Jeff, you are absolutely right in what you say, my only excuse is that I'm basically a WW2 armour buff, so my aeroplane knowledge dated back there too. While I can accept that there are many excellent post war fighters, many of them never saw action, so how do you quantify them vis-a-vis their peers? E.g. EE Lightning was for many years the fastest thing in the skies, but it never saw combat. The F86 was a seminal aircraft, probably better than the MIG also, but for non-Americans, it doesn't define an era in the same way as say a Hunter, Meteor, or even a Vixen. While my list is subjective, I went on my gut reaction, & was surprised how quickly 10 filled up. A year or two ago I was out with the family at a National Trust property & a Packard engined Mustang flew over low. It made my day!
Some other contenders include Hellcat, Corsair, Sopwith Snipe, Bristol Fighter, Spad, P40, P38, F16, F15, Hawker Hunter, Me262 - I could go on...

My 10 are:

1 = Spitfire
1 = Hurricane
3 P-51
4 F4
5 Sopwith Camel
6 Albatros
7 Fokker E1
8 MiG 21
9 FW 190
10 Mitsubishi Zero

Chosen for entirely subjective reasons, of course. But remember:

Air superiority is a tank in the middle of the runway

Jeff:

Speaking about aircraft, which was the question.

WW2 saw probably the fastest rate of change of technology over it's duration -- ok, formally only 6 years. It also has been the only truly long-term, intense usage (or test) of that technology in combat operations where equipment from both sides slugged it out.

WW1 was a lead-in, Korea was kind of a tail-off, but not much after Korea provided an opportunity for force-on-force evaluation as did WW2. In too many cases, one side was overmatched. In other cases, we have what could be considered "top 10" weapon systems but they have had little to no actual combat (as opposed to operational use) to validate them.

If you asked this same question of armor, I suspect we would have no WW1 armor and then post-ww2 would probably have 6 of the 10 slots, if not 7.

IMHO,
John

See this is where I disagree. I would say that many people would choose WWII tanks especially German tanks as a major player.

As for combat service vs. non-combat service this goes towards the time period that we compare them in. Almost all WWII aircraft had combat service. Many post-war aircraft also have combat service, but not as intense. In my opinion, intensity dictated the need for faster evolution of technology. A lot more is on the line for a nation in a war than a nation in peacetime.

Also the performance of a post-war aircraft even with combat record does not make it a good or bad aircraft. Does the fact that Iraqi Mig-29s had bad pilots make the MiG-29 a bad aircraft? Of course not, but the Iraqi MiGs consist of most of the air-to-air combat service of the MiG-29, so what do we go by in determining combat performance?

In thinking about it, I think a direct comparision of any given kiil ratio should be discarded in comparison of aircraft. That one aircraft performed well in combat or it served poorly can be analyzed but "this aircraft scored more than that aircraft" doesn't make the other a bad aircraft.


This is a good discussion, keep it going

Quite true. It's just that the years of heavy fighting that many of the WW2 aircraft were subject to gave a fairly balanced view, as many of the fighters (like the Spit) saw service with a wide range of air forces (some better than others) so that a more analysis is possible.

What is harder to comprehend is the seeminly random bracketing of time frames. WW1 or WW2 is seen as a single timeframe, whereas the Fokker Einedecker (the best early war fighter) couldn't compare to a late war Camel or DVII. Same with the Zero in WW2 when compared to the later marks of Spit or the P38.

Jeff:

The question & discussion was "greatest", non-selection to that list doesn't make an aircraft "bad" as you were stating.

But your points about time frame are of course correct and that is why doing 10-of-all0time is so tough. And of course David points out the ideal case -- the Fokker Eindekker -- "The Fokker Scourge" -- I don't thiunk any other aircraft had a "scourge" named after it !!!

Technology has made a lot of modern stuff "great" because the performance is so overwhelming, but without the test of combat, it is a "paper great", IMHO. One could say same of some of the top-line Golden Age fighters.

John

In no particular order here are my 10 choices, although the Phantom is my favorite.

F4 Phantom
Harrier
F14
F-15
F-16
F/A-18
Hurricane
P-51Mustang
MiG-29
MiG-21

You could put the SPAD in the number 5 spot