Two of the three clearly have markings that seperate them as LF111s with the white square still being worn behind the fuselage boss
Other than the suggested camera port there is positive evidence to the third AC being a Sea Fire as Opposed to T 9..possibly 160.
Unless there is a more specialized way to positivel conform that it is not a T( given the amount of write offs but the time the T(s came in service it could be assumed that it is actually a Lf 111.
Juts to confirm that 5 of the six T9s left the country was 160 scrapped or was he used instructionally or exported as part of some package.
Top picture from left: Spit Tr.9 160, dare to say another Tr.9 /although I haven't got a clue to be honest/, Seafire 150
Middle picture from left: Spitfire Tr.9 160, unidentified airframe /that's the Tr.9, which might not be there at all/, Seafire wing
Bottom picture from left: Seafire 150, Chipmunk, Seafire 155
I am stil confused with that hole, I have marked before. From what I know, there should be no acces panel on this part of the fuselage, searching through the photographs of current Tr.9s I found that 'Grace Spitfire' has red flash light in exactly the same spot, but has faired over the usual position of this light between the wings. She has the fuselage acces panel too, but I can't see access panel on the ex163.
I wonder, do we know which subtypes of Mk.IX were used for conversion in whichever case? People who know Spitfires suggested that FR.IX fuselages could be used in some cases, which might explain that circular hole at the bottom of the fuselage, which would be faired over during the conversion.
Without even thinking that IAC could use cameras in Tr.9s. They would not fit in there anyway, because of the rear cockpit.
I'm not trying to come up with some conspiracy theories, I just think that this is an interesting feature and I'm just a bit confused - again