Maybe the 190s arent wrong....or how to be really unpopular in 1 step

[Waffle]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Wow, it is intentional are you just not that smart?

From the very report YOU posted:
 

All the best,

Crumpp

Reads to me as they determined what the timing was...but doesn't say they adjusted it.

[Waffle]

Originally posted by Crumpp
Why don't you be the judge?

1.  RAE tested performance is consistently on the low side of the percentage range of guarantee performance.  

The  "gaurentee performance"....thats what I wanted to know..

is that what the reichlen / luftwaffe / Beamer test are?

[Crumpp]

is that what the reichlen / luftwaffe / Beamer test are?

Actually it is a specification sheet submitted to Rechlin.  

All FW-190's leaving the factory have to be within certain performance specifications before being accepted into Luftwaffe service.  Acceptance flights were conducted according to a checklist.  Of course all the settings were at Stieg u Kampfleistung as the aircraft could not be operated at higher limits until after the initial 10 hour break in period.

Pretty much standard practice for all aircraft entering service in the world.  the USAAF did it for their aircraft as well as the RAF.  Nobody pays for something that does not work.  Niether do they buy something without knowing what it will do.

Reads to me as they determined what the timing was...but doesn't say they adjusted it.

I don't know Waffle, seems to me if they determined the effect of mixture and timing then they might have to turn a screw or two on the Kommandogerät.

Sounds thin I know but just looking at the settings does not give you much of an idea of there effect unless I am just missing something.



All the best,

Crumpp

[Waffle]

Really thin the whole topic of that page lookks to be determining and investigating the engine and performance.

if there were changes  made to the timing, i'm fairly certain it would be documented as the changes were to the spark plug type.


ehh -just my interpretation.

[gripen]

Well, all I see is that somebody does speculations on these tests despite he has not even seen the report.

gripen

[Crumpp]

if there were changes made to the timing, i'm fairly certain it would be documented as the changes were to the spark plug type.

Well our interpretation in rebuilding working 801 motors that run on modern gasoline is totally different.  

The report reads:

First they found plugs that worked the best, then they determined timing and mixture settings, then they used those plugs.  Perfectly logical.

Both allied and German fuels went through a number of changes during or shortly after these test's.  Hence we see the "rough running" a common theme in allied testing.

In fact the allies had some difficulties in their own motors when the forumula for 130 grade was changed.

What your suggesting is actually pretty silly especially given the automatic nature of the engine controls which are set up for specific fuels.

All the best,

Crumpp

[Crumpp]

Really thin  the whole topic of that page lookks to be determining and investigating the engine and performance.

That is true it is determing engine performance both with 100/130 grade and C3.

The first portion of the report states they investigated performance of both fuels  and determined the rough running was caused by fouling of the German plugs with allied fuels.

From there the pressure differences across the baffling and various cooling wind speeds was determined to ensure the new plugs would work and not overheat the motor.

The mixture and timing settings were determined for the new plugs.

Finally the plugs were fitted to the aircraft pending further flight investigations.

All a perfectly logical sequence of investigating engine performance with both fuels.
 


Improper mixture will certainly decrease power.  

There are many variables that will determine the power output of an engine.
High on the list will be the ability of the fuel to burn evenly without
knock. No matter how clever the engine, the engine power output limit is
determined by the fuel it is designed to use, not the amount of oxygen
stuffed into the cylinder and compressed. Modern engines designs and
gasolines are intended to reduce the emission of undesirable exhaust
pollutants, consequently engine performance is mainly constrained by the
fuel available.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part4/section-1.html

Whether future flight difficulties were due to the allies having problems of their own fuel or the changes in German settings is unknown.  Nevertheless, problems existed in operating the engine that only the allied experienced and were not the providence of the BMW trained mechanics.







All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

All I see is speculations after speculations.

gripen

[Crumpp]

All I see is speculations after speculations.

Prove it is not true Gripen.  You have all the answers so put your money were your mouth is at.

I only have access to working motors and years of research.

All the best,

Crumpp

[gripen]

Well, as usual, it's up to you to prove that your speculations are true. No one needs to disprove them.

gripen

[Crumpp]

It's obvious you have run out of intelligent arguments.

[Glasses]

CrumPWND!

[Crumpp]

CrumPWND!

Need some catching up on the lingo.  What in the world does that mean?

[gripen]

Originally posted by Crumpp
It's obvious you have run out of intelligent arguments.

I wonder what you might mean. There is no need to argue against speculations.

gripen

[Angus]

Ehhhh, Crumpp, there are some  factors in this text of your's that you may not have considered.
"RAE tested performance is consistently on the low side of the percentage range of guarantee performance. Sometimes the RAE measured performance is outside of that range and never optimistic. All mention rough running motors and all are using allied natural petroleum AvGas.

2. The Luftwaffe, BMW, and Rechlin tests do not mention "rough" running motors except early 801's development. The flight tests consistently fall equally above and below the percentage range.

Where the Germans idiots who could not design an aircraft?

Where the allies trying to service an unfamiliar design during wartime?"

Firstly, a spelling issue.
"Where" should be "Were". But that's just a teaser......me not amreegan.



Ok, here goes.
1. The RAE flew a 190 straight from ops. I'd relly like to know how much flighttime they had with i.e. Faber's aircraft before the engine failed.
2. You have explained before that Faber's aircraft was derated. Ok. Not unique since it was a squadron service aircraft. So derated because of engine issues - on the line.
3. Bear in mind that in the WW2 Nazy Gemany, the environment for true reports is not always friendly, and up to leathal to the announcer. I keep wondering how many are total belivers in reports created in an environment where the wrong numbers could send you to the "rot front".
(Same goes with the USSR).


Think about it will you....