Actually the N1K2 is slighty larger then A6M5, about 2 feet bigger in the span. The Fuselage is much larger in diameter, length is about the same.
The A6M5 and the N1K2 share very simular aerodynamic components, the N1K1-Ja used a almost identical tail section, and the N1K2 retained the horizontal tail spars and stabilizers, however the the vertical stabilizer was lengthend so a larger rudder could be installed to help control engine torque. The Airfoils in use on both the N1K2 and the A6M5 are also very simular, they use ailerons of the same approximate dimensions and placement, the only key difference between the two are in the wing root and the chord. The N1K2 has a thicker chord and the wing root is much thicker to accomodate the combat flaps.
That is not to say they should fly realtively the same by any means though, as simple variations through planes of the same basic airframe (109's, 190's, etc) all handle differently of course.
However I still quesiton it's handling in regards to the combat flaps...I am still not sure to what aspect they are modeled in AH...if they are solely based on the pilot-operated flaps they seem to be doing far to little (difference between deployed and clean states is relatively small, considering the automatic system on the N1K1, N1K1-J and N1K2 was said to greatly increase manuverability)in regards as to how the actual system worked, respectively.
