First by the time the P-51D was in service in Europe the standard fuel for US fighter A/C was 150 octane not 130. So a test with 130 octane was irrelevant especially if they did not run the full MP the 130 could tolerate. AND the 801 was a low altitude engine and once above its critical altitude the octane rating bacame less and less important since it could not make enough MP to use higher octane fuel. Given the automatic controls on the 801 at least in the FW190 it might not have allowed MP over 42" which means it could not make use of higher octane fuel if it was set for 95 octane. Did the Shell scientists consider this.
Rather than try to explain ALL the problems the Germans had to over come due to lower octane fuels you might look to Gregs Airplanes and Automobiles videos on Youtube. The one on why the P51 was faster than the 109G and the one on C-3 fuel (which was about 95-100 octane). The P51, P38 and P47 could run FAR FAR higher boost levels than the Germans could as a result the 109G-6 with a FAR larger engine (about 600 cubic inches larger IIRC) made less power than the Merlin -7 at 67 inches of MP or -3 which could run 75" of manifold pressure vs 42 inches for the German fighter AND the -3 merlin could make 75" to about 28000 ft and the 109 increasingly ran out of breath once past their peak about about 18000. The -7 (67 inches MP) equipped Mustangs, set up for 130 octane, were upgraded to -3 in the UK because the -7 was not a high altitude engine and was short of power at 25000. The MANUALS and PLACARDS for the P-51 all were written for the lower octane 130 fuel. But they used 150 and 75" MP in Europe. This is explained in the videos.
Greg makes lovely videos which are great fun. but it would be my advice not to watch those kinds of videos and think you`re watching anything other than some lighthearted "fireside chat" when it comes to German aero engines.
Now, on with your post.
1) What do P-51`s have to do with you refusing to accept that materials shortages were a key impediment to German aircraft performance in WW2 ?
Nothing.
(FYI - If you`re really interested in fuels, actual ISSUES of 150PN to squadrons compared to stocks, were tiny. The fuel had a very high TEL content (about 60% more than AN-F-28) and this caused a lot of fairly serious reliabilty issues in the field.)
2) Of course Shell scientsists know how to vary engine load - They put the BMW cylinder on a variable compression single cylinder test rig, there is no
other way you can make mixture response loops, unless you run Oppau or DVL test method which use variable boost supercharging to determine
knock and not variable compression.
3) I see you`ve dropped talking about Nickel, which is the entire purpose of this thread.
4) Oh, you want to ACTUALLY know how 150 PN compares with C3, across the full range of Lambda values ?
Depends on the test method in fact, if you use Oppau then C3 and 150 PN are identical in peak performance potential
at rich mixtures. If you use the DVL method the 150PN is better than C3, but C2 beats even 150 PN under Lambda 0.9.
Of course it woudnt have mattered much if Germany had had enough C2 to make it operational, as the engines were
knock limited by the exhaust valve induced pre-ignition/detonation.