You figured it out. The best book written on fighting in the F-4 is "Scream of Eagles". From the book; enter the fight with no less than 550 kts. When your speed bleeds to 350 kts, unload and extend 2-3 miles to regain your energy, then pitch back into the fight at no less than 550 kts. Plenty of F-4 pilot accounts of chasing Vietnamese MIG-17s and 21s on the deck at M1.2+. When the Phantom turns it creates 15X the drag of the F-16. The F-4's wing is a "delta". Scream of Eagles talks about 2 F-4s pressing a MIG flying/using "the egg", with one attacker always pressing the MIG while the other zooms to reposition - a classic Boom n Zoom tactic. I see the F-4 as a FW-190 using slashing attacks, Boom n Zoom, and only turning horizontally when absolutely needed. Scream of Eagles also documents the formation of TOP GUN. When fighting the MIG-17 at TOP GUN, they learned the 17 flies perfectly well at 100 knots. Performing a break turn on a MIG-17? Very funny. Unload and extend. 550 kts allows you to go vertical and/or extend. My father flew the F-4 from 1975-77. He said the faster you go, the better it gets meaning, keep your speed up. Turbojets LIKE air. I like the channel. Good no non-sense content. Cheers.
@@suecobandito8954 Here is an example of "efficiency" differences between turbofans and turbojets. F-16 with its turbofan, will cruise at 36,000ft and use 50-100lbs of fuel a minute (approximate fuel burn), and at 350-400 knots (true airspeed). Now look at the F-104 Starfighter with its turbojet engine. It cruises(ed) at 73,000ft, uses 3/4 afterburner, sipping 100 lbs of fuel a minute at Mach 2 or, 1150 knots true air speed. Different types of efficiencies.
Watching F4 content feels like what we perceived air combat to be growing up as kids. Now (as we've seen with DCS) it's MUCH more complicated. But back then, it was much more analog and close range. BVR and detection technology was in its infancy. You still had to use your eyes and ears to get an idea of what was happening.
I've been flying the Mirage F1 a lot the last few days, best tip i can give F-4 players is: Don't fly straight and level at like 4000ft, with your nav lights on, in the middle of the battlefield...
You're right and there's proof which compares real MiG-21 data vs the DCS version. It 100% pulls too many G as speed gets lower. Luckily, the DCS F-4 matches real data and for all its faults, it out-rates the F-5, Mirage and MiG-21 in 2 circle fight.
@@aaronjamesDS but why would you take it in the horizantal against them, especially a F-5, when you can just bleed them dry of energy in the vertical? If you are fighting 1 or 2 circle in the phantom then you are fighting it to a disadvantage.
@@terraoftime well I suppose it depends on the situation. Of course I'm no BFM expert, but if you're in a situation where a 2 circle can win the fight with less of a chance that they'll possibly get a rear aspect shot off, then why not? The vertical is evidently a strength of fhe F-4 but the slatted F-4E had one of the best - if not the best- sustained turn rate of all supersonic jets of the era until the F-14 came along. Indeed, that level of P_s gives the Phantom a wicked climbing turn capability - a combination of both strategies.
I know in all fighters "Speed is life." However my experiance so far in the Phantom is that it's the "mostest Truestest" for this platform. If you trade in your airspeed for a hard pull... it NEEDS to pay off. Not "Maybe I will try this..." It needs to be that you are pulling a Bandit deeper into the HUD on an uncaged AIM-9 to ensure a hit sorta thing. If you are unsure? Break, put in the blowers and get some speed/distance/energy to re-engage. Solid video.
Other modules are slightly cheaty in some aspects, but HB's phantom is a bit backwards. It actually unrealistically under-performs in numerous areas. Around the time of the block 37, several upgrades were proposed and won to be implemented on 38's and later that made it impossible to lock sidelobes, more reliably find targets in CAA, and maintain locks below the horizon. None of those components or modulation cards are modeled in our block 45. Our radar functions as poorly as the very first iteration of the 120 for the earliest blocks of the E model.
From my experience (back from flying mig21 on ecw against f14 and dueling with friends), aim9l is too good against mig21. Mig can't pop flares faster than about one pair per second, and 9l requires a lot of flares to evade. If 9l is launched from long range, it's possible to evade it in a mig21, but otherwise that's an easy all aspect kill Agreed with all your statements anyway
pre flaring in idle is too complicated for dcs players. can only react to big white smoke trail. aim9l sucks not because it's too good against the mig21 but because it's too good against everything just like the r60m. all aspect missiles are cringe and usnkilled, old missiles are the superior form of gameplay.
@@coldclaws2479 Then you're free to go fly the F-86 with its first gen heat seeker. Those of us who enjoy reliably being able to rip in and get kills will enjoy the simulated aspects of upgraded flare rejection and projectile mobility. Your cringe statement is cringe. Cope.
@@coldclaws2479 DCS doesn’t even model a difference between idle and mil, just AB on or off. If you’re powering all the way down to idle then you’re doing more harm than good to your chances for how basic the game’s modelling is.
@@nicklasstenkilde4953 if it was contension then there would be F-16s, Su-27s and Su-33s that would come up on his EWR but there isnt so its enigma's. I've also literally flown my F-1 there and fought F-4s there.
@@Wheelman_PCAS It's not 'case by case'. He literally says that all the other modules are unbelievably broken. No, they just use less advanced models. It such a flippant condemnation of decade of work that actually only now made F4 at this level possible.
@misarthim6538 I think Enigma talked about the lack of standardization because some damage models weren't modeled the same as the newer modules, and some radars are too simple compared to more detailed radars (that are modelled more realistically) like the F4 and Mirage 2000
@@thefreestyler25.warthunder That's all true, but that's what I said, they're just not modeled as well as F4. Why not say just that. It's just a flippant disrespect to the developers, like they don't care enough to 'fix' them. And also, simply, not everyone has the resources, knowledge and ability of HB to do this. Even M2K would still be 'broken' if Razbam didn't luck out and found a guy who actually had both the knowledge and love for the plane so he improved it in their free time. Then what, we'd be all flying just F4s?
seems weird to complain about the deficiencies of other modules while ignoring the f4’s tankiness. i hit an f4 with two R3Rs in a head-on and it didn’t kill him. took a third (R60) to bring him down
Almost all of the time getting hit in the f-4 will completely destroy the combat capability of the plane, if not render it unflyable. Also, nobody said that both of those things can't be bad. Fix the damage model on the 21 and the mirage while you're at it too.
Gay tactic but ok, hoped to see some real dogfight in the mix, I guess it’s what it was intended for so no hate but come on, where is the fun, I’m sure the brick can dogfight, you seem good enought to make it happen so I’ll wait for next video :)
It's probably the most viable tactic at the moment. I say 5 months from now, people will be much more familiar with the module and play with a much more bold approach.
