergo, the shot was difficult, but not impossible.
I looked at Bill's career stats - only about 200 career kills. Which kind of makes me think that luck had a greater part to play in this scenario.