I agree with Fscott and Funked that for comparison purposes, its best too look at "empty" weights.
Loaded weights are not good comparison points, due to the fact that they are variable over time (in combat), and subject to change depending on how the pilot loaded the aircraft initially. And these make a huge difference in combat.
For example lets look at the N1K2, that everyone is so fond of discussing.
The N1K2 is an extremely long range fighter. I forget the exact range (working from memory), but I believe it is somewhere in the 1200 mile range, which puts it in the same class as the P51, or considerably more than twice the range of your standard Yak-9U.
In the Yak I typically take 100% fuel (I like to climb to 20k and then fly long missions), and its easily enough fuel to fly most arena missions. But I would bet that most N1K2 pilots take only 25%+DT for their missions of base defense or furballing. So when you engage most N1K2's they are relatively "fuel light" in comparison to a fully loaded takeoff weight.
So if you use loaded weights for comparisons, you will significantly undervalue the effectiveness of the N1K2, because you are fighting an aircraft that is comparitively much lighter.
This will then lead to cries of "UFO" because the actual performance disparity will be much higher than you expect.
"Empty Weights" are the way to go in discussions like this.
Edit: RAM while I won't argue the torque issue with you (I believe your correct to a certain point), I will point out that "lack of torque from a 2000hp engine" is something that effects most, if not all of the aircraft in AH at the current time
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
[This message has been edited by Vermillion (edited 02-13-2001).]