I don't see your point, the RAE tests were done with improved version of the C3 (1943 version). There was no difference in rich mixture running between C3 and british 100 octane and slight difference was found in weak mixture.
I seriously doubt it Gripen. Why don't you post the entire report or just the date and we can just completely clear the issue up.
The timeline is completely off for Faber's engine. That engine went to the Americans AFAIK. Specifically the Wright Aero engine Company for detailed analysis in 1942.
After removing the racks these were basicly same as fighter variants. Same engine, same airframe etc. coming from same production lines.
Wrong on many levels. Quite a few differences in the design and they did not come off the same production lines. The G series was built exclusively by Focke Wulf and had it's own production runs. While many parts are interchangeable some key components are not. The G series required the F 602 (G1), F 69 (G2, 3), or F613 (G8) power egg. While the F series in an emergency, could exchange power eggs for the F600 or F66 of the A series, the G series was expressly forbidden to use any other set up.
You cannot put a G series back to Air Superiority fighter performance without major changes to the engine and aircraft.
Besides the wing racks, the most significant differences in the G series are the engine set up. First the internal intakes are larger and the cooling gills were not adjustable. The engine itself was equipped with different plugs and Kommandgerat settings. A different ignition harness was used and the G lacked the pressurized ignition harness of the A series.
It also lacked a synthetic rubber seal around the engine in the cowling found in the A series. This seal in all likelihood reduced cooling drag significantly as well. Rubber was strategic material that was in short supply in Germany. Although the German rubber was synthetic, it still required latex in the formula.
The G series performance was so dismal that Focke Wulf removed the cowling armament in an attempt to reduce drag. This helped but the aircraft was still significantly slower than the Anton. The G series did climb at a steeper angle and slower speed than the Anton as well.
Focke Wulf also continued to experiment with various wing rack designs to further reduce drag. In the FW-190G8 we see the ETC 503 racks introduced just as the FW-190F8. Cowling MG's reappear early in production until finally all FW-190G8's are redesignated FW-190F8.
The G series was an air tractor, set up to haul loads long distances and not a pure performance set up like the air superiority fighter variants. No amount of ballasting or removal of wing racks will make it a fighter.
There were 801TS engines also with 12 blade cooler but there should be no other versions with 14 blade cooler (at least not in production planes).
"White 1" was not equipped with the rubber seal and mounted a 14 bladed Lufterrad using a BMW801D2 in the F66 power egg. "Black 3" has the seal and so don't some of our other FW-190A8's.
Actually the report says that the Germans did not utilize the potential of the C3 in their engines ie the BMEP of the engines did not reach the BMEP potential of the fuel.
Yes it does say that in the rich settings.
It also says that C 3 fuel was equal to the allied fuels and that the allies did not understand the method the Germans were rating their fuels. It also says that allied ratings were not direct equivalents.
After the war, the NACA did quite a bit of research into the properties of high contents of aromatics, paraffin’s, and alkanes for high antiknock resistant fuels. These became standard in post war high performance aviation fuels.
The allies knew very little about them during the war. In fact they could not even identify the antiknock agents used in C3:
And they solely relied on the octane number, which as stated by the allied petrochemist, does not give a true reading of the fuel rating.
Again, fuel is an issue with our engine rebuild we will have to overcome.
The changes in allied fuels have nothing to with this.
If you were not so blinded you would see that they have everything to do with the issue.
They simply show how a small change in fuel composition can have far-reaching and unforeseen negative performance consequences.
It is absurd to think the allies could stay abreast of every change the Germans made to their fuel or be able to run captured aircraft at the same level of performance the trained user's could.
Foreign tests of captured equipment simply reveal the "at least" performance of a design.
I don't see your point, the RAE tests were done with improved version of the C3 (1943 version).
Prove it. Your making the claim and frankly the timeline does not match up at all with the history of Faber’s aircraft.
Additionally you seem to be claiming that the Germans stopped attempting to improve their fuel in 1943? That these were the last changes made and all efforts to increase performance stopped.
Not only is it not true, it does not pass the common sense test.
All the best,
Crumpp
