A Brief History
On May 29, 1940, the F-4U Corsair made its first flight. The Corsair would go on to great success in its combat career, shooting down 11 Japanese airplanes for every Corsair shot down. Here we list the 10 best fighter airplanes of all time, from World War I to today. As always, we welcome your opinions as to what other fighters deserve mention.
Digging Deeper
10. Vought F4U Corsair, 1942.
Built from 1942 to 1953, a longer production run than any other piston engine American fighter, 12,571 of these great planes were built. Some were still flying in front line duty until 1979. Of all the planes listed here, the Corsair was probably the best fighter bomber of its era, while also being the unmatched champion of the Pacific during World War II.
9. North American F-86 Sabre, 1949.
In service until 1994 the 45 year lifespan of this great fighter jet speaks for itself. America’s first swept wing jet fighter, the F-86 was the premier fighter of the Korean War, reported to have a 10 to 1 kill ratio over Soviet produced MiG-15’s. Later scholars found the real ratio to be around 2 to 1, perhaps due to the inexperience of Chinese and Korean pilots. The F-86 had a production run of 9860 planes, the most of any Western fighter jet. The arch enemy of the F-86 was the MiG-15, and the merits of each were and are hotly debated. Distinct advantages of the F-86 were its dive speed, control at max speed, and air brakes.
8. Fokker D VII, 1918.
Although introduced late in the war, 3300 were built, and if Baron Manfred von Richthofen had not died he would have flown this fighter in combat. Clearly the best all around German fighter of the World War I, the allies were eager to commandeer all that remained at the end of the war. The 750 D VII’s built with the BMW engine had more horsepower and better performance than the Mercedes engined planes. This fighter replaced the Fokker Triplane (Dreidecker) as the premier German fighter (only 320 Triplanes had been built).
7. Sopwith Camel, 1917.
Technology was moving way too fast for any World War I era fighters to have a long production run, but the Camel was around long enough for almost 5500 of them to be built. The Camel had 2 machine guns firing through the propeller, a huge advantage over previous fighters that often had 1 machine gun mounted on the top wing, awkward to aim, reload, and clear jams. The Camel shot down more enemy airplanes than any other allied fighter, making it the king of the allied WW I fighters.
6. Mitsubishi A6M Zero, 1940.
British and American military officers made the same mistake military men have been making throughout history, that of underestimating the enemy. Japan was not thought to be a high tech country capable of making a fighter as capable as the Zero, but in fact, they were. Japan built almost 11,000 of the light and fast Zero fighters that were highly maneuverable compared to American fighters with excellent range and heavy firepower (2 X 20mm cannons and 2 X .30 caliber machine guns). Unfortunately, the Zero was lightly armored, thus being likely to suffer fire or severe damage if an allied pilot managed to hit one. The next generation of American fighters (Hellcat, Corsair, Mustang) were too much for the out numbered Zeros.
5. Supermarine Spitfire, 1938.
Introduced just in time to be on hand for the start of World War II, the British built over 20,000 of these fine fighters, ending production in 1948. Like its main adversary listed below, the Spitfire was given constant improvements as the war went on and the final product was far more capable than the original. The Spitfire is often referred to as the most beautiful of fighter planes. Because early Spitfires in the mid-1930s were armed with only .30 caliber guns and no cannon, the Spitfire made up for light bullets by having 8 machine guns. Only starting in 1939 were Spitfires fitted with a 20mm Hispano cannon in each wing. Overall, multiple variants of the Spitfire existed with different armaments.
4. Messerschmitt Bf-109, 1937.
The most produced fighter of all time, the Germans built 33,984 of them, while Czechoslovakia and Spain also built a few hundred more until 1958. The main German fighter of the pre-war period and early in the war, it was to be superseded by the more modern and more heavily armed FW-190, but the ease of manufacture and maintenance kept the Bf-109 in production during the entire war. Constantly updated and refined, the aging airframe remained competitive with allied fighters throughout the war. Many German pilots preferred it over the FW-190. Its main deficiency was its short range, one thing Germany never corrected. Another problem was its narrow undercarriage, causing many inexperienced pilots to crash their plane upon landing. Of all the fighter planes used by Germany during World War II, 57 % were Bf-109’s.
3. McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle, 1976.
With a top speed of Mach 2.5+ this is the fastest fighter on the list. With a kill ratio of 100+ to 0, it has no peer. The F-15 never got to face the best of the Soviet fighters and pilots and only 1198 were built, keeping it out of the top 2 spots. The F-15 was designed from the start as a fighter pilot’s dream, ultra maneuverable and breathtakingly fast. With a power to weight ratio of 1.07 to 1, it could actually point its nose straight up and climb, the first production airplane ever to do so.
2. MiG-15, 1949.
Like the Japanese Zero before it, the MiG-15 stunned American pilots when they first encountered it. Faster, more maneuverable, and heavier hitting than the F-80 and F-84 US fighter jets, let alone the Mustangs and Corsairs flown by the US in the Korean War, the appearance of the MiG-15 necessitated the deployment of the F-86 to Korea to counter it. With 18,000 of these jets made, it is the most produced fighter jet ever. The MiG-15 continues in service to this day in a training role. Cracked fact: The MiG-15 would not have achieved its world beating performance without the gift to the Soviet Union from the United Kingdom of a Rolls-Royce jet engine that was much more advanced than the engines produced by the Soviets at that time.
1. North American P-51 Mustang, 1942.
Over 15,000 of these sleek machines were built, and with good reason, serving until 1984. Having the longest range and the best overall performance of any piston engine fighter of World War II the Mustang was a fundamental reason for winning the air war over Europe. Its long range also made it the only fighter capable of escorting B-29’s over Japan as well. Even the early models with the Allison engine were faster than other fighters at low altitude, but the fortuitous addition of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine with supercharger made the Mustang a war winner. As with many of the great fighter planes, the Mustang was also a fearsome fighter-bomber and it terrorized anything that moved in occupied Europe, later serving capably in that role during the Korean War. A fascinating development of the P-51 was the F-82 Twin Mustang, an all weather long range night fighter/ interceptor capable of flying 482 mph. An F-82 with drop tanks was flown from Hawaii to New York non-stop, an incredible achievement. The Twin Mustang was made by taking 2 Mustangs and making the inboard wing common to both, as well as the same with the horizontal tail plane.
Question for students (and subscribers): So, which fighter plane do you think is the best of all time? Please let us know in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
For more information, please see…
Crosby, Francis. The World Encyclopedia of Fighters & Bombers: An Illustrated History of The World’s Greatest Military Aircraft, From the Pioneering Days of Air and Stealth Bombers of the Present Day. Southwater, 2010.
Jackson, Robert, ed. 101 Great Fighters (The 101 Greatest Weapons of All Times). Rosen Pub Group, 2010.
The featured image in this article, U.S. Navy National Museum of Naval Aviation photo No. 2011.003.272.003 of the U.S. Navy Vought XF4U-1 Corsair prototype (BuNo 1443) in flight in 1940, is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made as part of that person’s official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, it is in the public domain in the United States.
You can also watch a video version of this article on YouTube:
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="2386 http://www.crackedhistory.com/?p=2386">57 Comments
Cough…….splutter… I nearly choked on my fish and chips, afternoon tea and other stereotype British foods. No Hurricane or Mosquito, no English Electric Lightning and what about the Sea Fury, the most awesome piston engined fighter ever. Worst of all, no Harrier which white washed the opposition in the Falklands. Of course, none of these awesome machines are American, but surely that has nothing to do with it………or does it?
maybe you should be proud of the merlin engine that graced so many fighters as a powerplant instead of huffing and puffing?
Harumpfff… engines? Whittle!
You will notice, sir, I was coughing and spluttering, not huffing and puffing. The first is indignation and the latter hubris.The Merlin was indeed a fine engine, but paled next to the mighty Napier Sabre which powered the Tempest and Typhoon which were used to shoot down V1’s and ME262 jets. With late models producing 5500 hp, the nearest the Americans got was 3000 hp from an Allison engine with twice the displacement of the Sabre….
The English Electric Lightening (1957 – 1980’s) had a woefully short range but could easily hold its own against many modern fighters.
Touche sir !!
R-3360
I am partial to the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P25D9IGcFk as my all-time favorite fighter!
No English Electric Lightning? One of the most remarkable pieces of engineering ever and most certainly deserves a spot on this list.
Thank you to everyone for reading my article and for your replies and suggestions!
The Spitfire that had the most influence on the war was during the battle of Britain when the armament was 8 X .303 machine guns. The short ranged Spitfire was not anywhere near as influential on the course of the war after that, although there indeed were many different armament suites, including unarmed versions for reconnaissance. Room to list all variants and all armament suites does not exist in this format. Nevertheless, I have updated the article to acknowledge that the plane does have various variants.
The Mosquito was not a fighter, it was a light bomber and did some work as a night fighter and recon. It had a short service life compared to most other fighters on the list.
Fighters like the Harrier have too little combat experience and were not built in huge numbers.
The Mig-21 certainly is a candidate for the list, but it would have been slaughtered in Viet Nam if the American fighters did not have the limitation of visual recognition before engaging, forcing the combat to take place in close quarters where the smaller MiG could out-fly the F-4. Anywhere where that restriction was not enforced, the MiG-21 was massacred by American fighters.
You might want to rethink your position on the Mosquito. There were nearly 8000 built, many of which were very much fighters. Just ask Russ Bannock, a Canadian pilot with 9 kills + 2 aircraft destroyed on the ground and 19.5 V-1s destroyed, all while flying Mosquitoes. Various Marks performed medium bomber, reconnaissance, tactical strike, anti-submarine warfare and shipping attack and night fighter duties.
Unlike many WW II combat aircraft the Mosquito remained in (low rate) production after the war and served well into the 1950’s in various roles, not relinquishing the fast light bomber role until 1953 when they were replaced by the jet powered Canberra.
8000 Mosquito’s, 34,000+ Bf 109’s. The Mosquito fighter versions were night fighters and interceptors, not dog fighters. Certainly their speed was a good feature for chasing V-1 cruise missiles. Mosquito better overall plane with more versatility, the Bf 109 a better pure fighter.
You’ll get no argument from me re: the 109 and see the above anyway. All of Russ Bannock’s air to air kills were day time combat. Granted it waited until the allies had established significant air superiority, Mosquitos ranged far and wide during daylight hours during the later years of the war.
You forgot the famous Soviet-made MIG-21 which is still in service now!
A good point
It appears Daniel does not know much about British aircraft. For instance, many Spitfires were in fact fitted with 20mm Hispano cannon and/or 12.7mm Browning machine guns!
Or “Steve” doesn’t… Spitfires were not originally fitted with those. I suspect the list author is focusing on the initial model. By the way, is this Gregory Stevens?
Your comments make little sense. The fact that I corrected the author’s error proves I know British aircraft. I see nothing in the article that suggests the author is focusing on the initial model. If my name is Gregory, would I have not typed Gregory instead of Steve?
I don’t understand why you’re so mad at me sir!?
Once again you make assumptions, I was merely correcting you. On that note, I believe the word you are looking for is angry not mad. I promise you I am not angry but I may be a little mad. And now back to the rabbit hole…..
I apologize to anything that happened.
No apology needed my friend, there has been no offence.
I know that you’re a gentleman.
I was referring to the original Battle of Britain model. Obviously, by the end of the war the Spitfire could fly 50-75mph faster and was more heavily armed, just as other fighter planes evolved during their production, better engines, armor, guns, gun placement, bubble canopies, and other improvements. Which model to consider? Probably the most prevalent rather than the most evolved.
No one ever mentions that the p 51 was a British design that was sold to North American.
That is not correct. The P-51 was designed by North American in response to a British request. The British Purchasing Commission wanted North American to build P-40s under licence. North American Aviation President “Dutch” Kindelberger said they could have a better aircraft with the same engine in the air sooner than establishing a production line for the P-40. The NA-73X prototype was designed by a team led by lead engineer Edgar Schmued at NAA,
It was a NAA design in response to a request by RAF for P-40 license production .
No. It was designed by NAA in response to a MAP request for P-40 production. It was a NAA counterproposal!
NAA proposed their own design as a better plane than the P-40 that could be built quicker. They were right.
Didnt the F-86 have a 10-1 kill ratio over the MIG-15? Granted the pilots were way better but I still find it hard to rank the MIG-15 that much higher than the F-86.
Soviets claim the MiG-15 had a better than 1:1 kill rate against F-86’s when the MiG was flown by Soviet pilots. The P-51 had a longer service life than any other WWII fighter and was basically a war winner, at least that is what Herman Goring thought. The F-15 is indeed a great plane, but has never been tested against good pilots flying good planes.
The Sherman tank was a war winner as well. Like the Sherman the P51 arrived in large numbers and simply overwhelmed a crippled Luftwaffe.
Goering made his remarks based on the fact that P51s were able to escort bombers deep into Germany en mass, not due to superiority of the platform.
Not taking away anything from the P51 but they did not fight an equal force either. Ace veteran Luftwaffe and Allied pilots are both on record saying heads up an FW190-P51 battle went to the better pilot.
Including the zero, spitfire, me-109 all from the same era as the P-51 detracts from its claim and is somewhat contradictory.
The Hellcat outperformed the Corsair and the Zero. The Corsair length of production is not enough to outrank the the Hellcat. And on that note, the absence of the F-4 Phantom II is mysteriously. It was everything in its eat the F-15 was and more including a RF platform. The Boeing P-26 certainly marked a generational advancement in the U.S. and the Me 262 swept wing contributed so much to the success of the Saber that the 262 seems a must.
You criteria shifts to cover the preconceptions.
You have several preconceptions. To begin with you have to compare model to model, year to year for the production breaks and look at the engine specs for combat loading. The F4U-1, -1A, -1C at full combat load compared F6F-3 had 40% more internal fuel, accelerated faster, was faster, rolled faster (at nearly all speeds). The ROC for the F4U-1 at combat power fully loaded internally peaked at 3400 fpm at 25K. The F6F-3 at full combat load internally peaked at 2800 fpm – The best for the F6F-5 was 3200fpm at 20K. Additionally for every discussion of performance between different fighters, THP vs Altitude, Gross weight, Wing Loading, Drag attributes must be part of the discussion
The F6F-5 carried 250 gallons internally while the F4U-4 carried 234. The only combat advantage the F6F (any version) had over the F4U (any version) was sustained altitude turn radius plus slightly more Combat Radius.
Both out performed the Zero in every dimension save turn radius and angle of climb. Both the F4U and F6F should never engage a A6M below 300 mph at low altitude.
When you compare Hellcats to Corsairs to Mustangs, the introduction of 150 octane fuel introduced in ETO was a game changer in Power Available at Combat Power. You must also introduce the P-51H into the F4U-4 discussion as it was in squadron level deployment when the -4 went into combat at Okinawa.
Beyond performance is Mission and ability to perform the mission. Neither the F6F-3, -1 nor F4U-4 would have been very useful during POINTBLANK for two reasons. Less capable Combat Radius than P-47D at bomber altitudes, and ran out of performance the same way the FW 190 started dragging at 20K when the fighting was at 20-30 K. The F4U-1A in my opinion would have done well as far as Combat Radius and medium to low level performance advantage – and hold its own against FW 190 above 20K but it would have been at a disadvantage to the 109G-6/AS above 20K.
The F4 was not nearly as capable as a war fighter in comparison with the F-15. It had its ass handed to it in every Red Flag meet, and the F-16 was found to be a more capable opponent to the F-15 than the F4. The F4 was still capable in the vertical but gave Energy Maneuverability and Radar to the F-15 – not to mention being visible from far, far away.
Where west of Anchorage do you think the P-51H was in April 1945?
Moreover to say that the Hellcat could not fight in POINT BLANK is like saying Hank Aaron couldn’t tell play for the Dallas Cowboys.
If you read correctly, I did not say the F-4 could defeat the F-15. I said in its era it was everything the F-15 was and also served in other roles.
Flip – the comparison between F4U-4 and P-51H is in development and production cycle. The P-51H could easily have been deployed to Okinawa/Iwo in July (versus May for F4U-4), had it been needed. As to the F6F in Pointblank? Compared to F4U-1 it was as useless as P-47C in long range escort duty and would have been relegated to Spitfire like sweeps and short Penetration/Withdrawal escort to and from Holland/German border because the internal fuel was pitiful for long rang combat radius. You were hyped over some intangible advantage the F6F had over the F4U and I simply pointed out the difference in not only performance envelope but also versatility. The USMC performed a lot of escort missions to AAF medium and heavy bombers in the SWP/PTO that the F6F couldn’t handle.
The Hellcats were in their element achieveing a 19:1 kill ratio. You are putting hypothetical situations ahead of real design and performance parameters and results. Again, could Aron and Mays have contained Brown in the NFL? No relavant…didn t happen.
Ahh Flip. There are three discussions relevant to performance. One is your pick – namely an air combat ratio of victory credits to losses which is debatable based on actual Japanese losses. Throw in the level of competition and the target mix of bombers vs fighters, Kamikaze, etc as well as opportunity – given the F4U was largely relegated to USMC until October 1944 when USMC squadrons started serving on Carriers. Second is USN pick. Both the Naval Evaluation Board in March 1944 and the USN Fighter Conference at Patuxent River in October 1944 judged the F4U as superior to F6F and equal to the P-51D. Last – my cited airframe/fighter attributes as perceived by the pilot/engineer, in which I cited the climb, speed, combat radius, payload advantages of F4U-1 over the F6F-3 (and -5) as well as the even greater advantages of ‘aircraft performance attributes of the F4U-4 compared to F6F-5. Last, “Flip” is the the USN made an easy choice to Not build any more F6F’s after the war but keep the F4U in production for 8 more years. Maybe Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders could play both football and baseball? For silliness you can not be matched.
Bill, you continue to be speculative, arbitray and mistaken in your arguements.
I did not select kill ratio as a partular nor singular measure of fighter performance. I did state that while you fantasize on speculative performacin other theaters, we in the aviation community have a standard for evaluating the Hellecat where it actually engaged in combat. Any criticism of that measurement applies across all types, so it does present measure, and if flawed, it is nevertheless, a less than aribitary criteria.
Longevity is as much or more a function of budget or other procurement decisions than a factor of performance. It is more a nod to adequency. When the program decision was to allow Grumman to continue its development of a jet fighter, C-V has sustain with a fighter-bomber/attack program that kept the Corsair in production.
You continue to use speculative situation to base your arguements. Those are as irrelevant as your personal attacks.
Flip – you initiated personal attacks on me on Facebook. Man up.
I am fully aware of life cycle decisions as they relate to budget versus value versus political tradeoffs. I have also lived through DoD C/SCSC and EVM System at the Contractor side as far as accounting based on WBS/CLI and Vendor overheads. You better have similar or greater hands on experience to continue the conversation – otherwise you are just a poser.
As to ‘we in the aviation community’, I have a MS in Aerospace Engineering and 8 years in airframe biz engaged in airframe design, structures and aerodynamics and many years of deep historical research of Airpower as a subject. What are your qualifications to sneer at my qualifications to evaluate aircraft performance at a detail level?
You alluded to 20 years in staff role at a major USAF HQ without elaboration – whatever it was, if it was not Wright Pat or Edwards at detail technical level you have nothing in USAF that lends much to this debate.
First off, i did not attack you. I pointed out the flaws in your arguements. You continue to attack me. No, I am not a “poser.” I do have decades of hands on experience as well as reading. Please stop your nonsense. I am out of this discussion. I could care less about the top ten. I merely commented as Dan invited feedback.
Bill, you continue to speculative, arbitray and mistaken in your arguements.
I did not select kill ratio as a partular nor singular measure of fighter performance. I did state that while you fantasize on speculative performace, we in the aviation community have a standard for evaluating the Hellecat were ot actually engaged in combat. Any criticism of that measurement applies across all types so it does present a less than aribitary criteria.
Longenity is as much or more a function of budget or other procurement decisions than a factor of performance. It is more a nod to adequency. When the program decision was to allow Grumman to continue its development of a jet fighter, C-V has sustain with a fighter-bomber/attack program that kept the Corsair in production.
You continue to use speculative situation to base your arguements. Those are as irrelevant as your personal attacks.
The F4 was the bastard child of a USAF ‘multi role’ doctrine that focused on a fighter as a weapons system and the failure of air to air missile systems (~1% kill per launch in Vietnam) emasculated its potential in air to air role because of lack of internal gun. The solution of the F4E to fill in the breach was late in its evolution. The F-105 was a superior Weasel until the evolution of electronics and air to ground SAM killlers enabled it into that role long after Vietnam. The F-15 out of the box was both far superior in Energy Manueverability but also superior in air to air due to large radar. It also jumped into life with an internal gun which not only performed as air to air back up but enhanced its air to ground efficiency. Net, the F4 was Not everything the F-15 was. There was no role ranging from a.) air superiority, b.) Mud fighter, c.) Weasel that it achieved superiority in multi role mission reliability, or achievement.
The F-4 was designed to climb quickly and catch enemy bombers as far away as possible. As a high altitude interceptor it was great. The attempt to make it into some sort of do everything showcased its shortcomings. Not a dogfighter, it still would have done a hell of a lot better in Vietnam if it started out with an internal cannon and if the rules of engagement did not require visual confirmation, which negated its superior stand off range. That last point alone cost many US lives. On the other hand, it was rugged and carried a lot of bombs, and its speed made it a good recon platform.
I agree the mission spec for the F4 for the USN, Dan. The USMC mission took it into CAS capability The USAF was dominated by SAC at the time USAF bought the airplane and the mods on the USAF F4 were to accommodate a TAC role, serene in the notion that AIM 7, Sparrow and On Board Radars were reliable. All subsequent changes took the F4 from its single best mission to become a Jack of all trades and fortunately evolutions in electronics, missile reliability and internal gun made it a very fine aircraft. My point to Flip is the F-15 rolling out of MacDac was a superior aircraft as an air fighter against its then competition and stayed current during its lifecycle. It looks like its getting ready for another cycle as the USAF tries to keep critical mass of squadrons active by upgrading the F-15 and F-16 for a lot less $$ than re-opening the F-22.
F-15 upgraded is still probably the best fighter in the world. F-22 problems with oxygen delivery to the pilot are ridiculous! How could they not fix that in a hurry???
I know a couple of active duty 22 drivers – will reach out
Major Dan – I reached out to a retired Wing King with command experience in Wings flying the F-16, F-15 and A-10. He agrees your observation that pressure delivery in O2 systems were a problem leading to Anoxia – but has been solved for some time.
Certainly the F-15 would eat the F-4’s lunch, but until the F-15 came the F-4 was the premier USAF fighter (and also USN/USMC until the F-14) and was tasked with multiple roles. Each was supreme in its own time, but it seems the F-15 dominated the WORLD, not just other US planes and did it for a longer period.
Time is a matter of budget…life extensions in lieu of procurement. Right?
Budget is now and always has been a driving force in military acquisitions and maintenance of active and reserve forces. Bean counters are loath to get rid of mass numbers of serviceable weapons just because something better is available. Examples could include the “Trapdoor” Springfield conversion of percussion to center fire rifle in the US Army and similar British attempts to avoid huge expense in turning over weapons stocks to the latest technology. The B-52 will be about 100 years old before it is finally retired for good!
Agree to a large extent. I agree there are multiple parameters and perspectives. I don t have any hard disagreement in here. I do feel the Hellcat conyributed far more to victory in the Pacific than the Corsair.
This is great information, thanks. Yes, the nature of comparing fighter planes, even from the same era, is complex and relies on many variables. It is hard for one plane to dominate every single flight parameter, and differences in armament packages also matter, as do level of maintenance and model of plane and engine. We are left with a quite subjective opinion process. The benefit of in depth technical knowledge such as you have provided is valuable. Feel free to say more. Thanks again.
There are couple of points regarding the intro on the P-51. The P/F-82 was a completely different design from NA 109/111/122/124 P-51D/K with no common parts. Ditto for P-51H compared to P51D/K. The second point is that the P-51D was not not the only US fighter capable of escorting B-29s to Japan. Both The P-47N and P-38L had the same capability. It was a matter of choice not necessity. As to terrorizing German ground forces in the ETO? The 9th AF P-51B/D flew with the 354th FG, the 363rd FG and TRG, plus 10th PRG plus 67th PRG plus very late war conversion in 370th from P-38s – as well as some CAS from 8th AF during Normandy campaign. Far more P-47 combat groups tasked to CAS than P-51FG’s.
The P-47, Typhoon and Tempest flew far more sorties attacking German Wermacht.
As far as fighters used as ground attack not originally designed for ground attack, the P-47 was superb. Its ability to take punishment due to its armor and rugged radial engine is legendary. The other planes with inline radiator/water cooled engines could be taken down by one lucky bullet in the radiator. Likewise, for the Germans, the Fw-190 had tremendous ground attack potential.
The comments reflect the fact that compiling a “Greatest Fighter” top 10 list is mostly futile. I’m addressing here, an assessment of “Greatest Overall Fighter”. By the time of WWII the role of single seat fighters had evolved into distinctly specialized roles, apart from their originally intended, monolithic role as “fighter/interceptor”.
Even within the “fighter/interceptor” role, distinctions were made between hi-altitude vs. mid/low altitude performers. And of course, the combat range potential.
If a single-seat fighter could perform multi-role missions successfully then they were a more valuable asset. But no fighter was ever best in all roles – either during WWII or afterwards. So, here are my awards, in recognition of mission role. I considered the
latest best performing variant of a plane in the respective role and having significant combat operational numbers deployed. The proven air-frames were constantly evolving and being modified for greater performance. Most variants extended an air-frame’s capability such that it was able to perform well in previously unsuitable roles, primarily with upgraded engine performance and armament. Most of the planes in my ranking were either purpose designed/built for their specific role, with fewer developed from existing, proven air-frames.
WWII
1. Mid-altitude long-range fighter/interceptor/tactical bomber escort- A6M5 model 52 Zero; Hon. Mention – P38J/L Lightning
2. Hi-altitude long-range strategic bomber escort – P-51D Mustang. Hon. mention – P47-N
Thunderbolt
3. Mid/Hi-altitude fighter/interceptor – P-51D; Hon. Mention – KI-84-I-KO, FW-190D; Mitsubishi J2M Raiden
4. Mid/low-altitude short-range fighter/interceptor – Mk VI Spitfire; Hon. Mention – BF-109G; Mk.IIC Hurricane; FW-190A-8; Mk V Tempest; YAK-9U
5. Tactical fighter/bomber – P47D. Hon. mention – Hawker Typhoon Mk IB
6. Photo reconnaissance – Mosquito PR Mk 32/34; Hon. Mention P-38F 4A/5A
7. Night fighter/intruder/interceptor- HE-219; Hon. Mention – BF 110G; DO-17J; NF Mk 30 Mosquito; P-61B Black Widow
8. Carrier operated – F6F-5 Hellcat; Hon. Mention – F4U-1A; A6M Zero
Your observations are quite valid, but you are only talking about WWII. Not only is deciding on the “best” list for WWII incredibly difficult, imagine the angst of trying to figure out the best of ALL TIME. It comes down to opinion, and of course we highly value the opinion of our knowledgeable and thoughtful viewers and readers. While the P-47N and P-51H were high tech and high performers, they had little impact on actual combat operations. One thing I always wondered about, was why did they keep P-51/F-51D Mustangs as fighter bombers for Korea when the P-47 was arguably better in that role, ala the fighter bomber version of the Corsair that they produced. fighter planes and their history is absolutely fascinating, n’est-ce pas?
I only kept my analysis to WWII because (A) it was the hi-tide of ICE/reciprocating engine prop technology, as compared to the jet age; e.g. the ME 262 was a revolutionary (and sole jet contributor), as a transition from props to jets but had little impact on combat and (B) I didn’t think I had enough space left in the comment section to address greatest jet-age fighters, which should be a separate category entirely, IMHO :). I didn’t think I cited the p-51H but if I did you are correct – little impact on overall war. I wrote that I was considering only those aircraft that were deployed in operationally significant numbers. Maybe my inclusion of the P-47N should also have not been considered in that light.
And I should have included the F4U-4 as one of the best fighter-bombers of it’s era – and beyond! Your Q about employing the P-51/F-51 in that role in Korea baffles me as much. Liquid cooled inline vs. radial engines for ground support by a fighter bomber is a no-contest debate of performance/survivability and therefore effectiveness. Get a cyl. (or 2) wrecked in your radial engine and you fight and come home. Get one bullet or single shrapnel hit on your inline cooling system and you have about 2 minutes of flying time left. The best P-47 and F4U close-support air variants should have been used exclusively in that role in Korea. And how about that damn fine Douglas AD-6 Skyraider ??? Thanks again for providing the always “controversial” articles like these. And Dan, for you only, I offer my best of the best award: P-51D for props and…I have no idea for jets !!!! Maybe MIG-17/19/21 for early jet age, and F15/F16 and F/A-18 for modern day ???? I know – what a cop-out !! Keep ’em coming….
Once again, thanks for your input. The subject is vast and complicated, certainly worthy of discussion and debate.