• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SD501st last won the day on June 5 2016

SD501st had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,991 Outstanding

About SD501st

  • Rank
    Don't tell me to calm down!
  • Birthday 05/25/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,186 profile views
  1. DON'T SAY HIS NAME! He is drawn to it like Candyman and Bloody Mary are to theirs, and he will go on to terrorize some poor guy posting War Thunder videos with his comments and corrupt him slowly but steadily!
  2. There is an "ignore" function on this board. I guess you should use it if you can't help yourself.
  3. It's not only about outdiving, it's also about being completely superior in all energy and agility aspects when in high speed flight at or above level flight top speed... acceleration and control response included. And, as I said, the P-40 can also hang with the Yak-7b and MC 202 for quite a while in a turning engagement, long enough to pull lead and get good shots in(this is a direct example from the last 2 matches I played with the P-40 against the soviets, about 2 or 3 weeks ago). And it should outright win a scissor against both, especially at high speed and in a dive, if the pilot knows what he's doing. Oh and... the P-40 is a lot more durable than both the Yak-7b and the MC 202. Sure, durability is something that is quite hit and miss sometimes, but overall... the P-40 will win a head on versus a MC 202 everytime, and stands a good chance to win versus the Yak-7b as well, despite the Yak's centrally located armament. And if both planes collide in the head on, the P-40 will survive(note: not necessarily in a combat worthy condition, but good enough to get back to base) this quite often, while the Yak and MC 202 will lose their wings almost every time. However, I do not like the P-40 very much right now... it's handling is back to being "floaty" again at most speeds, when it wasn't like that before the horsepower upgrade. This "floating" is a total dealbreaker when it comes to handling... the J2M3 used to have it as well, and I hated that plane too back then(before the J2M2 was implemented), despite it being a very good fighter and having good results. It's as if the roll axis of the plane is right at the fuselage bottom or even BELOW, not at the CoG... which leads me to assume that this is indeed a Center of Gravity related problem. I'd rather have my old, 1941-42 engine setting P-40E back, if this handling is the price to pay for 1943-44 engine settings(used on the P-40M/N/K)... Disclaimer: I tend to edit in a lot of lines after I initially sent my post, it's a really bad habit... but I can't seem to break it. There's always something else that comes to mind, or a way with which to phrase a statement better, or...or...or... just after I clicked "post/save".
  4. Not quite, you've been treating Hank as if he had written the post that Yeoma did, and you brought up something completely unrelated to the topic to make the point that all of the older(in terms of playtime) WT players are insulting and petty. ... just because one player made a post that was exactly that, directed at you. That's not what I would call civil. Do you see the what I mean? You are stereotyping "us" all because of the actions of a few, in a provocative way... you can't expect people to react in a civil manner to that. This way of acting is very much like something going on in the real world, which I do not want to discuss on these forums... rules and all that. >_> And I want to be clear here... this is not meant to insult you. And on topic of what the P-40E has as an advantage over the Yak-7b and MC 202... maximum dive speed, high speed dive acceleration, high speed controlability especially in the roll axis. All of these are more much more noticeable versus the Yak-7b. Which, by the way, the P-40 can also turn with, and pull lead on, for quite a while... thanks to the now almost 1600 horses under the hood improving it's acceleration, it can even do this for much longer now than in the past. Edit: For effs sake automerge, do your damn job!!
  5. Just my 2 cents, from the aircraft on this list, the La-5FN, Yak-1B and especially the Ki-44(all versions) should be at a higher BR. I suspect the Ki-44 doesn't fit the general playstyle that japanese players learned in the earlier tiers with the A5M1, Ki-27 and Ki-43's(of which the Ki-43-II otsu should also be at a higher BR, despite it's armament deficiency), and the resulting mishandling of the plane is what keeps it at this low BR. Not unlike the F4U-1A, which is probably the worst example of high performance planes at too low BR, absolutely clubbing without mercy in the right hands... not the P-40.
  6. Thanks. I was about to write the very same... Randy, we did NOT call you a "scrub" or "Ace", just as Hank here said, that was exclusively intended for Roberto, who is forum-banned and chatbanned ingame(and for good reason, that should tell you something about him) but still reads in here and takes every chance he gets to spread his BS. So, regardless of what you might think, this: ... is not the case! Why can't you just accept that and move on? Is it just easier for you to throw everyone who disagrees on something with you into the same "petty, troll, elitist" drawer? That is petty, as is bringing up this argument, which has long been over, again. Why can't you just discuss in a normal manner? Yes, in this thread the user "Yeoma" started with the ad hominems, but if you stoop down to the same level everytime someone gets emotional and overreacts or is just downright insulting(I don't know what exactly prompted that reaction from Yeoma), you won't be taken seriously either. *deep breath* Okay, so can we just leave this behind and let this thread continue in a civil manner?
  7. Just a hint, don't test this on the ground, test it in level flight at a constant speed. On the ground, not only are you sitting completely still, a situation which aircraft mounted guns aren't supposed to be used in, but when in a taildragger you are firing up at a roughly 10-15° angle from the horizontal, so any shell drop effect will be quite a lot worse, especially with low velocity guns like the Bf 109 E-4's MG/FF M.
  8. It must be because I'm way too CALM lately...
  9. For the last few days, almost every Tier 4 and 5 match I've got into was a mixed battle. And only a fifth of those was caused by excessive waiting times, all others had a failsquad that mixed 2 nations... Mixed battles SHOULD NOT be a possibility in RB, regardless of queue time... and neither should it be possible to mix 2 different nations in a squad when you selected RB mode! I swear to god, the next one of these failsquads I see in my team will get teamkilled with extreme prejudice!
  10. Sadly, Ottobon left us mortal War Thunder players behind for the heavens in his I-185 M-71 and now only rarely looks down upon the world that is War Thunder. (no, he's not dead, I'm just being theatrical) Anyway, the I-185 M82... the M82 part is the difference, that's the name of the engine. It's the same engine that the La-5 series uses, and has the very same performance characteristics at the same altitudes, unlike the M71 engine. Read the part of Otto's post where he describes the difference between the I-185 M71 and the La-7, then apply the given information about the La-7's performance altitude to the I-185 airframe. To put it bluntly, the M82 can't go up above 3-4km as easily and of course does not possess the same excellent Power/Weight ratio as the M71 variant, so you have to be more conservative with your speed and avoid any fights at altitudes above 4km. Your optimal combat altitude is 1.8km. The opponents you face in the BR 4.0 I-185 M82 naturally are better at turning, too, which excerbates the need to NOT engage in slow, protracted dogfights in the horizontal. Your acceleration is still excellent compared to the opposition unless you decide to climb above 3.2 - 3.7km where the second supercharger gear kicks in and WEP deactivates. The exact switch altitude is dependant on your airspeed... the faster you go, the later the charger gear switches because of the RAM air effect. It's crucial to NOT slow down in M82 engined fighters when in second gear, because you simply don't have the acceleration anymore to quickly recover lost energy, unless you dive hard. Going into the vertical against a Bf 109 at altitude is suicidal, in the I-185 M82 even more so than in the La's, because the I-185 has smaller wings and thus a higher stall speed. The 109 will walk all over you up there if you play his climbing spiral/loop game, and so will most Spitfires and japanese fighters you can meet. They are superior to you in that regard at altitude... and the higher you go, the worse this gets. Oh by the way... Interceptor Climbing like Otto described, equipped with 8 RS-82 rockets, is an excellent way to ruin any enemy bombers day. Get directly in front of them, FIRE ALL ZE MISSILES, and watch the parts rain down.
  11. In short: NO The statement is so generalized as to be completely useless. Not all Soviet(not russian, soviet!) planes are the same. Climbrate is a performance factor that changes with altitude, and there is no mention of altitude in the quoted statement. Also, the "because of obvious reasons" part hints at someone with a bad case of the the "BUSSIAN RIAS" virus, which is known to negatively affect the ability to use logic and impair judgment as well as cause selective perception and severe cognitive bias... meaning, the affected person percieves some things, especially those reinforcing his/her beliefs, a lot more intense than things which would have the opposite effect. Which youtuber might that be, by the way? Don't worry, you are safe here... the youtuber can't harm you.
  12. Don't close the radiators when you climb, especially not on planes with low wingloading which tend to have low optimal climb speeds. The A7M2's recommended climb speed according to the datasheet is a very low 235 kph IAS... but anywhere between that and 260 kph IAS works. Personally, I climb at 250 kph IAS with the A7M2. Anyway, the radiators... at such low speeds, the drag caused by the radiators is insignificant, so just open them fully. That is, by the way, how climb tests were done in real life. I would advise you to do the initial sustained climb to altitude with 100% radiators on ALL prop planes... it lets you use your War Emergency Power for much longer in combat, since you didn't heat up the engine much(if at all) during the climb. Even the Bf 109 K-4, which is apparently notorious for overheating on WEP, stays relatively cool in a 270 kph IAS WEP climb with fully opened radiators. I say "apparently" because I always climb like I just described, and thus never had any overheating problems with it. That's the main benefit of Manual Engine Controls on some planes... the ability to keep the engine cool while still climbing at close to optimum Rate of Climb. So far, the best compromise between cooling efficiency and drag seems to be 40% radiator on all prop planes except for the P-51's and A-36, where there is barely any radiator drag regardless of radiator setting. I usually fine tune the radiator when I reach my desired altitude, to keep the temperatures constantly in the white. Oil radiators seem to create less drag than coolant radiators for the most part, but that might just be my imagination. With increasing speed, the radiator drag is more and more of a factor, but the cooling effect also increases with speed, meaning that at, for example, 500 kph IAS the cooling effect of 10%r radiator equals that of 250 kph IAS at 50% radiator... this is just an example to illustrate the effect of speed on cooling, so don't take the settings and speeds I mentioned as a fact please. ^^ Also, the supercharger gear switch altitude for the A7M2 is at 2500 meters on 100% throttle and 2150 meters on WEP. Another thing... when you are nearing your level flight top speed, reduce prop pitch from 100%... at high speeds the propeller blades don't need to "bite" into the air with as much force to sustain acceleration, on the contrary... often 100% prop pitch slows your acceleration and top speed, due to their drag, when flying at high speeds! I found that between 90% and 80% prop pitch gives better high speed acceleration and increased top speed, as well as less speed loss, when you are close to, at or above your level flight top speed. An additional benefit of reduced prop pitch/reduced RPM's is lower heat output, which let's you close your radiators more, which reduces drag and increases your top speed... and so on. Just don't attempt to manually control prop pitch on german planes... in contrast to everyone else, on german planes you really control the blade angle, not the RPM like you do on planes with a constant speed propellor. Yes, the ingame name for the control is wrong... it should be "RPM control" not "Propeller Pitch Control"... except for german planes, as mentioned. And that means you can, and WILL, overrev the engine unless you know exactly what to do and make constant adjustments... which is almost impossible in combat. There is a reason why most german planes had fully automated propeller pitch control. By the way, in the Realistic Battle - Air Battle subforum, there is a spreadsheet with more or less optimal MEC settings for a lot of the aircraft in the game. Keep in mind though that this information is not necessarily always up to date. The A7M specificly has recieved an update to it's FM, which is somewhat toned down to not turn it into an absolute seal clubber at it's current BR, but still vastly better than it was before. And once it's BR is raised to an apropriate level, will probably recieve another one... matching the current datasheet information. Here is the link:
  13. They can turn without losing speed... it's called a "shallow turn", or in mouseaim terms "slowly moving the mouse", with the occasional keyboard roll input to keep the instructor from overusing the rudder. All of the problems people seem to have with fighters that are heavy stem from their inability to do anything else than a full elevator turn or not using the keyboard to help with initiating the turn. And climbing? Jesus... optimal climbing speed for P-47D/M is 265 kph IAS, it's a bit lower for the P-47N thanks to the larger wings. Climbing like that, you don't have any problems getting to at least equal altitude with your opponents... you get an Interceptor Spawn after all! And once you are at altitude, all you have to do is level out, gain speed and then only maneuver as hard as necessary! Make sure to level out and gather speed before you have enemies near you! The P-47M is an exception, it's a very good climber and arguably doesn't need an Interceptor Spawn at all. The P-47's have excellent speed retention in a straight line, shallow zoom climbs(ca. 10 degrees) and smooth, wide turns at higher speed... just like a competent Hunter or Sabre pilot would do his turns when not forced into a dogfight. And if you keep your speed up, P-47's are extremely hard to impossible to force into a dogfight! For clarification, since some people seem to think that 350 kph IAS is fast... it's not! Around 400 kph IAS is your absolute minimum in the P-47's below 5km, a hard minimum which you should never allow yourself to fall below. Oh by the way... my source for saying that P-47's can turn without losing a lot of energy, is the fact that I've flown and spaded all of them! On an unrelated note, I prefer the P-51's over the P-47's... they "fit" better, feel more "natural" to me. The fact that they have 2 .50 cals less doesn't bother me, because unlike a lot of other players, I have absolutely no problem killing fighters with an array of 4 or 6 of them. Call what I just said "bragging" if you want, that doesn't make it any less true. And I am not the only who doesn't have problems with .50 cals or US Tier 4 fighters, far from it. Disclaimer: This post applies ONLY to RB.
  14. ki-67 hiryu

    "Easymode" Yak-9T/K... yeah, this isn't version 1.37 anymore. These two" fighters" stand no chance in a dogfight against even a reasonably competent player. Sure it's frustrating to get intercepted in your bomber and die without having accomplished anything, but the players flying these planes just did their damn "job", killing bombers. Do you whine about getting killed by a Me 410 A-1/U4(B-2/U4) or a Ki-102, too? Are you aware of the irony here? I bet the jerk players you complain about thought the same as you do at one point... at one point, they may even have believed in fairplay et cetera. After you start behaving like that yourself(bailing etc.), you have no right to complain about others behaving this way anymore, because your behaviour now perpetuates and spreads the same mindset to others, who otherwise might have turned out to be decent players. Bah. The sad story of humanity, repeating itself in the microcosmos that is War Thunder...
  15. I just love how my advice for using the F7F was almost completely ignored in favor of of whining about the plane being overtiered, when it's the player who seems unable to to grasp the flying style of a heavy fighter. Oh, and of course the excellent F-82 is overtiered as well... bah! That thing can wipe out a minibase with 2x2000 lb bombs doing a shallow dive bombing run and still be uncatchable, even by Soviet I-185 M-71's or Tempest II's! And then you lazily go over into a shallow climb, lead the guys who are greedy for a kill right below your climbing fighters and watch the carnage. Et voila! usually 2+ enemy fighters, often more, baited low and soon to be dead. And after dropping the bombs and getting back to your own fighters, you can just slay few enemies yourself... 6 centerlined M3 .50 cals kill the pilot in a head on 50% of the time. With the gunpod, that's almost a guaranteed kill, and if you don't drop your speed you also have no problem rolling out of the way of the return fire even with the gunpod on(and this comes from someone who usually avoids head ons like the plague). And yes, I've done all of what I've just described, more than once and without the help of a squad! Now imagine the carnage and havoc that 3 F-82's doing this can cause for the enemy... with the 4th squadmember being a B-29 that patiently waits for the F-82's to do their thing, then heads over towards the enemy to delete their airfield... unhindered by enemy fighters, because most of them went for the F-82's. For crying out loud, the F-82 is one of the fastest props in the game, at sea level AND at altitude... and it get's interceptor spawn, to boot! And you can bet that PainGod flew them, or he wouldn't give his opinion about them, unlike some people who like to talk out of their butts about planes which they refuse to fly because they belong to a particular nation. By the way, that's a great way of discussing... assuming that someone who disagrees with you about a particular plane must not have flown it. If you have consistently bad results, either: learn how to properly use the plane and start listening to players who have success with them, or stop flying it and go back to single engined fighters Three and a half years of seeing just this very same behaviour... why do I even try anymore? @everyone else: Sorry for this rant, I'm just tired of this bullcrap and needed to vent a bit... once every 6 months isn't too much, I hope.
  16. ki-67 hiryu

    So you protest against this nonsense by frustrating players who are in no way responsible for it?
  17. That would be because the F4U can't land on it's belly without losing it's entire wing first. The inverted gull wing protrudes below the fuselage line, so any attempt at belly landing it will have you "touch down" on the inner wings, right where the landing gear is located, and right next to the wing folding mechanism and it's accompanying structural weakness...
  18. Just fyi, the F7F-3 is a bit heavier than the F7F-1 with full fuel, however the F7F-3 goes 703 kph TAS at 5.4km, where as the F7F-1 can't break 700 kph in level light at any altitude. Climbrate is a the same or maybe a little worse below 1500 meters but starts getting better and better compared to the F7F-1 the higher you go. So, unlike the F7F-1, the F7F-3 is not strictly a low-medium altitude fighter. The centerline armament and great mid-high speed rollrate makes for an excellent head on platform, despite it's size... just remember to roll and pull out of the way after you fire your burst and are getting close to 1km distance. This works best with all stealth belts, naturally... since the opponent won't see the salvo coming. Also, since you have two engines, you don't even need to be afraid of engine damage as much as the Spits have to be. Additionally, both of them have excellent level flight and dive acceleration, so there's absolutely no need to firewall the throttle all the time... on the contrary, in a high speed dive you can easily shake a Spitfire of any Mark off by cutting throttle and using your excellent high speed rate of roll and elevator authority. Just don't fall below 350 kph IAS while climbing back after them, or don't climb after them at all if there is more than one around. And last but not least... you lose way less speed than a Spitfire when doing a shallow high speed turn. The Spit might be gaining on you due to geometry, but that only means he is more likely to misjudge your energy status if you do it right... obviously you need some distance to do this, enough to still be out of effective gunrange when the Spit starts gaining. Circa 1.5-2km distance should suffice. Compare the datasheets:
  19. "Infantryman is unconscious"
  20. The 50mm guns on the Me 410 A-1/U4 and B-2/U4, as well as on the Me 262 A-1/U4. ^^
  21. That's not quite what I said... I said I saw AP-T rounds(mainly) and other tracer rounds ricochet off, that wasn't limited to .50 cals. I've seen it for the MG 131, the MG 17, the Ho-5, the Type 99(specificly the mod 1), the japanese 7.7mm machineguns... heck, I've even seen HISPANO 20mm(!) Tracers do it! Universal, if you need the tracer for aim correction, or stealth belts on planes that use API rounds in their belts. For anything that uses the very early belts which contain no API, the only really consistently effective belt is the stealth belt, since it fires AP/I/AP. With any other belt on the very early .50 cals, you need to aim for pilot and engine. Try to go for shot from high/low 6 o clock positions... such as when a target just started turning while you are chasing it. Fire 2-3 second bursts. This gives you a larger target profile to shoot at and the impact angles are steeper, almost eliminating the chance of the ricochets we are talking about in this thread currently. Also, a point that some people seem to not get unless they're own aircraft is shot at... just because you don't get a critical hit message or see pieces fly off from your target, that doesn't mean it's not damaged. Wing and control surface damage which isn't completely killing the component doesn't give you a critical hit response, but the targets ability to maneuver is still severely impaired by it. An orange inner wing combined with a red elevator often leads to non-recoverable situations, at least in RB... and of course even more so in Simulator Battles. On an F-86, even just an orange inner wing makes you almost completely combat ineffective... and you're either really lucky or really skilled(or both) if you can land that thing in this condition without losing a wing or the tail...
  22. So, does that mean the Firefly Mk I now has 640 rounds of 20mm ammunition in total? If so... HALLELUJA!!! I spaded it a long time ago, but for everyone else it is now much easier to fight effectively in it... 60(or was it 70?) rounds per gun with no backup weapon was hilariously insufficient and meant that it couldn't engage any soft targets(or light pillboxes with AP rounds) without becoming totally defenseless if some enemy fighter comes by for a delicious Firefly snack. Not to mention that 60 RpG of the british Hispano Anti-Ground Belt wasn't even enough to kill a single light pillbox! By the way... why is it that the british AP shell has lower penetration than the US AP-I shell on what is essentially the same gun?
  23. In a guns only enviroment? For aggressive purposes, the F-86, for defensive purposes the A6M. In an enviroment with guided missiles that are relatively reliable? The F-86 in both cases, because it produces a larger positional change relative to the missile. Doubly important in case of a missile that flies lead pursuit instead of lag pursuit(I am not entirely sure here, but as far as I know, most heatseekers, except for a few of the newest generation, fly a lag pursuit while semi-active and active radar guided missiles fly lead pursuit).
  24. But how does your take on this theory explain people that work during the night hours in their respective countries, regarding War Thunder team quality?
  25. Regardless of "penetration friendlieness" of the surface(...why does that sound dirty?), at such an angle as presented in the gif, the nose of the projectile may not even make contact with the surface at all, like you said yourself. Also, when I refered to "air battles", I meant strictly in the game. By the way, don't misunderstand me, I actually agree with you on these points... I am not proficient enough in the subject matter to disagree. ^^ However, as we all know, real life and War Thunder are two different things. I am strictly speaking about what happens in the game... and in the game, I've seen tracer ammunition(mainly API-T and AP-T though...) ricochet off of wings etc. and fly off into another direction with my own eyes.
  26. I am... and the same thing happens very often in air battles when you are firing from dead 6. ^^ Also, like I told Rapitor, please read the post again... I've edited something else in after posting it. It's a really bad habit of mine, sorry.
  27. Read again please, I edited something else in. ^^ Yeah, it's a bad habit, sorry. In any case, the gif was just a means to illustrate that everything can ricochet of even thin surfaces, under the right circumstances. In this circumstance, it was a 152mm russian artillery shell hitting the roof of a Lada at close to 1 degree from the horizontal. Edit: LoL at the redtails vector thrust reference.
  28. Well... And yes, sometimes the rounds bounce... or rather, ricochet. I've seen tracers fly off into different directions after hitting a plane from the dead 6 position more than a few times. Additionally, the War Thunder Wiki itself seems to indicate that such a mechanic is in place: Most of the ammunition types are self-explanatory, but there is some confusion over a few of the types. Let's go through them one-by-one. Incendiary(I), Adjustment incendiary(AI), and Immediate-action incendiary(IAI) rounds all sound very similar but they affect enemy vehicles differently upon impact. Incendiary(I) will set engines and fuel tanks on fire, if hit often enough and if the armor screen many planes have is penetrated. They often have tracer chemicals (IT) in the base of the round which also has incendiary properties. Adjustment incendiary(AI) shells feature a capped nose which upon impact will deform (like dough) and allow the rest of the bullet more contact area. Due to the effect of normalization now angling the shell more efficiently, better armor penetration results. This is especially noticeable on sleek tapered sections, such as the tail and wing surfaces from 6 o'clock (behind). Smaller calibers will bounce off even 1 mm thick duralumin. The "Adjustment incendiary" suffers less from this problem, otherwise it works just like a normal incendiary round. Note: Only incendiary shells use this as they rely on penetrating the target to do their work. HE, FI and other explosive shell types have contact fuses and will just explode upon contact, circumventing the need to penetrate. Immediate-action incendiary(IAI) is not really an incendiary shell. It's a small caliber HE-I round which explodes on impact. This can be seen with the MG131's stealth belt.
  29. You can change color and shape of your crosshair and other things... you can even set enemy and friendly tags and markers to blink in regular intervalls(Strobe of ally/enemy nameplates), and you can freely adjust which color you want to use for friendlies and enemies, all under the Options - Interface tab.
  30. Correct, just an explanation.
  31. Knee-jerk reactions are never productive, but one thing you need to understand is that there are a lot of long time, experienced players here who have seen the very same things(example.50 cals being weak) for years and years, and most of the time the problems brought up by the thread starter stem from misuse of the tools he has. I don't have problems with .50 cals at all, except for BR 9.0 Jet matches, but that's simply because I learned how to use them so they work reliably. I didn't start using them and was killing things left and right either, no, I went through the same frustrating experience... until it finally made "CLICK"! When I post in such a thread, I ususally try to explain how to maximize their effect and minimize their weaknesses... so that the person who goes through the same trouble I once had will come to a point where it goes "CLICK" for them, too. Anyway, the point I am trying to make is... if you see the same problems brought up over and over again, despite all your attempts at teaching people how to avoid them, sooner or later, you get frustrated. And that frustration builds up. Which leads to said emotionally fuelled knee-jerk reactions. :-/ PS: I believe this discussion is off-topic though, but I am not sure. >_>
  32. Since everyone else already gave you a solution to your problem, which seems to be that you aren't bleeding off enough speed before touchdown, I'm just going to give you a warning for another aircraft you will probably fly in the future: If you already have problems landing the Fw 190 A-5 properly, you will be in for an absolute nightmare with the Ta 152 H-1. That thing simply refuses to bleed speed with the nose below the horizon, even with engine on idle. It basicly behaves like a glider with ungodly energy retention.
  33. This statement is so wrong, I can't believe someone like you, Rapitor, would ever write it. Manueverability on modern Jet's is not only about "dodging the lock", as you put it, it's about dodging the missile! You force the missile to expend energy by changing course, the longer a missile is able to fly straight during it's burn, the faster it will be when the merge happens and the harder it will be to dodge. After the missile expended it's fuel, depleting it's energy by making it change course is even more important. Then, shortly before impact, you want to pull 2 hard, consecutive maneuvers in opposite directions that force the missile to rapidly change direction,( if it's coming from 9/3 o clock break high then low; if it's coming from 12 o clock break left then right) while dropping countermeasures. The further away from you the missile was fired, and the higher the angle off from the missiles initial firing direction, the higher the chances to succeed in dodging it. It may even be possible to pull hard inverted, point your nose towards the ground and thus move the missiles projected interception point into the ground... or a hill, or a mountainside. The best position for firing in a dogfight is straight into the target's 6 o'clock. The lower the angle off and the lower the target's speed relative to the firing plane, the better the hit probability, even for modern high agility IR-Missiles like the AIM-9X. This is why, for example, the Eurofighter Typhoon, originally envisioned as a high altitude interceptor and air-superiority fighter, was designed for high agility during supersonic flight combined with a high thrust/weight ratio. Of course, a high thrust/weight ratio is also important for a lot of other reasons. The other side of the importance of agility for combat with guided missiles is the offensive ability to pull high Angles of Attack... an F/A-18C/E Hornet/Super Hornet or the Su-27 family, for example, are able to pull extreme Angles of Attack which helps a lot with getting the nose on to the target, and reduce the angle off for the missile. It also bleeds your energy just as fast, which is why pulling high AoA's isn't usually very useful for defense against guided missiles.