And if they had gone with the most powerful available boxer, it would still be significantly under-powered compared to the original. Remember, the engines in the original engines were designed by Bugatti.
Using 1930s technology -- downdraft carbs and all. (Don't try fling them inverted!)
Since they weren't going to match the original power anyway, they chose inexpensive.
Street-legal Boxers put out over 300 BHP. Take liberties that are only legal for off-road use and they're a lot closer to the Bugatti 450 than to the replica's 200. Even with less weight. Don't underrate the value of fuel injection, modern alloys (esp. in the turbochargers) and electronic engine controls. And they're relatively inexpensive, even tricked out.
The problem is that they needed an aviation engine.
Plenty of "experimental" planes use turbocharged Subaru Boxers. Compact, 2.5 liter, not hard to get more than factory power out of them. Especially with thin, cold air and minimal exhaust modifications.
Drag is proportional to dynamic pressure, which is in turn proportional to the square of velocity.
For incompressible flow, anyway. When you're sneaking up on Mach 0.8, though, wave drag is a serious part of the equation and the power curve gets even steeper.
It depends on where the mass is. Mass ahead of the center of lift does increase stability. Mass behind the center of lift causes instability (not hard to figure this out if you give it some thought.)
You can try it yourself if you like: Make a paper airplane. Fly it, observe how stable it is. Put a penny in the nose, repeat. Move the penny to the rear, repeat. If the results are too extreme with the penny all the way forward or back, adjust it in between.
That's why my comment depended on the location of the engines: they're way back in the plane. That's dangerously close to the center of lift, which might be OK for a racer but would make long flights (with fuel mass changing, never mind munitions!) really dicey.
It would be quite different if the Luftwaffe had the range to put fighters over any part of the UK, because then the RAF has to come up and fight, or its units get destroyed on the ground by fighter sweeps or escorted tactical bombing missions; though at least it would still have the option of training new pilots in Canada
Or Arizona. Falcon Field is now Mesa Municipal Airport, but they kept the old hall as a historical site. The hassle of getting flight trainees clear from Britain to Arizona 70+ years ago is minor compared to having more than 300 days of flying weather every year.
There may also be other problems that would surface (which is possibly why they don't want to go over 200 mph with the replica) such as it may suffer from flutter at high speeds; flutter will destroy an airframe in seconds.
With the engines that far back, I suspect that the "computer control" was a hydraulic system to counter PIO (at the time designers were still willing to flirt with small amounts of instability.) At higher speeds that planform sure looks to me like the center of lift would move forward and, expert pilot or no, hasta la vista.
Mind you, the pictures make it look like it wouldn't really have been a useful military plane. Too small to carry any significant load, guns, or fuel.
Not to mention the balsa wood and doped fabric skin. I have serious doubts about its integrity at high airspeed, where the stresses go up a whole lot faster than people originally expected. That 3000 pound weight was nice for racing but wouldn't have survived long in combat.
From the looks of it, it would have a fuel range barely enough to cross the Channel.
I also have doubts about the top speed, given the wave drag of the leading edges. However, that's a maybe. With the motorcycle engines instead of (for instance) a pair of turbocharged racing engines the replica is going to be flying at only 40% of the original's planned Mach number so a lot of things are going to be very different. On the other hand, some aeronautical engineering grad student could probably do a nice paper on simulated performance of the original.
By the way: the Spitfire cooling system was not only dragless, it produced thrust.
This whole thing started when a baker who sold confections to gay and straight clients was asked to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding.
In New Mexico. Under a State Constitutional guarantee against discrimination that covers sexual orientation. This has -- what? -- to do with Arizona?
And BTW: "nuisance suits" generally have to be meritless. In the NM case, the plaintiffs prevailed on the merits.
I personally oppose the bill and live in AZ, I read the bill and it mentions nothing about sexuality.
Wink, wink, nudge nudge.
All of the other main targets of discrimination are covered by Federal law such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, you're correct that the Arizona bill  would not exclusively affect the LGBT population. It would also affect the XX population, for instance, when they're looking for emergency contraception. Or for that matter contraception at all -- because a pharmacist who doesn't believe in it, or for that matter a clerk who disapproves etc. -- becomes untouchable.
 Yeah, I live here too. Born in Queen Creek, in fact -- 60+ years ago. I'm also leaving in part because of shit like this.
You can read "only manufactures outside the USA" as either "the only place its manufacturing occurs is outside the USA" or as "manufacturing is the only thing that it does outside of the USA." Which makes sense in the context of the following three sentences?
Hint: I live in the Phoenix area and used to work in Chandler. You don't need to tell me that Intel has fabs (and design, etc.) in the USA.
We certainly don't take it very well when foreign manufacturers do this...
Yes, but Intel is an American corporation which only manufactures outside of the USA. Well, that and design. And test. And packaging. But aside from design, manufacturing, test, and packaging the only things that Intel does outside of the USA is sales and marketing. So it's OK.
As for the implied complaint regarding predatory pricing, the good news there is that (per Judge Posner, in particular) there is no such thing. Anything to bring down consumer prices is by definition good.