Eeyore wrote:

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:
The Amaurotean Capitalist wrote:
"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

You keep calling it a "Merlin-engined Mustang"

Because it used a Merlin engine. QED.

No, it used ---

while in fact those
built by NAA utilized a Packard built engine that was a modifification
of the Merlin design.

The Merlin 61 used in the initial Spitfire IX's was also a
modification of the Merlin design. The fact remains that the V-1650-3
and -7 were two-stage Merlins produced under licence by Packard.

That is partially true. Packard modified the turbocharger to produce
more high-altitude power, and modified the alloys of some of the major
engine components to adapt the engine to U.S. mass production
engineering and processes. The Rolls-Royce Merlin engines were hand-
built. U.S. mass production processes allowed vastly greater
quantities (over 16,000) of the V-1650 to be built in a timely and
reliable manner. Packard added considerably to the design of the
engine, which includes and is integral with its production processes.

But it was still essentially a MERLIN.

If they thought they could have done better as you seem to suggest, they could
have designed a brand new engine but they didn't.

Well, the British apparently didn't want to make the effort to fund
and build almost 15,000 Mustangs along with with over 16,000 units of
that engine designed for that aircraft. The U.S. did.