BoB Spitfire 100 Octane fuel

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by klem

And again this shows the danger of just reading off max speeds as gospel. All three aircraft had different weights, different props plus a couple of other bits on N.3171.

Yep. I've been running some 'time to climb' tests and comparing with Alfred Price's Data, a much better test IMO.

The results with the Ia compared to the IIa are 'illuminating', and they show the CSP Ia performing no better than the DH metal 2-speed prop.

See here if you're interested.

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.co...=8095#post8095

[NZtyphoon]

From Price The Spitfire Story (Haynes, 2010, p. 106) - Spitfire I N3171 with the CSP was tested in March 1940, and wasn't fitted with armour plating, and IFF; the CSP was heavier than the two-pitch, by about 115 lb, so this and the other added weight would have pulled back climb performance, as described by ATAG_Dutch

The main benefits of the CSP were a greatly improved take-off distance (Two pitch: T/O 320yds, 490 yds to clear 50 ft screen versus 225 yds, and 370 yds respectively). It also meant the pilot didn't have to remember to change the pitch settings, and there was less strain on the engine.