I've had a close look at 3 of these replicas now. As a kit aircraft it is quite complex and more of a challenge than many of the modern 'quick bulds'.
From a distance (well quite a distance) they are fairly convincing - but then the scale and proportions strike you as not quite right.
In flight - well they are nothing special - any well flown Chipmunk is more interesting. (yes I'm sure they are aerobatted in less complex air than the UK's) - but here a couple of not so fast low passes is not going to impress.
Are they worth the money - well no where close in my judgement. Are they difficult to fly? Not particularly it would seem from the people I've spoken to.
But I think we should be very clear they are light aircraft with a visual resemblence to the Spitfire - they share absolutely nothing else with a Spitfire apart from the same medium - air.
If you want one fine - but do not pretend it is a Spitfire or it was built by the company that built Spitfires. Basically stop pretending it has anything beyond a visual resemblance.
But that still does not justify Caroline Grace's parting shot - yes I'm sure they are easier to fly than a real Spitfire, but that does not mean the people who do fly them are not 'skilled'. Anyone moving to a 'real Spitfire' will require conversion training - but as the RAF and perhaps more particularly the ATA showed most pilots could fly a Spitfire as well.