30mm too weak?

[Egler]

Hey,

 

I watched this video and found the 30mm MK 108 to be too weak.

 

If you look at these tests what the 30mm does for enormous damage, but in DCS sometimes 5-6 hits are not enough to destroy the opponent.

 

Considering that we only have 65 shots, the damage here needs to be adjusted.

 

how do you see it?

 

 

 

[Komet_82]

Good Morning

I see similar damage quite often fighting with the Bf 109. It is not rarely that an oponent loses its tail after a direct hit.

Before I went into the Bf 109 I flew about 40hrs on the P-47 and there this almost never happend.

Thanks for sharing this cool movie

Cheers

Edited August 11, 2022 by Komet_82

[Egler]

 

Yes I know it's still a game and not real life. But when I look at the enormous damage a single hit on the wing does, the plane would definitely not be airworthy afterwards.

 

That's true, I've often shot the entire rear end, but it also often happened when the 30mm ammunition was already empty, so I only had the 20mm.

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Egler

[grafspee]

1 hour ago, Egler said:

Yes I know it's still a game and not real life. But when I look at the enormous damage a single hit on the wing does, the plane would definitely not be airworthy afterwards. 
That's true, I've often shot the entire rear end, but it also often happened when the 30mm ammunition was already empty, so I only had the 20mm.

Can you tell me what kind of plane are you flying, that you have 30 mm and 20 mm onboard ?

Edited August 12, 2022 by grafspee

[amazingme]

53 minutes ago, grafspee said:

Can you tell me what kind of plane are you flying, that you have 30 mm and 20 mm onboard ?

 

He probably meant 13mm.. but that's not the point..

The point is, indeed, the 30mm rounds are too weak.. it takes, on average, 8x30mm to deem an airplane unflyable, usually if you hit the tail. That comes from a dude that makes >200kills per month on [4YA] server.

[Skewgear]

9 hours ago, amazingme said:

He probably meant 13mm.. but that's not the point..

The point is, indeed, the 30mm rounds are too weak.. it takes, on average, 8x30mm to deem an airplane unflyable, usually if you hit the tail. That comes from a dude that makes >200kills per month on [4YA] server.

I frequently see single shot 30mm kills while watching from from god mode on our server. Key is to get really close (2 or 3 aircraft lengths) from low 6 and then plant the 30mm into the mid fuselage from underneath. Rarely fails to take the tail off. From dead astern it takes many more shots for whatever reason.

[amazingme]

On 8/12/2022 at 10:26 PM, Skewgear said:

I frequently see single shot 30mm kills while watching from from god mode on our server. Key is to get really close (2 or 3 aircraft lengths) from low 6 and then plant the 30mm into the mid fuselage from underneath. Rarely fails to take the tail off. From dead astern it takes many more shots for whatever reason.

I mostly shoot from point blank.. those 1 shot 1 kill are as rare as the unicorns

The 30mm should be more deadly when hitting the wings though.. so no excuses on how weak they actually are..

Edited August 15, 2022 by amazingme

[grafspee]

53 minutes ago, amazingme said:

I mostly shoot from point blank.. those 1 shot 1 kill are as rare as the unicorns

The 30mm should be more deadly when hitting the wings though.. so no excuses on how weak they actually are..

 

I agree here, in case of P-51 or Spitfire with guns mounted on wings you can't get too close, but in case K-4 with cannon and mgs mounted in fuselage, the best case scenario is firing from point blank range, especially with very low muzzle velocity of 30mm.

Edited August 15, 2022 by grafspee

[Egler]

Yes, of course I meant the 13mm.

The problem is that the 109 works in such a way that you come down from above, only have a very short firing phase and then take off again. But if the 30mm doesn't do the right damage, it becomes very difficult. In addition, the MW 50 is unfairly deactivated on many servers.

But a Spitfire still remains agile.

If you get into a dogfight with a Spitfire with the 109, you've already lost.

[IJG7_Momo]

G'evening,

Also we from the JG7-Squadron noticed several time that the 30mm of the 109 is not that effective as it should be.
If you fire them randomly in the air they explode due to the timed fuze. The bullet also has an impact fuze.
What is really strange is that when you hit a plane you will not see such an explosion and the plane seems to be not seriously damaged.
Something is clearly going wrong with the 30mm.

[killerfliege]

Hello all, 

This is an interesting discussion which is why I have done some testing in game. 
Here are my findings: 

1) Impact feedback (via explosion cloud): Too little.
If you look at gun camera videos from back then - and they are really bad quality - one can clearly see hit indicated by a decently sized explosion "cloud". In DCS, these are present as Momo mentioned when shooting the guns into the sky but somehow very, very tiny, when the shell hits the plane. They are almost invisible unless you are within 30 m. Moreover, the 13 mm impact causes a bigger explosion cloud than the 30 mm HE. This makes shooting much more difficult cause even when you hit, you sometimes miss it because you could not see the impact. 
--> The explosion cloud for cannon should be bigger (applies to 20 mm also. For 20 mm: about 1,5xcurrent size, for 30 mm: 2,5-3xcurrent size)

2) Damage: Too little - or in other words: effect on airworthiness of plane too little.
As demonstrated by various videos and tests, the 30mm HE Minengeschoss should be able to render a target unflyable with 1-3 hits. Sometimes in the simulator, you can hit a target 5-8 times and nothing happens. I tested that with single shots at different areas of the plane. Some 30mm hits do not cause any damage it seems. E.g., they impact the elevator or the wing and nothing happens other than a very tiny visual impact explosion. None of my shots were beyond 100 m. On the other hand, a small burst of 13 mm MG131 (~1 second at centre mass) can easily cause a fire. Currently, you are actually more effective with a 13 mm burst of the same length as compared to the same burst of 30 mm. Aircraft skin is very thin and important for the aerodynamics. Severe damage to the skin will make a plane almost unflyable, especially if the wing is affected. This is not reflected enough in the simulator.
Yes, the tailplane comes off more often than using other weapons but what is weird to me that the shells have got such a wide range of effectiveness: from literally 0 to 100. And more shells actually tend toward 0 (they lie between 0 and 20). Just compare the Mk-108 to the 37 mm cannon of the MiG15. When the 37 mm of the MiG15 hits the ground, there is a proper explosion. When it hits a plane in flight, it is still effective, but the destructiveness does not nearly seem to be what you would expect from the ground impact. 
--> Weapon / Ammunition effect on flying planes should be revised to make it more coherent. 

 

Best regards, 
Simon

[MrExplosion]

Another good video on the Mk108:

 

[Iron Sights]

Best way to test would be to see if you can shoot a plane that is sitting on the ground with 1-3 shots. Better even if could be done from your plane on the ground or active pause close range wing shot. This may provide more accurate results. Seems to me if you are chasing a plane, there may be no way to tell if your hits were direct or just glancing blows. I feel like the 30 in the nose of the 109 does more damage up close. The 50’s do their best when in the converged zone.

[DB 605]

I have to agree about impact feedback/explosion cloud, too weak currently. Also tracer smoke should be redone, looks very angular and dated.

[NineLine]

On 8/15/2022 at 2:38 PM, amazingme said:

those 1 shot 1 kill are as rare as the unicorns

All depends on what your idea of a kill is right?

For example do you think this Spitfire is going to do much now?

No we do not have 1 to 1 hit decals on all our modules yet, that would be much better for showing damage from cannon arounds, but I rarely see an aircraft survive a close range direct blast from any cannons. Even if it manages to limp home.

That said, players are even worse than AI for not knowing when to leave the cockpit as well. 

But then if you are looking for Hollywood death scenes or those from more arcade-ish games, then I guess that is true, we do not have that. 

As always I am willing to look at tracks, and happy to do a round of testing as well and upload a video. 

One more just to be sure....

Ok ok... one more because this is fun.

I included the Spar levels as well to show the Spar is close to 50% strength here, and chances are if he would try any maneuvers with it, it would snap off, not that he is worried about it right now with that fire under his butt.

[amazingme]

  Cool stuff.. but I still have a couple of questions.. are these AIs or human players? And the second question, the damage seen in the logs has been inflicted by a SINGLE 30mm round that hit the target? Other subsequent questions will follow depending on the answers. Thanks for looking into it, much appreciated!

[NineLine]

I only had time for AI today, but obviously players have different FMs and system controls, also virtual pilots are more than happy to say in a burning wreck when they should really get out of it, there isnt a lot we can do with that.

[Yob]

4 hours ago, NineLine said:

I only had time for AI today, but obviously players have different FMs and system controls, also virtual pilots are more than happy to say in a burning wreck when they should really get out of it, there isnt a lot we can do with that.

i personally just want to see the wings get shot off hahaha, but im glad you cleared up about the 1-1 damage decals cheers brother

[Awger]

I've been re-acquainting myself with the Kurfurst of late, and was really disappointed in the performance of the Mk108 ... came to the forums and found this thread.

I still call shenigans.

I ran multiple tests last night (1v1 vs P-51, firing Mk108 HE/anti-bomber only), all fairly consistent in outcome. Replays cross-checked with TacView.

I got video captures from multiple angles of the last fight, watched in slow motion for several hours.

• P-51 in fairly constant 2.5G right turn (mostly level)
• All stable tracking shots
• First burst (4 rounds) fired from 87m
  • 3 misses (they scraped the paint)
  • 1 hit to upper portion of vertical stab
    • lots of shrapnel damage (hole stickers) to rudder, vertical stab, horizontal stab, elevator
    • shrapnel damage to port wing
    • no impact to combat effectiveness (elevator & rudder still functional, everything attached)
• Second burst (1 round followed by 2 rounds) fired from 76m
  • first round hit starboard mid-wing
    • 20mm - sized hole
      • "size of a head" -- consistent with pic of Spitfire with 20mm hole in fuselage from video posted in this thread
    • white smoke from radiator exhaust vent (fuel leak?)
  • second round hit fuselage at base of vertical stab (at stab extension)
    • shrapnel damage (holes)
  • third round looks like it hit rudder, but port elevator got shredded
    • empenage and all flight control surfaces still attached
• AI had enough at this point and bailed

In my opnion, each one of those single hits should have blown massive chunks off of that airplane, ending the fight. Specifically:

• First hit (upper vertical stab) should have blown most of the vertical stab and rudder off the airplane. At 200 knots, full throttle and 2.5G there's no way that plane is maintaining controlled flight
• Second hit (starboard mid-wing) should have detonated the fuel tank and blown the starboard wing off
  • I assume the white smoke from the radiator vent was fuel, because a P-51 has no coolant in the wing... so, either the game thinks I damaged a fuel tank in the wing and the only fuel-leak-damage-indicator is in the fuselage, or the game thinks a hit to the wing damaged the radiator. Either way, the damage model is screwed up.
• Third hit (fuselage at vertical stab extension) should have blown the entire tail clean off
• Fourth hit (rudder? elevator?) at a minimum should have blown control surfaces off

I'm fine with the damage stickers not lining up 1-to-1 with actual damage, or location thereof, but these results are so far removed from expectation and common sense that something must be broken... and the simple explanation is that the 30mm ammo just isn't lethal enough.

Tack file attached.

N.B: I fly in VR, not external view... I don't know how the views got screwed up, but I probably messed up the original track file in the process of duping and resetting replays in all the various viewings.

Mk108isWEAK_copy.trk

 

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Awger

[irisono]

Am 24.10.2022 um 10:37 schrieb killerfliege:

Hello all, 

This is an interesting discussion which is why I have done some testing in game. 
Here are my findings: 

1) Impact feedback (via explosion cloud): Too little.
If you look at gun camera videos from back then - and they are really bad quality - one can clearly see hit indicated by a decently sized explosion "cloud". In DCS, these are present as Momo mentioned when shooting the guns into the sky but somehow very, very tiny, when the shell hits the plane. They are almost invisible unless you are within 30 m. Moreover, the 13 mm impact causes a bigger explosion cloud than the 30 mm HE. This makes shooting much more difficult cause even when you hit, you sometimes miss it because you could not see the impact. 
--> The explosion cloud for cannon should be bigger (applies to 20 mm also. For 20 mm: about 1,5xcurrent size, for 30 mm: 2,5-3xcurrent size)

2) Damage: Too little - or in other words: effect on airworthiness of plane too little.
As demonstrated by various videos and tests, the 30mm HE Minengeschoss should be able to render a target unflyable with 1-3 hits. Sometimes in the simulator, you can hit a target 5-8 times and nothing happens. I tested that with single shots at different areas of the plane. Some 30mm hits do not cause any damage it seems. E.g., they impact the elevator or the wing and nothing happens other than a very tiny visual impact explosion. None of my shots were beyond 100 m. On the other hand, a small burst of 13 mm MG131 (~1 second at centre mass) can easily cause a fire. Currently, you are actually more effective with a 13 mm burst of the same length as compared to the same burst of 30 mm. Aircraft skin is very thin and important for the aerodynamics. Severe damage to the skin will make a plane almost unflyable, especially if the wing is affected. This is not reflected enough in the simulator.
Yes, the tailplane comes off more often than using other weapons but what is weird to me that the shells have got such a wide range of effectiveness: from literally 0 to 100. And more shells actually tend toward 0 (they lie between 0 and 20). Just compare the Mk-108 to the 37 mm cannon of the MiG15. When the 37 mm of the MiG15 hits the ground, there is a proper explosion. When it hits a plane in flight, it is still effective, but the destructiveness does not nearly seem to be what you would expect from the ground impact. 
--> Weapon / Ammunition effect on flying planes should be revised to make it more coherent. 

 

Best regards, 
Simon

 

I fully agree with killerfliege and Awger opinions. Their statements are fully confirmed by the literature. In the reference publication for aircraft guns (the "Flying Guns" trilogy, by Antohony G. Williams and Dr. Emmanuel Gustin) one finds in vol. 2 on pages 329-331 a comparison of the most important WWII aircraft guns and their ammunition. Data used for this publication are based on real live tests of the RAF, the Dept. of the US Air Force TO 11A-1-39 and further validation test by the USN. Here is a tabular extract of the weapons that are of interest to us:

 

Gun                 Cartridge         ROF    Gun Power   Gun Weight    Gun Efficiency

MG17              7.92x57           20        21                    12                    1.75

MG131            13x64B           15        45                    17                    2.65

Breda              12.7x81SR      12        36                    29                    1.24

.50M2              12.7x99           13        58                    29                    2

12.7UB            12.7x108         17        102                  25                    4.1

MG-FF            20x80RB         8          120                  28                    4.3

MG151            20x82              12        204                  42                    4.9

ShVAK            20x99R           13        169                  42                    4

B-20                20x99R           13        169                  25                    6.8

Hispano II       20x110            10        200                  50                    4

Hispano V       20x110            12        240                  42                    5.7

Vya                 23x152B         9          234                  68                    3.4

MK108            30x90RB         10        580                  60                    9.7

NS-37             37x195            4          424                  170                  2.5

 

ROF= Rate of Fire for an unsynchronized gun

Gun Power= It’s a calculated and normalized number that takes into account the destructive force of different types of ammunition multiplied by the ROF of the weapon. These calculations were compared with empirical data from RAF experiments. The results were nearly equal.

Gun Efficiency= To judge the efficiency of a gun installation in a plane the Gun Power was divided by the weight of the gun (in kg). The outstanding performer here is clearly the MK108/30mm, which achieves ten times the destructiveness of the 0.50M2 for only twice the weight.

 

For our discussion the Gun Power is decisive. Here you can see that the Hispano Mk II (Spitfire IX) has only 34% of the destructive power of the Mk108 and the NS-37 about 73%. According to the in-game experiences of many players (including some experiments) these facts do not seem to be taken into account in the DM of OpenBeta V 2.8.6.41363

As for dismantling wings and some planes resisting huge damages, the current DM falls far short of the documented values in WWII real life. The discrepancy between AP/HE (Hispano II/V) and the German mine projectiles (M-Geschoss 92g, MG151/20 and M-Geschoss 330g, MK108) is far off in the current DM version. The mine projectiles do not cause the damage that is calculated and documented in the literature. These calculations were compared with empirical data from real life experiments (by RAF, USAF, USN). The results of these studies are nearly equal.

[NineLine]

11 hours ago, irisono said:

As for dismantling wings and some planes resisting huge damages

You will need to show tracks and back that up with historical data, most gun camera footage you do not see wings flying off willy nilly. 

The biggest issue as I have said is the visual DM lacking compared to what they actual DM is doing. 

[motoadve]

3 minutes ago, NineLine said:

The biggest issue as I have said is the visual DM lacking compared to what they actual DM is doing. 

Yes that needs improvement for sure.

[NineLine]

On 11/19/2022 at 9:34 AM, Awger said:

I've been re-acquainting myself with the Kurfurst of late, and was really disappointed in the performance of the Mk108 ... came to the forums and found this thread.

I still call shenigans.

I ran multiple tests last night (1v1 vs P-51, firing Mk108 HE/anti-bomber only), all fairly consistent in outcome. Replays cross-checked with TacView.

I got video captures from multiple angles of the last fight, watched in slow motion for several hours.

• P-51 in fairly constant 2.5G right turn (mostly level)
• All stable tracking shots
• First burst (4 rounds) fired from 87m
  • 3 misses (they scraped the paint)
  • 1 hit to upper portion of vertical stab
    • lots of shrapnel damage (hole stickers) to rudder, vertical stab, horizontal stab, elevator
    • shrapnel damage to port wing
    • no impact to combat effectiveness (elevator & rudder still functional, everything attached)
• Second burst (1 round followed by 2 rounds) fired from 76m
  • first round hit starboard mid-wing
    • 20mm - sized hole
      • "size of a head" -- consistent with pic of Spitfire with 20mm hole in fuselage from video posted in this thread
    • white smoke from radiator exhaust vent (fuel leak?)
  • second round hit fuselage at base of vertical stab (at stab extension)
    • shrapnel damage (holes)
  • third round looks like it hit rudder, but port elevator got shredded
    • empenage and all flight control surfaces still attached
• AI had enough at this point and bailed

In my opnion, each one of those single hits should have blown massive chunks off of that airplane, ending the fight. Specifically:

• First hit (upper vertical stab) should have blown most of the vertical stab and rudder off the airplane. At 200 knots, full throttle and 2.5G there's no way that plane is maintaining controlled flight
• Second hit (starboard mid-wing) should have detonated the fuel tank and blown the starboard wing off
  • I assume the white smoke from the radiator vent was fuel, because a P-51 has no coolant in the wing... so, either the game thinks I damaged a fuel tank in the wing and the only fuel-leak-damage-indicator is in the fuselage, or the game thinks a hit to the wing damaged the radiator. Either way, the damage model is screwed up.
• Third hit (fuselage at vertical stab extension) should have blown the entire tail clean off
• Fourth hit (rudder? elevator?) at a minimum should have blown control surfaces off

I'm fine with the damage stickers not lining up 1-to-1 with actual damage, or location thereof, but these results are so far removed from expectation and common sense that something must be broken... and the simple explanation is that the 30mm ammo just isn't lethal enough.

Tack file attached.

N.B: I fly in VR, not external view... I don't know how the views got screwed up, but I probably messed up the original track file in the process of duping and resetting replays in all the various viewings.

Mk108isWEAK_copy.trk 1.47 MB · 11 downloads

 

 

 

So sadly your track didn't play back for me, I am sure it's because I missed it for so long and all it takes is one update to trash a track.

So what I did was take control of the flight and this is the result of my first attempt.
 

 

Moral of the story? Not every shot is the same, not every shot will yield the same result. If I do the same thing, take control of the track and fly over and over I could see any number of different results. 

As I said, a cannon hit should shred the skin off the aircraft in that location, but we are stuck, right now, with the visual DM that we have. It doesn't always do justice to what our DM does.

Our DM is doing a lot of math under the hood, it is calculating what is going on when that round hits, passes through etc. See the log in the video above, that is one 30 mm hit. 

Wings do come off, but not as often as games over the years have shown and conditioned us to believe, but they will come off. Most wing removal damage you see is the result of a catastrophic event such as an explosion or collision. 

Disclaimer... I hate the effect of the tail coming off like in my video... HATE it. I have requested a different result that would end in basically a damaged stump at the end of the plane instead of a laser-cut tail, the result would be exactly the same as the tail coming off, but look much better... but I digress. 

[Awger]

Interesting... maybe I'm just unlucky?

I understand about the randomness of hits vs damage -- no hit to the "exact same place" is going to do "exactly the same damage" every time (quotes are intentional, as nothing is exact, and no dynamic situation can be adequately replicated to achieve an identical result).  My complaint is that the expected second-order result (damage resulting in loss of control / enemy out of the fight) seems to be incongruous with what I'm seeing (or not seeing).

If reality is that I'm not hitting and damaging what I think I am (based on the visuals) then that's a different issue to the amount / type of damage to the part of the aircraft that I really did hit.  At this point, I'm not sure if the majority of my confusion / disappointment is the former, the latter, or (likely) some combination of both ... but, bottom line, what I am seeing is damage indicators that suggest the aircraft I'm shooting at has sustained sufficient damage to render it uncontrollable .... and yet it seems to still be under control.

I'm less interested in seeing massive chunks getting blown off of aircraft than I am the AI saying, "Fsck this, I'm outa here" when the aircraft controls / surfaces have been shredded.

I've seen / read / heard plenty of anecdotes about aircraft that are still flying but probably shouldn't be, or aircraft that appear undamaged but auger in ( <-- heh ), but I consider those edge cases that should be rare (at least, in a sim). The "normal" case is (should be?) something along the lines of, "I blast the ever-loving hell out of my enemy, and he dies a very loud and violent death." Certainly there are "normalized" expectations for the actual manner of violence (ex: I would expect aircraft without self-sealing tanks being shot at with incendiary ammo to be more likely to burst into flames) but variations on that theme are welcome and expected.  What is not expected is to light up a Zero with API, turn the center fuselage and wing root into swiss cheese, and have it fly away like nothing happened.

Could it happen? Sure. Would it happen that way three out of five times? No way.

OBOT: If you haven't, you should read Saburo Sakai's biography, Samurai!

Corrollary: If I put one or more rounds of Mk108 30mm into the empanage of a P-51, there is VERY LITTLE chance (ie, approaching ZERO) that the pilot is maintaining control of that aircraft (whether it stays attached or not). Aside from shredding the skin (which is detrimental, but not necessarily fatal) there are counterweights, hinges, and control cables that will be (at a minimum) damaged -- and if the skin is intact enough to provide any aerodynamic load, that load will likely tear those parts off; and, if the skin isn't intact enough to tear those parts off, then it isn't intact enough to provide any aerodynamic affect that would provide any control to the pilot.

Secondly: I'll give y'all the benefit of the doubt, and assume that your DM takes into account shearing forces based on dynamic load and drag. A P-51 wing stalls from the tip in; at high AOA the lift disipates but the shear forces (drag, both normal and longitudinal) go waaaay up. Considering that the Mk108 round was designed to cause a critical failure in a B-17 wing spar, I find it highly unlikely that a P-51 wing spar could stay intact after being hit by one -- and certainly not under the dynamic (shear) loads created by a 3+ G turn.

Interesting aside: the F8 Bearcat was originally designed with "safety tips" that would shear off at  9 Gs ... the idea was, with the wings "shortened," it couldn't generate enough G to exceed the ultimate design loading (13 G). Actual G-factor, of course, was directly related to aircraft weight at the moment of maneuver, but you get the idea.

I don't have my F-51-1 at hand but, IIRC, design limits were something on the order of 8G @ 8,000 lbs. Just for the sake of argument, let's say that there's a ~50% margin from ultimate limit (catastrophic damage), meaning the airframe gives up at 12G @ 8,000 lbs (96K load). Also for the sake of argument, let's say that the P-51 is at a lower weight state (low fuel) and only weighs in at 7,000 lbs. At that weight, each wing is carrying 3,500 lbs -- when at a stable 1G attitude. At 3G, that's ~10,500 lbs per wing; not a problem when the wing is designed to carry a 48,000 lbs load. But... introduce a 30mm round ... *boom* -- how much of that load-carrying capability is left? 75%? 50%? 25%? And... what about load transfer -- if there's no structure transferring (sharing) load across the span, then the point load at the shear point is... +100%? +200%?

Yes, I understand it's not a 1:1 relationship... but, neither is compression and shear load... or the additional load caused by skin deformation.

I'm not necessarily expecting an exciting departure of large chunks of airframe... those usually only occur when something really goes *boom* (I'm thinking about gun camera footage of a Fw190 getting hit, and the 20mm magazine in the wing detonates, shearing off the wing at the root in spectacular fashion) but I do expect that parts will fly and the rest of the plane won't -- or, at a minimum, the pilot will get the hint and exit the aircraft.

Additional aside: I was an eyewitness to the F-117 that crashed in Baltmore in 1997 ... I happened to be there with several test pilots ... there was a lof of interesting conversation about how high shear forces can get, just from control surface deflection. Feel free to read the official explanation and accept it as you will... but I have heard that particlar aircraft had a longstanding nickname of "The Wobbly Goblin."

I'm trying out the gunsight fix on the F-86 tongiht, but I'll be jumping into the Koenig in short order.  If there is some particular exercise or regimen you can recommend as an appropriate test, I'd be happy to indulge.