At any time Lift(L) equate Weight (mg)
Hence during a turn at X nbr of g the total lift of the plane is L=Xmg
Let's assume the simple flows theo of thin wing with no camber (flat wing) where CL=2Pi()Alpha where CL is the coef of Lift (L/0.5roV²) with V the speed of the air and ro the volumic mass of the air
Then Alpha=Xmg/(2Pi()*0.5roV²) and V(alpha)== SQRT(2Xmg/Pi()roAlpha)
hence for a given alpha at (let's say) 1.5 stall speed and 1g, the speed at witch slats will deploy is augmented as the square of the G ratio.
hence at 4G the speed is the double. AT 8g, teh speed is three time more.
Etc.. etc..
Regarding the 109:
-Slats are deployed in front of the ailerons in order to keep ctrl at stall conditions. No wing drop (and full airflow around the pouter portion of teh wing), no asymmetric stall . Hence no spin. This is why Crumpp refer it as an anti-spin device. So Crumpp was right (again...)
-The 109 undercarriage was not build that way to facilitate it's shipping via train (at least not only - but this is the first time I think that I have to read it). It was made to make assembly easier with the wing being plugged onto the fuselage. Remind that Bf (and not Mtt at the time
) did not have the production facilities that would be needed for such a big order by the RLM. Many parts were subcontracted (heinkel etc...) and had to be moved from one facility to another. Having the fuselage "crated" by its own undercarriage as soon as possible facilitate the production and made the wing stronger for a given weight (and Mr Messer was addicted to weight reduction as any good eng shld be!).
- Providing early 1930's document is a bit risky to prove a given argument in aero term. As I hve alrdy said many time there was a revolution in 1935. And this flow slowly ard the globe from Germany then USA and all obver the globe after 1945.