The only sets of climb/speed charts I've ever been able to find, on this board or otherwise are the english translation of the Focke Wulf curves for the 190A8, the Focke Wulf curves for the 190A5, and the allied test data of the captured EB106. Our A8 is REAL close the Focke Wulf data, and our A5 is REAL close to the EB106 data from the testing I've done. Crump mentioned a Rechlin dataset for the A8 a few times, but I've never been able to find it, and he wouldn't post it (although he did say he sent it to HT, so I'm sure they've seen it). If the A5 were made to match the FW data, it would be a bit faster on the deck, but climb worse all around.
In terms of these kind of objectively tested and well documented performance areas, the AH 190s seem to be very well modeled. HTC doesn't achieve this by just entering what it's top speed, or max climb rate should be - they do it by making sure that the thrust, lift, weight, and drag are correct, and then letting the game do the math determining what the plane will do. So why would one plane that hits its known testable figures be wrong when the others are right? And how do you know it's wrong? Based off of some subjective feeling and a few vague descriptions of it's use written 60 years ago? We had people in the MA claiming that the Spit XVI was faster then the La-7 when it first came out, based on their feeling and observation.
In short, even when my "hunch" disagrees with HTC's modeling I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, since they've input the historical data and done the math to get their result. I might have read some of what they have, and have a very limited comprehension of the math involved - hardly grounds to argue the point. And to top it off, HT is one of the few guys (maybe the only one) on these boards that has actually flown one of these fighters we argue about so much.
