In fact, now that I see the thumbnail. It really does look quite a bit like the P47 (until you see the wing shape).
The same style 'bubble canopy' has alot to do with it too. It seems to be in the same position and the fuselage is 'fat' and round. Even the four blade propellor probably contributes to the P47D classic look 

The fact that the thing was never actually made, makes it impossible to get the performance and flight characteristics, as there are none. But, as I said, it doesn't handle very well. It's a real dog, actually. The Griffon version he made is a very manoeuvrable plane, with quite a tight turn for that size plane. I don't know, again, whether those handling characteristics are from any 'official' design info. After all, the only one that was made was flown by only 2 or 3 people, so there wouldn't be much to go on anyway.  

Given what you have said about msot builders using, or at least starting with a 'stock' air file, and maybe, I imagine, making some possible mods to that, given known characteristics, what is your opinion about the accuracy, or lack there of, of the 1% planes? I think these are 'billed' at places like avhistory as "very close to behaving like the original plane" or words similar.
Do you think this is a realistic representation?  

Why don't you release the details of the .AIR files that define the flight characteristics for the aircraft in Flight Simulator?

The .AIR files contain proprietary data that aircraft manufacturers have provided to us. To help protect that information, we don't release the internal details of the .AIR file.
http://zone.msn.com/flightsim/FS02Readback04.asp

Would a bloke who flew one at 22 years of age, 60 years ago, be now able to give a reasonable judgement of the accuracy, by flying the Sim version at the age of 82? I very seriously doubt it!

M$ make quite a big beal in CFS2 about Joe Foss and Saburo Sakai being advisors. So maybe the ease with which the "stock' planes are flown, is a better representation.........................Dunno?

As far as M$'s answer to the AIR files question..........
Aren't all of the spec's etc for all these planes, a matter of public record these days. I mean, whats the secret?

Notes on Merlin engines and Microsoft Flight Simulator.
By Even Larsen.

All Merlins were supercharged. They produced more power at altitude than at sea level.
This is most noticeable for the variants with two-stage superchargers (61, 69, 72/76, 73/77).
Flight Sim doesn't model superchargers, so power drops off at altitude (for ordinary
engines power = sea level power - altitude * some constant, I don't know whether FS uses
this formula). This makes it impossible to create fully realistic flight models for the Mosquito
and other planes with supercharged engines.

If you use realistic drag values, as I think you should, you are left with two alternatives:
First, you can use the takeoff power of the real world engine. This will give you a realistic
flight model at low altitude, (for takeoff and landing) but the plane will have mediocre
performance at altitude.

Alternatively, you can set engine power high enough to give you realistic performance at
altitude. This will give the model much more power than the real plane at low altitude and
manoeuvers that were difficult, and dangerous, in the real plane will become much easier.

Of course there is a third alternative: You can try to find some compromise power setting that
will give acceptable performance at high altitude, while still giving you a hard time with that
single-engine landing. In the case of the Mosquito, this will work best with the marks that
used the Merlin 25 or Packard Merlin 225. http://www.home.gil.com.au/~bfillery/mossie06.htm

Not only did we have them Mark, but look into this display team and see, in what regard, they were held in their day.............