I have the full story of the original restoration somewhere. The RAF guys at St.Athan did a fantastic job, given the materials, technology and methods of the day. But, being the only complete Typhoon in existence, doubtless the restoration has lead to more than one 'error' in the production of kits and accessories. The spinner is the main thing, and those without some knowledge of the original would never realise the shape is wrong, although as close as could be achieved at the time, being too 'pointy' and the wrong length.
Other small details have lead to incorrect information being published. For example, as this aircraft was used for evaluation trials by America, before being put into long-term storage from WW2 until the early 1960's, the Blind Flying panel is outlined with yellow tape, a practice started by the USAAF in the ETO on the P-51, to help pilots to concentrate on the vital 'basic six' instruments in the often appalling flying conditions encountered over Europe, which were uncommon to US pilots, fresh from flying schools situated in areas of better met conditions. This has lead to this feature being assumed to be standard, and included in books, articles and guides on modelling the Typhoon. But, like the 'Pilot's Notes' found in the map case of this aircraft, these were a US feature, and never used on Typhoons in service!
This sort of unintentional error is not uncommon, with another example being the canopy on the Airfix 1/48th scale Bf109E, which was modelled on the RAF Museum example. Unfortunately, the canopy for this particular 'Emil' went missing over the years, and during its restoration, it was fitted with a canopy from a 'Buchon', the same as that on the '109G. This same error also occurred on the 1970's '109E from Matchbox !
Other examples that are common are oleos at full extension, as the subject for the model was on jacks, or suspended, with the consequent extension of the oleos, and, on one notable case, the inclusion of some rather dubious panel lines, which turned out to be battle damage patches on the original subject!!
Although the kit designers may make every effort towards accuracy, it seems that some important questions are never asked, which would avoid these errors, and, more importantly, the on-going reproduction of these errors.
EDIT: For St.Athan, read Shawbury! Got my MUs confused !