Hanti, nope, no offers of upload space anywhere - which is a pity.
ny59, after testing the P-38 in my current game ( and then testing it extensively outside of that ) I find that the P-38, technically speaking, sucks more than the suckiest black hole ever. It is abysmal.
So, I'm currently working on V1.1 while I wait for someone to offer space to host the mod. V 1.1 is going to feature tweaks to twin-engined fighter + fighter-bombers to make them function as they should. I'd be more than happy to discuss this with others as I'm no expert on plane performances except to know when a performance in-game seems utterly wrong compared to history. The problem with the performance really seems to fall in the Mvr category. I've experimented and giving twin-engineds a manoeuvre modifier of x +1.6 seems to yield relatively reasonable results. e.g. the P-38G becomes a plane with 26 Mvr vs 16 and the P-38L becomes a plane with 32 Mvr vs the current 20. Plugging these values in in-game the P-38G tends to get kills in dogfights but find it somewhat difficult to shake the better 2nd generation IJN and IJA fighters when they get on its tail. This jibes well with what I've read about the P-38s in combat ( generally speaking ).
Those figures look like good starts for the P-38 (G=26 and L=32). If you are keeping the J model in your mod then it belongs between the G and L models. The J was the first model with the powered control surfaces, so it belongs a bit closer to the L than to the G. Given G=26 and L=32, suggest J=30. The powered controls were a big boost in starting a turn, which is where the early model P-38's fell behind in head to head testing vs single engine fighters (P-40, P-47, P-51) - it held pretty well with them in turns after the slow start. These were the comments on the (previously posted) test documents with the P-38F or G (I forget) versus the P-47C, P-51B, and P-40 (forget which model).
Regarding other twin-engined fighters: The formula that was used seemed to do a good job overall, certainly for single-engine planes. It seems to me that there is a little more to aerodynamics than just the factors input to that formula - various shapes in various places make a big difference. This means that even though the formula did a good job, the door is always open for aircraft of designs that perform outside of the formula's predictions. Given the evidence available it is clear that the P-38 was one such plane. How many others were there? I simply do not know.
In general, while it is true that having two engines mounted on the wings requires more torque to roll than with one engine mounted centerline, there is a mitigating factor for many (or perhaps all) twin-engine fighters. On single engine fighters most of the weapons are wing mounted (I know some are not). In twin-engine fighters all weapons are centerline. In other words, when you go from a SE to a TE fighter, you double the engine weight and move it out to the wings, but you also take the weapon weight and move it in from the wings. Moving the weapon weight inward is a mitigating factor versus moving the (increased) engine weight outward.
Did the formula account for this? If not, then that is one justification for all TE fighters to get at least a small boost.
Aside from those two considerations (1-designs outside the capabilities of the formula, 2-weapons moving inward), I do not know if the modifiers for other Two-engine and four-engine planes is too severe or not.
It also has the effect of making Ki-45s much more viable in the fighter-bomber role and turns the Ki-93 into a real threat to Allied fighters ( which it would have been ).
I do not know about those particular airplanes so I must withhold comment.