Is the P-38 'Fast?' Let's see some figures

Here are some comparison figures for the roll down performances of the recumbents I've tested. The test consisted of zeroing the max field on my Garmin Edge 305 and allowing the bikes to roll down my test location hill from a marked point. At the bottom, I recorded the maximum speed. For each test I performed three rolls, then averaged them. I added weight to bikes lighter than the P-38 - which was all of them!
The location is sheltered by trees and concurrent roll downs typically varied only in the decimals.

P-38 no fairings but with HED front wheel and covered rear wheel. 55.8 kph 33.5 mph
Above is the 'bare' P-38 and you can deduct at least 1.6 kph for the aero wheels
The estimate (but an accurate estimate) for a 'stock' P-38 is 54.2 kph 32.5 mph

P-38 Windwrap GX front, Aerotrunk rear and aero wheels as above 60.2 kph 36 mph
Optima Raptor carbon low racer with clone M5 tailbox 58.4 kph 35 mph
Performer FWD low racer 'bare' 59.7 kph 36 mph

Typical DF road bikes with riders in tuck report maximum speeds about 5 kph 3 mph slower being 51 kph.

I can't find the figures for the High Racer but I recall it was slower on roll down than the bare P-38.

You may be surprised at how close the three designs are - the speed spread is approximately 2 kph between the three recumbents in their different aero configurations.

Yes - the low racers are faster than a bare P-38 by about 4 kph. But that's at a closing speed of 60 kph which is not your typical cruising speed.

A P-38 with aero wheels and an aerotrunk tail box is as fast as the bare low racers.

Yes, I hear what you're saying. The low racers with a well designed tail box and aero wheels will be faster (in aero terms) than a similarly equipped P-38.

BUT because the P-38 climbs better, in anything but dead flat terrain, the P-38 will be as fast or more likely faster.

How good is that for a 23 year old design?