_GOTOBOTTOM
History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
10 best fighter planes???.........
Art
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Member Since: March 20, 2004
entire network: 604 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006 - 01:28 AM UTC
The Military Channel just did a program where a panel of "experts" decided the 10 best ever fighter aircraft, based on kill ratio; fear factor; innovation; service length and production ratio, as follows:

1-P-51Mustang
2-F-15
3-F-4
4-F-86/MIG-15 (tie)
5- (I got distracted and missed this one).
6-Spitfire
7-ME-262
8-Sopwith Camel
9-Harrier
10-F-22

I'm not an aircraft guy, but I did notice the absence of some good candidates, like P-47; ME-109; F4F; F6F; P-40, etc. So now let's what kind of list we get from our members (No flame wars, please).

Art
Spades
Visit this Community
California, United States
Member Since: February 08, 2003
entire network: 776 Posts
KitMaker Network: 190 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006 - 01:47 AM UTC
The dauntless, how could they miss this plane !! The japanese naval fleet wished they had !!!
Murdo
Visit this Community
Scotland, United Kingdom
Member Since: May 25, 2005
entire network: 2,218 Posts
KitMaker Network: 760 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006 - 02:02 AM UTC
What??? No Mossie? Your joking me!

What about the Avro Lancaster...

Bristol Beaufighter... (Two engines closely followed by an aircraft).

E.E. Lightning...
Grumpyoldman
Staff MemberConsigliere
KITMAKER NETWORK
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Member Since: October 17, 2003
entire network: 15,338 Posts
KitMaker Network: 5,072 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006 - 04:30 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The dauntless, how could they miss this plane !! The japanese naval fleet wished they had !!!


Probably due to the fact that the dauntless was a dive bomber... not a fighter.
I think the Lancaster fell victim to this also.

I didn't see the show so won't comment on why or how they reached their tally, but do not agree with it.
Henk
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Member Since: August 07, 2004
entire network: 6,391 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,600 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006 - 04:44 AM UTC
based on kill ratio; fear factor; innovation; service length and production ratio, as follows:

1-P-51Mustang
2-F-15
3-F-4
4-F-86/MIG-15 (tie)
5- (I got distracted and missed this one).
6-Spitfire
7-ME-262
8-Sopwith Camel
9-Harrier
10-F-22


I wonder why the first 5 are American? And Sopwith Camel? Harrier? Apart from the Falklands, (against French Aeroplanes, flown by Argentinian pilots) where has it been in one on one combat? F-22? bit early to include this one? ME-262 sure, but how effective?
Spitfire at #6? come on..
Savage
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Member Since: June 04, 2003
entire network: 1,405 Posts
KitMaker Network: 592 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006 - 05:00 AM UTC
I too saw this ‘documentary’ and remembered that almost every Spitfire pilot who had also flown Hurricanes mentioned that the Hurricane was a better Gun platform, yet the Hurricane got no mention?

IIRC number 5 was the F-18.

Also not mentioned:
No SAABs at all
Mig 21, 23 & 29
Mirage and variants (III, V, F-1 and Kfir)
F-5
F-84
F-100
F-102
F-106
F8 Crusader
F-14
F-16
Tornado
Hawker Tempest

If the F-22 gets a place, then the following also should:
JSF
YF-23
Rafale
SU-27
SU-35
Typhoon

JAS-39 Gripen
Avro Arrow
Henk
Visit this Community
England - South West, United Kingdom
Member Since: August 07, 2004
entire network: 6,391 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,600 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006 - 05:03 AM UTC
What about the Fokkers? (no spelling mistake )
Savage
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Member Since: June 04, 2003
entire network: 1,405 Posts
KitMaker Network: 592 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006 - 05:18 AM UTC

Quoted Text

What??? No Mossie? Your joking me!

What about the Avro Lancaster...

Bristol Beaufighter... (Two engines closely followed by an aircraft).

E.E. Lightning...


Murdo, the Lanc was a bomber.

You’re correct on the Beaufighter though “Two engines closely followed by” lots of firepower and then “an aircraft”. :-) :-)


Others I forgot to mention:
Zero
Raiden
Fw-190

Erich Hartmann flying 109s was credited with 352 aerial kills, that alone for me puts the 109 on the list.
USArmy2534
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Member Since: January 28, 2004
entire network: 2,716 Posts
KitMaker Network: 531 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006 - 07:02 AM UTC

Quoted Text


I wonder why the first 5 are American?


American built does not mean exclusively American
1-P-51Mustang
The P-51 had a good service in multiple countries, including the UK
2-F-15
Has a long standing combat record (it has an undefeated combat record!) with the US but also with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and UAE)
3-F-4
Long and decorated combat service in the US, Israel, Britain and a number of other countries.
4-F-86/MIG-15 (tie)
I got nothing here.

Most of these aircraft have another factor to each: their rememberance factor. and their revolutionary factor (kind of like innovation but not quite) - this is what especially brings the Harrier and the F/A-22. My two American pennies

Jeff
keenan
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Member Since: October 16, 2002
entire network: 5,272 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,192 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006 - 07:21 AM UTC
I moved this topic from the JD to the History forum. Thought we might have a better discussion here.

Shaun
VonCuda
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Member Since: November 28, 2005
entire network: 2,216 Posts
KitMaker Network: 399 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006 - 08:24 AM UTC
Jeff,
Excellent reply. You beat me to the punch.

As for the F-86 & Mig15 tie.......
My guess is that these are the first true jets in the jet age to oppose each other in actual combat. Also the fact that being basically "first production run" aircraft without the many bugs that first run planes usually have and being fairly rugged helped them make the list. Did they have problems? Yes, but for mankinds first attempt at mass production jets in actual combat they were excellent.

Also, as for the Hawkers, 109's, 190's, etc. etc......
They were not produced in the vast numbers of their modern day counterparts. That is my guess as to why they weren't on the list.

My two cents....hey, we've almost got a nickel now.

Hermon
spooky6
Visit this Community
Sri Lanka
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006 - 08:29 AM UTC
Without debating the list, here's mine in no particular order:

1. Sopwith Camel
2. Fokker D.VII
3. Spitfire
4. Hurricane
5. Messerschmitt Bf109
6. Focke-Wulf Fw190
7. P51D Mustang
8. F4 Phantom
9. F14 Tomcat
10. MiG-29 Fulcrum
mlb63
Visit this Community
Connecticut, United States
Member Since: October 22, 2003
entire network: 355 Posts
KitMaker Network: 199 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006 - 08:59 AM UTC
What about the Hawker Hunter?
Halfyank
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Member Since: February 01, 2003
entire network: 5,221 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,983 Posts
Posted: Monday, February 20, 2006 - 08:47 PM UTC
One issue I always have with survey's like this is they don't always take into account the time frame. This is a bit better than most because it has the "fear factor" that is supposed to show a bit of how effective the plane was against other planes of it's period. This is kind of negated by the fact they also take account of longevity.

Time frame is crucial because an aircraft could be totally devastating at one point, and "meat on the table" at another point. The Zero comes to mind. It was feared like few other aircraft in 1941, and pretty much a sitting duck by 1945.

USArmy2534
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Member Since: January 28, 2004
entire network: 2,716 Posts
KitMaker Network: 531 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 12:24 AM UTC
First of all, let me say something to those that have included the Tomcat in their lists. I love the Tomcat, anyone who has watched the Tomcat retirement posts that have occasionally happened in the Aircraft forum knows this, but I don't think it would fit into this category based on the criteria. Its only innovation was the swing-wing concept which is complicated, and costly. It has few kills though a long combat record, and a long service life. I don't think it would make the list.

People also tend to forget that those who made this program probably had a list that included most if not all the aircraft mentioned here. If it were me, I lay out the specifications, history, lasting legacy of the aircraft, etc. and compare and make a final list. All of the aircraft here are good candidates, but it must be limited down. Also this list doesn't in any way constitute some kind of an official statement. I am sure the director realized that he had one how to comvey the ten best fighters.

Jeff
jRatz
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Member Since: March 06, 2004
entire network: 1,171 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 08:08 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Without debating the list, here's mine in no particular order:

1. Sopwith Camel
2. Fokker D.VII
3. Spitfire
4. Hurricane
5. Messerschmitt Bf109
6. Focke-Wulf Fw190
7. P51D Mustang
8. F4 Phantom
9. F14 Tomcat
10. MiG-29 Fulcrum


Good list -- I'd be tempted to substitute:
5. F4U Corsair
9. P47 Thunderbolt
10. Mitsubishi Zero

But of course, 10 is simply too small to do justice ... although I think the fo9lks on that show must have been defense contractors to pick the F-22 -- it's only claim to fame is the amount of money it costs ... and a dubious redesignation as the F/A-22 -- hah !!!

John
Clanky44
Visit this Community
Ontario, Canada
Member Since: September 15, 2005
entire network: 1,901 Posts
KitMaker Network: 237 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 09:56 AM UTC
There should only be one top aircraft of all time. And this should be based on a few points. The ability of the aircraft to maintain superiority in a battlefield. The ability to be improved over time, to maintain it's superiority, and lastly, it's record, post-conflict to back up it's claim as top of the hill. In my humble opinion, there is only one aircraft that has had this longevity and record to accept this title. The Spitfire.... This aircraft took flight on March 5th 1936 (K5054) and by the last time she flew operationally on April 1st 1954, she had bridged the world of aviation from biplane to jet age and not once, lost her ability to control the sky. She had developed from her initial Merlin II specs of 1020hp and top speed of 364mph to the Griffon 88 contra-rotating propped Mk47 which topped up at 2050hp and a top speed of 452mph. Changes which bloated her weight from 5800 lbs to almost double that, at 11000 lbs, never once altered her great looks, she remained sleek to the end, fought all throughout the world on all fronts and even post war...... Queen of the sky.
blaster76
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Member Since: September 15, 2002
entire network: 8,985 Posts
KitMaker Network: 2,270 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 11:51 AM UTC
Two great aircraft missing are the P-38 Lightning....America's top two aces flew them and the Germans called two tailed devils, and of course the F-6-F Hellcat which cleared the skies of any opposition. People forget that the Zero was not the only fighter the Japanese put up like the Nakajima KI-84and the Kawanishi N1K1 which were both formidable aircraft.
hellbent11
Visit this Community
Kansas, United States
Member Since: August 17, 2005
entire network: 725 Posts
KitMaker Network: 320 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 12:54 PM UTC
I'm really suprised to not see more MIG's and German stuff! I'm also suprised to see the Me 262 ranked where it is. I supposed the number of kills decided this.
airwarrior
Visit this Community
New Jersey, United States
Member Since: November 21, 2002
entire network: 2,085 Posts
KitMaker Network: 559 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 09:02 PM UTC
I would deffinately replace the Camel with the Fokker D-VII. It was the greatest fighter of the entire war, also being the only aircraft specifically mentioned in the Armistice that had to be turned over to the Allies. While the Camel was a good plane, it had a reputation of killing it's pilots that is just as well known as it's number of kills. The only advantage the camel really had was it's outstanding manueverabilty, and that was accidental, and caused by the torque of the engine, and probably was not intended in the design. What designer makes a plane almost completely unflyable to novice pilots?
jRatz
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Member Since: March 06, 2004
entire network: 1,171 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 08:42 AM UTC
A couple IMHO ...

Actually the Sopwith Snipe was probably a better aircraft than the Camel & probably the best performing allied a/c of WW1 -- it was just too late & the rep of the Camel over shadows it.

F6F had high kills & cleared the skies, no doubt, possibly because of the numbers, but didn't survive the war (well maybe as the F8F) while the Corsair soldiered on into the 50's.

P-38 -- a heartbreaker to leave off, but it was an also ran in a 10-plane list ....


It is tough to separate the a/c from the circumstances, and the a/c from the qulaity of the pilots who flew it.

And then there's my (rented) Cessna 172 in which I defeat anything and anyone in the skies .... in my mind ...
John
Savage
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Member Since: June 04, 2003
entire network: 1,405 Posts
KitMaker Network: 592 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 07:48 PM UTC

Quoted Text

American built does not mean exclusively American
1-P-51Mustang
The P-51 had a good service in multiple countries, including the UK


True, but it wasn’t until the Merlin motor was fitted that the Mustang showed it’s true potential.



Quoted Text

As for the F-86 & Mig15 tie.......
My guess is that these are the first true jets in the jet age to oppose each other in actual combat. Also the fact that being basically "first production run" aircraft without the many bugs that first run planes usually have and being fairly rugged helped them make the list. Did they have problems? Yes, but for mankinds first attempt at mass production jets in actual combat they were excellent.


Oddly enough the Mig 15’s engine, the Klimov VK-1 was an almost exact copy of the Rolls-Royce ‘Nene’.

So out of the top ten, five carried British or copied British engines and the F-4M/K (except for the F-4J) in UK service also had British engines.

P-51Mustang
MIG-15
Spitfire
Sopwith Camel
Harrier
Hohenstaufen
Visit this Community
England - South East, United Kingdom
Member Since: December 13, 2004
entire network: 2,192 Posts
KitMaker Network: 386 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 08:13 PM UTC
Not that I'm an expert, but couldn't resist this one. For kill ratio Hartmann (352 - probably more than most of the post-war planes put together) & co must put the Bf109 pretty near the top I'd say. But then the Mustang & Spitfire are much prettier. No one mentioned the Bristol Fighter for longevity, still in use on the NW Frontier in the '30s. So in no particular order:
Spitfire
P51 (with Packard Merlin of course)
Bf109
FW190
Hurricane
F4 (just for length of service)
Fokker Triplane (got to include the Red Baron..)
Mig15
Beaufighter
Junkers88 (nightfighter)
What 10 already? Can't I have more?
USArmy2534
Visit this Community
Indiana, United States
Member Since: January 28, 2004
entire network: 2,716 Posts
KitMaker Network: 531 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 08:44 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

American built does not mean exclusively American

True, but it wasn’t until the Merlin motor was fitted that the Mustang showed it’s true potential.


Right. So it was a British addition that gave the Mustang its kick! For that I wouldn't even consider it completely American!


Quoted Text

What 10 already? Can't I have more?


Now you can see how quickly the director would have filled up his quota. Also, of the aircraft you mention, six were WWII era. Lord knows I think many of your choices are "candidates," but I think the director also tried to balance it out between all era. Aircraft have been in service for over 100 years, and World War II lasted, what, six, seven? This is going to piss more than a few off and, Steve, this is in no way pertaining exclusively to your list, but I'm gonna stick my foot in my mouth anyway: The military history community tends to put a golden crust over the WWII era that taints objectivity. This is also seen when there is a "10 best tanks" list that includes 5 German and 2 Russian WWII-era tanks, with 2-3 post-war tanks added. So we must ask ourselves this question: are we defining the ten best fighters based on certain scientific methods or are we listing our opinions as to the 10 best fighters based on our perception of characteristics within those scientific methods.

The biggest problem with the documentary's list is that there is no real chronology to serve as a barrier to each entry. An F/A-22 would destroy a Mustang, but that Mustang would (arguably) lay into a Camel. In my opinion, only with in a time frame or some other kind of context outside of a broad category of military aircraft (or anything for that matter) can we compare one to another.

Sorry, I'm done with philosophy for now. Just something to think about. Lay on.

Jeff
spooky6
Visit this Community
Sri Lanka
Member Since: May 05, 2005
entire network: 2,174 Posts
KitMaker Network: 613 Posts
Posted: Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 09:04 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The military history community tends to put a golden crust over the WWII era that taints objectivity.


Well, when talking about combat aircraft (or other wepons) actual combat time is very important. many modern jets have seen nothing like the amount of combat those WW2 birds had. Hard to compare an F22 to a P-51 when the former's not proven in combat. We're not talking just theoretical performance, are we?


Quoted Text

are we defining the ten best fighters based on certain scientific methods or are we listing our opinions as to the 10 best fighters based on our perception of characteristics within those scientific methods.


I think it's overwhelmingly opinions, as would be natural in such a forum.


Quoted Text

The biggest problem with the documentary's list is that there is no real chronology to serve as a barrier to each entry. An F/A-22 would destroy a Mustang, but that Mustang would (arguably) lay into a Camel.


I think the general precept is that we're talking about the "10 best fighters of their time".
 _GOTOTOP