I have been re-reading Model Aircraft Aerodynamics by Martin Simons, 1978, because I have a copy. It has some nice data and tells much about what was common practice, but sometimes draws wrong conclusions.
He concludes that there is no aerodynamic advantage to combining the stabilizer and elevator into a stabilator, because he misses the way these work together and just considers the effect of the elevator. If the critical thing is how quickly the turn can be stopped and started, then, coming out of the turn is harder than going into it because, without the tail, the airplane is unstable. In this case the best is the conventional hinged elevator, because, coming out of a turn, the stabilizer is already trying to resist the turn and the elevator cambers it in the right direction. If how tightly it can turn at constant rate is critical, then the elevator is fighting the stabilizer, so turning the whole stabilator is better.
The treatment of laminar vs. turbulent boundary layers is better. The data for a Göttingen 801 airfoil shows a large decrease in lift and increase in drag for Reynolds numbers below somewhere between 20,000 and 100,00, for laminar flow, compared to turbulent boundary layer. The laminar boundary layer remains separated, while, if turbulence is initiated early, the turbulent layer re-attaches after a short "bubble". So, for some angles of attack, within this range of Re, a turbelator or lumpy paper covering, greatly improves performance, compared with a perfect reproduction of this airfoil. Below around 30,000, this airfoils is hopelessly thick and cambered. He presents this nicely, with a comment something to the effect that some modelers may be taking great pains to drastically reduce performance.