Work In Progress

Correct

All the "aircraft going from left to right" ones in that post I can vouch for as genuine. I don't have background knowledge of the lower two

Get busy with a single edge razor blade and your files and you can uncuff one quickly enough

Maybe it is just Academy plastic with new parts and details. As I said, it's possible. But it's unusual for a kitmaker to jettison its own fairly recent tooling and margins in favour of buying in bagged shots of a rival product from somewhere else. It's pretty much an admission of defeat, if that's what they've done

This would be a surprise though is perhaps possible with some new parts. Apart from being a different version of the aircraft, with different engine and cooling arrangements, the earlier RS P-38 kit range does not resemble the Academy kit at all.

This is an excellent choice for a limited run kit. It's such a shame the HK-101 did not make it into series production, it would have been a delight if a few were left. So light and compact and speedy for its power. There's a very lovely short film here from 2016 of master modeller Tom Hallman's process building and flying his free-flight rubber powered version

Yes, I've always seen this as a deliberate painting in a dark colour to cover all the area where exhaust stain is typical. I agree with Dave that it's entirely possible they painted around the squadron code (a simple task either by steady hand with a 1" flat brush or a quick masking job). Or possibly by re-applying part of the letter (again a quick and easy job)

People should be aware that the Shuttleworth aircraft in its present form has many differences, both readily visual and more subtle, from the original substance and appearance of G-ACSS in its original guise as 'Grosvenor House', It cannot be relied upon as a basis for what this aircraft looked like when it was in its original red racing livery for the 1934 MacRobertson Air Race. There is not a lot left of the original structure and equipment and the livery is visibly very different now from that it wore when it was in the race. Subsequent to the 1934 race it had several complete changes of appearance including its period in aluminium dope and RAF roundels as K5084, being crashed and written off, rebuilt into a racer with blue liveries as "The Orphan", "Australian Anniversary", and "Burberry" -- thread below -- -- before being impressed back into the military again during the war, being returned to de Havilland, and having various coats of red paint and lettering before being completely rebuilt in the '80s. There was quite a lot of occasionally passionate debate in this thread -- -- about whether the lettering, the fuselage cheat line, or both were white or aluminium originally. White seems a safe choice, but the original registration lettering was of a different style to that the aircraft wears today. A look at period photos will show the squarer type. Not sure which they will do in the decals, hopefully both. This is quite a useful thread for subjects like interior and detail colours as well as having some good old photos in it:

Your actual point, and I quote, was that the change of wing meant "a new wing with a less downwash in front of the tail". My point is that every part of the wing capable of influencing the downwash over the tail was of identical planform to the preceding wing. The wing airfoil and the wing incidence were also unchanged.

The difference made is far less significant than the bolt-on tip changes on Spitfires with the previous wing. And all of those differences are far outboard of the span at which they could have any bearing on the downwash over the tailplane

This is not a factor. The overall planform of the wing is exactly the same as that of the old wing, except right at the tip, where the area difference is negligible. I agree with Graham's point about the additional power of the new tail, and add that they also changed the tail incidence, correcting the long-standing tail incidence error which causes every Spitfire without the 22/24 tail to require down elevator in level 1G flight

It's not a height restriction, it's a distance to person / structure / vehicle restriction. I can fly at the same height as you or below you so long as I am 500 feet away by the nearest line. Which is only 153 metres, not far at all.

That aircraft has quite a chequered history. It was built and delivered to the RAF in 1945 as a low-back XVI, serial RW382, factory c/n CBAF-11581, so was flush-riveted when new. However, just about everything in your photo is new-build. After being a gate guardian up a pole it was restored and flown in the UK, then Canada then the USA where in 1998 it was fatally crashed into a mountain and categorised as 'destroyed'. https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/30105/pdf However, there was enough original material and provenance for the CAA to accept it as a viable "restoration" project if done by the right people in the right way, so Airframe Assemblies effectively made a new one out of the old identity, and this time it's a high-back.

For the roundel, it's time to do some careful trimming with a compass-cutter or just a nice new single-edged razor blade

Oh those are everywhere. It's an unused option on what Eduard refers to as their Spitfire IXc (Early), note the illustration of sprue E on page 2 of the instructions https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/6/4/5/1030645-97-instructions.pdf

There is no reason why a specific supercharger set-up (which is what changes the altitude rating of the engine) mandates a particular type of exhaust stack on a Merlin. This Wikipedia photo claims to be "Spitfire LF Mk Vb, BL479, flown by Group Captain M.W.S Robinson, station commander of RAF Northolt, August 1943. This Spitfire has the wide bladed Rotol propeller, the internal armoured windscreen and "clipped" wings." As for photographs of airframes while serving at gate guardians, those are of little value as references to historical appearance while airworthy. In that shot it might not even have an engine in it at all, just some lashed-up metalwork to hold up a prop and a random set of Merlin exhausts. Turning to Northcott, you make the point: "I was under the impression Northcott made his six kills with this plane while he was in 402SQ in 1943 not 501Sq in 1942" The claim that Northcott was ever with 501 Squadron at all is not something I can speak to, but seems to be the subject of some doubt as this timeline has him elsewhere in 1942: https://acesofww2.com/can/aces/northcott/ So that line on the aerialvisuals page for EP120 looks potentially incorrect to me. You might wish to query it with them as they do claim to welcome feedback. I note that his medal citations place his extra kills very firmly is the second half of 1943. The London Gazette in August: Air Ministry,27th August, 1943. The KING has been graciously pleased to approve the following awards in recognition of gallantly displayed in flying operations against the enemy: %97 Distinguished Flying Cross. Squadron Leader Geoffrey Wilson NORTHCOTT (Can/J. 15088), Royal Canadian Air Force, No. 416 (R.C.A.F.) Squadron. This officer, who has completed 55 operations over enemy territory, has displayed outstanding ability. He has destroyed three enemy aircraft and damaged several more. In addition he has participated in several effective attacks on shipping. By his personal example he has won the confidence of all with whom he has flown. But by December: Air Ministry,31st December, 1943. The KING has been graciously pleased to approve the following awards in recognition of gallantry displayed in flying operations against the enemy: %97 Bar to Distinguished Flying Cross. Acting Squadron Leader Geoffrey Wilson NORTHCOTT, D.F.C. (Can./J.15088), Royal Canadian Air Force, No. 402 (R.C.A.F.) Squadron. Since being awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross this officer has participated in a large number of sweeps during which he has destroyed 4 enemy aircraft bringing his victories to at least 9. Squadron Leader Northcott's fine fighting spirit has been an inspiration to all members of the squadron he commands. I don't have a precise date or airframe identity but note that he appears with a Vb in this photo, captioned "Discussing the days successes are Jeep Neal, Don Morrison, Jeff Northcott, Ian Ormston, Omer Levesque & Don Blakeslee" which you can find here: https://acesofww2.com/can/aces/northcott/ There is a good chance that this is an official publicity shot taken to publicise his later run of victories, featuring either his Vb or one of the others in the same unit at the same time. So it looks like a fishtail exhaust is a safe bet unless you find a contradictory image from late 1943.

There is a Quickboost one https://spruebrothers.com/qbt48396-1-48-quickboost-spitfire-mk-ix-propeller-with-tool-has-kit-48396/

42-64431 is a CF (Fort Worth) aircraft, as are all of: 63752 to 64236 and 64395 to 64501 this is all per The B-24 Liberator, by Allan G Blue

I've actually bought and built them for exactly this purpose on a wet day away

We've been round this once or twice and as far as I can remember no-one's found any. I think it's a case of a half-template, some good hardwood dowel and a drill chuck.

I think you are probably thinking of the later Berlin Air Lift issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Gatow_air_disaster

This is delightful, I really like the detail painting

actually I think this would be a great way to do it, and a lot of fun too

Not without some considerable effort in fuselage adjustment. The Italeri, Heller and Airfix/MPC kits are all different tools (unlike many cases where Heller and Airfix shared). The comparison between the Heller and Italeri kits shows the difference in canopy shapes, the Italeri one being arguably more accurate - see canopy photos about half way down the page

Excellent find, that's what I was hoping for