M.B-5

No, the 109/190 readily exceeded the P-38's Vne in the dive, & like the P-51, didn't need 'dive flaps' to regain control.
 
The thick-winged Typhoon was still cleared to dive at a 525mph EAS limit, though the Tempest's 'high speed wing ' profile allowed a later onset of drag/extra control capability & gave another ~25mph advantage - across the flight regime , by comparison.
 
P-38 'buffet' - bad enough to cause structural damage - was noted by the USAAF as a fundamental problem.
 
The Tempest was very robust though, with an ultimate stress rating of 14G, rather more than the USAAF design max.
 
See: period drag/structure documents; http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/structure-weight-data-and-drag-analysis.42716
 

Huh?  Oh, I geddit, 'haze the newbie'... aww c'mon, jeeze...
 
Anyhow... this period 'Flight' article shows how the liquid-cooled engine still offered a superior installed power-to-weight ratio.
( Sabre versus R-2800).
 
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946 - 1443.html
 

Here are the Bristol Hercules consumption figures, they are fairly good, Meplat - can you post those for the R-2800?
 
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946 - 2242.html

Hey Surgeon, I can get how "fresh meat" would be your thing,
- it sure beats hacking on stinkin' ol' corruption-raddled gangrenous rot...
But - if facts can intrude on the niceties fo' a mo', then fo' sure, we can straighten some sheets..
 
You want WW2 piston-power for fighter take-off, forget about a lazy-bones radial, check this intense machine out...
 
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1945/1945 - 2284.html
 
&, liquid-cooling allowed that "climbing" power rating to be enabled for an hour, something an air-cooled engine aint doin'