include anything else you feel is pertinent as you see fit.
First, your main issue is that you came onto this board with a huge chip on your shoulder, and then are mad that no one else agrees with you, or backs you up. So, I don't think I could add anything pertinent, or at least what you would consider pertinent.
To perform an actual, detailed analysis of the aircraft in question, and their respective performance differences for us would be a huge undertaking. I've got a book of aerodynamic equations that would allow me to do it, if I had access to some data that I don't, and it would probably take me hours upon hours of personal time to do so, for each aircraft. I've seen enough of HTC's methodology to know that their approximate performance modelling is pretty close to accurate, in that they consider almost all of the major aerodynamic forces that act upon a plane. So, armed with that trust in their methods, I simply push the "I believe" button when there are things that I don't know or question, but don't have or don't make time to determine for myself, using those aforementioned aerodynamic equations. So, if you really want to start comparing apples to apples, come in here with your power available/power required curves, propellor efficiency numbers, thrust approximations, et al instead of simply waving an anecdotal pilot report or a single chart that has undertermined origins.
You may be right, after all. But most of us will remain skeptical until you can produce something tactile that we can wrap our minds around. Being right doesn't matter at all if you can't convince people you are. For me personally, I'm tired of your BBS Sniper tactics in these threads...
