IMHO the main thing that effect roll response is the change in wing shape and aileron layout. The wing of the 109A-E was different from the 109F-K, and so was aileron layout. As noted, A-E had plain type of ailerons, and it seems from accounts it was brisker than the F-K. This may be down to the shape/size of aileron and its placement, as after all, what the ailerons do is changing the lift on the wings (increasing on one wing, decresing on the other, hence the roll).
The F-K had Frise type ailerons, which by their nature help to reduce aileron forces (Frise type ailerons have their hinge point moved slightly backwards, and the leading edge of the aileron protounds when deflected into the airstream, which helps a bit.)
As for the Flettners tabs on ailerons, these primary found on photographic evidence mounted on WNF (Wiener-Neustadt, near Vienna, Austria) produced Bf 109G-6/14 and G-10. I have some docs relating to this, trials showed that the effect was that 2/3s aileron deflection was possible at at around Mach 0,70+. WNF did not produce 109K however, only Mtt Regensburg did. The K was supposed to have them, but its difficult to find pictures with them. Perhaps it was mounted, but there are too few pictures of Ks sadly. What the K had however was increased gear ratio on the elevator (elevator deflection was reduced), hence stick forces in pitch decreased.
|