Juzz it all goes back to which data you want to use for your modeling. Now, I'm not trying to defend the AW data. The other stuff is there for comparison purposes, not definitive proof of the N1K2 data.
But you can't say because the La5 data seems wrong to you the N1K2 must be wrong too.
For instance in WB's, its a well known fact that the F4U-4 is no where close to matching the published numbers. Does this mean therefore, that EVERY plane in WB's is extremely porked and wrong, because the -4 Is? Of course not.
Anyway, it don't matter. Pyro confirmed that the data I have on that graph is comparable to actual data from an Army Technical Intelligence Unit report on the George.
Its just that he has other information that he believes if more correct, and contradicts it.
Just like information that we see for Fw190's, how many different sets of data have we seen here for it over time? And how much of it is contradictory? Much of it.
So it all comes down to which set of data do you use to model an aircraft. And only Pyro gets too do that.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"