JF-
I'm glad to see you qualified the Kinetic energy arguments with the terms "marginally" and "just a tad", etc.
I think the following need to be recognized:
1. The a/c flies in the relative wind. Responses to control inputs will be no different until some "ground based" reference is used, i.e., ILS loc and g/s or runway. With a higher groundspeed, the inputs for corrections to the loc or g/s will "appear" to be sluggish due to the differing rates of corrections to the off-course indications.
2. Due to the increased groundspeed with a tailwind component, the rate of descent for a 3 degree glidepath will be greater, so more control input will be necessary to flare, if started at the same absolute altitude. It will seem "sluggish".
3. "Ground effect" will be more pronounced with a headwind than a tailwind. In the flare that would certainly be a factor.
4. After touchdown, groundspeed will be a big factor. After touchdown, the only airfoil still "flying" is the rudder. At any given groundspeed, the effect of the headwind or tailwind will be markedly different. The rate of a/c response to rudder inputs with a 120 kt groundspeed and a 20 kt headwind will be much greater than a 120 groundspeed and a 20 kt tailwind.
To keep comparing apples to apples, when at high density altitude airports, the IAS/TAS relationship will not change with variations in headwinds/tailwinds, but the above considerations will have a marked effect.
Agreed?
------------------