Thanks Pyro.
BTW, regarding the N1K2's turn rate, is it as high as it is just to model the turnrate with automatic maneuvering flaps? I just assumed that's why it turned so well in here (As opposed to showing the flaps deploy, etc.).
I think X-Planes has an excellent FM. However, I can't compare it to AH, as I don't know how HTC implements the FM, and as such, HTC probably considers it propietary info.
Off topic (sort of): I have flown WW2OL, FA, WB, AW, and AH and I can't tell you which one has the most accurate FM. Some of them have glaring errors I can see, but I won't digress into that here. I can write the equations, plug in the numbers, tell you what the results are, but that only offers us first order numbers (I could do the same with coding and check the results). What would be interesting would be to see a MAJOR aerospace firm offer some data from their advanced CFD codes (And simulator codes) and results and compare with actual flight test data of existing warbirds, then get some actual WW2 Combat pilots and some pilots who fly them today input as to the 'feel' (I know this has been done to some extent...e.g. HT's 51 ride). I realize all the FM/sim coders out there try to do that with historical data, etc (Some of it very accurate), but it would be interesting with some of the advanced codes in the industry today to offer some 'definitive data' with regard to the entire EOMs for each aircraft through out the entire flight envelope. I'm not holding my breath.
P.S.- This is sort of along the lines of that NASTRAN Ref.(I think that is what it was) paper Funked put the link up to before, only more in depth.