Work In Progress

Oh, lovely. Had one EXACTLY like that, in yellow

Yes, it comes with the prop e.g. the 3D-Kits two-pack complete with decals https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/3D-Kits-1-72-Spitfire-Mk-II-Conversion-Kit-72-C001-Airfix-Tamiya-others/323895348355

Aeronut has answered this above. The Manchester outer wings are much more strongly tapered. The rib spacing was increased to make the Lancaster outer wing.

Only visible difference is a little tiny Coffman starter bulge that you can easily make out of a piece of carved sprue or epoxy putty, plus (in most cases) the Rotol prop. Suitable Rotol props are available in the after-market and from the spares box.

So, me not being the world's greatest 109 expert, which one of them got the slats right? its a massive difference of opinion on two otherwise very similar looking kits

Indeed. I used to occasionally fly G-MOTH, which in the 80s was rebuilt into the only airworthy Tiger Moth I am aware of in original DH.82, rather than DH.82a configuration. No plywood rear decking, just stringers. No anti-spin strakes. Lovely aeroplane.

Prop tips are four inches so 1.4mm in 1/72. Rear fuselage band 18 inches so 6.35mm

Special Hobby have for many years been in the habit of announcing things then appearing to do no work whatsoever on creating them

That's an assertion, not an explanation. The aeroplane was completely repainted from its camouflage scheme in the standard RAF colours of the day, like everything else that survived long enough after the war: aluminium dope with D type roundels.

It is painted Aluminium in that photo, not blue. This is from the period when it was the personal transport of Air Commodore (later AVM) Sir Stanley Vincent.

I have heard rumours of this white flying suit, but never seen a photo of it - he is wearing something else in alll the pics I have, though there are several of him in a white helmet

It is okay, but of course a bit long in the tooth and simplistic by modern standards. There us a nice example here: https://modelingmadness.com/review/allies/gb/others/plesly.htm

I am firmly with Peter and Troy. The hump behind the canopy is the same height on both airframes. What is different is the contour. The production aircraft has a sharp kink with a flat-topped plywood-covered doghouse at the top. Immediately behind the doghouse the stringer line rises a little more steeply towards that kink because the wooden stringers do not have the reflex curve of the stringers on the prototype, in which the stringers flow all the way to the rear of the canopy. The easy way to see this is to look at the removable escape exit under the canopy. On the prototype it is obviously shallower than on the production machine, vindicating Peter's explanation.

Or a wet patch perhaps. Hard to tell

This sounds like a mish-mash of various facts. The Minister for Aircraft Production, appointed in May 1940, was a Canadian media magnate, Max Aitken, ennobled in 1917 as the 1st Baron Beaverbrook, or Lord Beaverbrook in everyday parlance. He was not a pilot, though his son, confusingly also named Max Aitken and also eventually (briefly) Lord Beaverbrook in turn, was a service Hurricane pilot in 601 Squadron during 1940 before moving on to 68 Squadron and Blenheim night fighters. I know of no all-white Hurricanes operating during WW2 but ACM Sir Keith Park used a camouflaged Hurricane with personalised markings to commute around his stations when commanding 11 Group, and generally wore a distinctive white flying helmet.