You guys are telling scary stories here. The article indicates 1 UNI the long way on the wings + BID, but does not say how much. MA comes along and says the airplane is known to have a higher roll rate at lower speeds and that the airplane is hard to control in roll. Then Airfoil says he used 1 UNI the long way and 1 UNI chordwise...
It begins to sound like someone had a very flexible airframe someplace. If the soft structure is the wings themselves, there are several possibilities, none real good. Soft wings can give aileron reversal though. First, we seem to have a couple stories on wing structure. What do the plans show, and what was done in each airplane? Next, has anyone calculated active wing twist just from lift and then from aileron loads? How about control system deflections?
Next we need to recognize that cloth put on chordwise is different from cloth put on at +/- 45 degrees - chordwise will have substantially less torsional stiffness as will only one ply if two are designated...
Last point - if the wing as designed is too flexible, then changing the design (adding plies or enlarging ailerons is changing the design) makes the builders into designers. Scary zone...
As an airplane designer, I might do the calcs on wing torsional stiffness, and investigate carrying the spar further out the wing, beefing up the skins a little, some of both, keeping the foil at 18% thickness for the full span, tapering the chord while maintaining 18% thickness, and others, all while looking for less torsional deflection and less weight. But without calcs and some knowledge of what earlier copies had for structure and for handling, you are guessing. I hate guessing, and you guys should too.
Billski
