The Mosquito didn’t have oleos, the undercarriage was rubber in compression.

Looking at the DB 605 engined Spit with its lower thrust line, it presumably had a smaller diameter prop than the Merlin version. So, did the DB 605 prop turn at a faster RPM than the Merlin?

Particularly the DB engined Spitfire but DB props in general always seem to me to be much wider in chord than a DH/Rotol prop. I have absolutely no idea about prop aerodynamics but could it be to transmit the power with a smaller diameter?

Later Mosquitos (and Lancasters?) had paddle blade propellors. Were they correspondingly smaller diameter or was it a more powerful Merlin variant? I’ve never noticed an obvious difference in photos or read it anywhere.

Not that I’ve looked at pictures to check but I get the impression the 109 has a steeper ground angle than the Spitfire so any benefit of the “lower” nose is lost until airborne.
The Stuka is noticably less steep, but it’s a huge aeroplane so the prop centreline is further up anyway.

With the Gipsy Moth it was to improve vision over the nose for the pilot. Leave the crankshaft in the same place and rotate the engine down makes a big difference.

With a big V engine it’s more complicated due to the reduction gear. The Bf109 and 110 appear to have better visibility over the nose than an upright V due to the nose dropping away to the prop, but as the prop thrust line is lower the undercarriage has to be longer to compensate. Better in the air but not on the ground.

There’s a picture in Spitfire: The History of an inverted Merlin mock-up from early design stages. Roll-Royce’s idea but the aircraft designers didn’t want it.

The Packard engines had “Maybach” cast into them, Presumably because Maybach cast the crankcases, much like Standard did for Triumph.

Maybach! Presumably Napier were casting blocks for Daimler-Benz?

Standard bought Triumph when they went broke hence Standard-Triumph.

Ah, but the ‘apocryphal’ stories only talk of Ford working to ‘tighter’ tolerances! 😉

Not apocryphal at all. Specifically stated by Sir Stanley Hooker in Not Much Of An Engineer. Quote from memory so not necessarily word perfect.
Ford man – “we can’t work to these tolerances.”
Stanley (as he was then) – “That’s what I expected, too tight for you?”
Ford man – “quite the opposite, our car engines are built to far tighter tolerances.”
It took them a year to redraw the Merlin and then as previously said, they came out like shelling peas.

I would say that much of the redrawing was because of differences between engineering standards of the 2 countries,the USA and GB used different measurement standards and different fasteners/AGS etc.

Certainly the UK and USA used different drawing standards, one was third angle projection and the other first angle but since it’s 40 years since I did a technical drawing I can’t even remember which is which let alone who used what.

Engineering standards shouldn’t apply to fasteners, Packard engines were BSF/BSW and BA the same as RR.

Adding to comments about the cost, sadly the price puts it out of reach for me but to put in perspective, I remember my Dad worrying for weeks about buying Battle of Britain Then and Now because it was £25 around 30 years ago. Spitfire the History is/was 40 quid all bar a few coppers and first published in 1987.