John Galloway wrote:
See:

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/chrisi...to#50924269483
65588402

This picture has a comparison grid that seems to be
accurately placed on the basis that the nose to rear
of canopy and nose to front of canopy dimensions are
the very closely matched. If that analysis is correct
then the grid shows that the wing of S/N 3 is not
moved forward compared to what we are told is the prototype
(labelled S/N 2) and the canopy lower rear contour
looks to be cut more angularly.

From comparison of the relative port and starboard
rear cockpit frame positions it looks as if SN 3 is
photographed from a slightly more forward viewpoint
but not enough to make one grid box difference to the
position of the wing leading edge which is what would
be required to bring the prototype leading edge as
close to the canopy as S/N 3.

In any case, these photos can't provide a definitive comparison, as the
the upper one is taken with a relatively wide angle lens, the lower with
a telephoto. Note the geometric inconsistencies between openings at the
rear of the canopy and the nose vents.

If the there is any doubt remaining then nose to leading
edge measurements of Bill's glider and the Australian
one would be definitive would they not?

That wouldn't be anywhere near as much fun as arguing about the
integrity of the design based on obsessively examining photos...