About the drawings, yes I am sure since we have them. Hopewfully I don't have to write that 3 times so Kutscha sees it. Our aircraft was originally an F4U-1, converted to F4U-1A, and subsequently converted to F4U-1D. The F4U-1 had the birdcage canopy. Going to a blown, 3-piece canopy made it an F4U-1A, and going from the 3-piece to the 1-piece made it an F4U-1D, at which time the wood radio mast was also removed. The drawings are at the museum.
And you can call them anything you want as an enthusiast. As long as you can communicate with someone else who understands, you don;t have a problem. And if you're never looking for parts, nobody will ever care. If you ARE looking for parts or drawings, using the correct designation makes it a lot easier to find things. So, if you're not restoring it doesn't make much of a difference.
I don't care at all, but when someone starts arguing about designations and nicknames, they get trumped by the dataplate. Occasionally, the contract number is on the dataplate, especially from the 1930s. That's how it is on the Seversky AT-12. If you call it a 2-seat P-35, many airplane nuts will know what you are talking about. But you won't find the drawings that way. Anf if you don't need the drawings, then "2-seat P-35" describes it quite adequately.
Since apparently nobody is looking for parts or drawings, then it's sort of unimportant in the end, isn't it? I think it started with correcting people for using US nicknames ... but everyone does it.
It doesn't matter where you see one, a Spitfire will generally still be called a Spitfire by pretty much everyone, and a P-40 will generally be called a P-40, especially by people from the country where it was designed and built.
If you DO want to be technically correct, though, at least you know where to look for the designation. That's good enough. In here you could call it almost anything that was associated with the airframe anywhere and most would be able to "get it." So if someone says early P-40, P-40B, Tomahawk, or inline Curtiss Hawk, most of you would be at least close in your mind.