Flight Results:
The following conditions were measured: |
|
|
| 1. |
Engine sealed at the rear, i.e. filling of the engine gap between engine and hatch in front of the windscreen as well as at the wing root with
rubber strips. The gap at the lower engine cowling was not sealed. |
| 2. |
Engine sealed at the front, i.e. holes for cooling flap rods sealed with rubber sheets and flanging holes at radiator
frame sealed with metal sheets. |
| 3. |
Engine sealed at front and rear. |
| 4. |
Engine not sealed. |
| 5. |
Engine not sealed and lower engine cowling put back in line. |
| In condition 1 ./. 4 the lower engine cowling was displaced 15 mm to the left. |
| Sheet 1 shows the plots of the measured points for the individual conditions. |
| Sheet 2 shows the speed plots for combat and take-off power for direct comparison. |
| It shows: |
| 1. |
that it is practically the same to have the engine sealed at the front or at the rear. In both cases there is a speed gain of 7 ./. 8 km/h. |
| 2. |
that with both seals at the front and the rear the speed gain is 14 km/h at combat power and 17 km/h at take-off power, this considers that by displacing
the lower engine cowling by 15 mm to the left, there is a speed gain of 4 km/h at take-off power while practically no influence on the speed could
be observed at combat power. |
| For these tests is should be remarked, that the seal at the wing root was not perfect. The rubber was partially destroyed by exhaust fumes and pushed itself outward
during the flights. Maybe this is one reason, why the rear engine seal only added 7 ./. 8 km/h, while a gain of 15 km/h had been determined
with Fw 190/ Nr. 210002. Through these tests it is proven, that it is imperative to attach importance to sealed engines. |
