From the firewall back, the aircraft was built using the well known 1/1-scale Marcel Jurca plans, called the "MJ-100". (There are also 3/4-scale Spitfire plans by Jurca, called the "MJ-10".)
http://www.marcel-jurca.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=209&Itemid=245&lang=fr
The kinds of things I was thinking of are not really external appearance issues unless you take a lot of very precise measurements and weigh things.
Obviously the engine weights will be different considering that the Allison is probably quite a bit lighter than the equivalent Merlin 60 or 70 series engine and its associated superchargers.
The DC-3 Propeller would not weigh the same as the 4 blade unit on a real Mk.IX.
The wood construction would probably shift the weights and balances as would the lack of real armament and oxygen, armour plate, self sealing tanks, etc.
The Wing is obviously different in construction so it is unlikely to have followed the exact NACA 2200 series airfoils used by the real thing. There is no real point of using a thin wing section unless you need the performance of the original and the thin wings caused other problems.
The real Spitfire from the Mk.V onwards had tires that were really too thick to fit entirely inside the fairly thin wing section to the point that the upper wing skin over the wheel well was just a thin layer of aluminum with external bracing. That would be a pretty silly thing to copy on a replica made with a wooden wing.
The width of the wheels also made the fairings stand away from the underside of the wing though this was not very obvious.
Obviously the guns are dummies so one has to wonder why he chose to put in 4 x 20 mm cannon fairings instead of the more typical Mk.IXc armament of 2 x 20 mm & 4 x .303 or the Mk.IXe armament of 2 x 20 mm & 2 x ,50 Cal.
- Ivan.
