The Greatest Fighter?

[Pielstick]

I know it's a bit of a silly question, but it might provoke an interesting discussion nonetheless. What do you think is the greatest fighter in aviation history? I'm not going to define "greatest" or lay down any criteria, it's totally up to you to decide. However, you must explain your choice

After a bit of thought, in my opinion the greatest fighter has got to be the Bf109. Why? I believe it scored more aerial victories than any other type and there were a huge number of aces who flew the Augsburg Eagle. Designed in the mid-30's it was continually refined and updated throughout the war to keep pace with the opposition. In the early part of the war it was I think the best fighter in the skies, and during the latter stages of the war it was outclassed by other types, but still remained a very dangerous opponent in the right hands.

Coming a close second is the Bf109's arch-nemesis the Spitfire. Just like the Bf109 it was continually upgraded to keep it as a first rate fighter. However, whereas the Bf109 lost its edge as the war went on, the Spitfire became progressively better. I also believe the Spitifre was the only fighter to have served on every front and theatre in the war.

Honourable mentions go to:

FW190 - a truly deadly fighter - indeed the only one which could wrest air superiority over the Channel from the RAF - and in the D model one of the two best fighters to see service in the war.

MiG-15 - probably the only time in the Cold War when Soviet fighter design enjoyed a qualitative edge over the West.

MiG-21 - the most widely produced jet fighter, and the upgraded Indian Bison model gave the USAF F-15s a nasty surprise a few years ago.

F-4 - the backbone of the US and NATO's fighter forces for a very significant period in the Cold War. The first real BVR fighter.

F-15 - in the modern age its combat record is second to none, a vindication for the Eagle's designers.

And a special mention has to go to the EE Lightning. A truly remarkable aircraft which never realised its full potential. Had the government of the day really got behind the type it *could* have been the Lighting which became NATO's standard fighter instead of the F-104. Imagine the imlications this would have had for the British aviation industry through the late 60's and into the 70's.

Edited January 7, 2011 by Pielstick

[Doug Rogers]

Not a silly question, just virtually impossible to pin down I'd say!

The P-51 Mustang normally comes out of these discussions pretty well, certainly I seem to remember seeing some quotes from ex Luftwaffe pilots that said it was the P-51 they feared/respected the most. When you factor in range, ability, reliability etc, it's got to be up there somewhere.

I have a soft spot for the F-15 too, is it still true to say it's never been shot down in air-to-air combat, and it's seen it's share of conflicts.

My heart says the Spitfire, and although (along with the Hurricane) it was the right tool at the right time and a great defensive fighter, I'm aware the lack of range was a serious issue as far as using it as an offensive fighter.

Looking forward to some interesting opinions!

[PHIL B]

Not a silly question, just virtually impossible to pin down I'd say!

My heart says the Spitfire, and although (along with the Hurricane) it was the right tool at the right time and a great defensive fighter, I'm aware the lack of range was a serious issue as far as using it as an offensive fighter.

Looking forward

Tricky isn't it? For my money, we have to remember the task for which a fighter was designed. In the end their specification was decided by the requirement they were built to meet. For example, in the case of both the Spitifire and Lightning, they were both defensive in nature and sacrificed range for speed and rate of climb. Like so many point defence fighters of the Cold War, the Lightning had to get to high flying Soviet bombers with minimal warning and knock them down before bombs were released. The Big Wing theory didn't really work in the nuclear age.

Still, that outrageous climbing ability did make the Lightning the most amazing and loudest airshow performer I've ever seen!

Looking forward to other opinions in this thread.

[Obi-Jiff Kenobi]

For my money, it has to be the Spitfire. The only allied fighter in production before, during and after World War II, and possessed of massive development potential - the MkI is a completely different animal from the Mk24, although the family resemblance is there to see.

It was also a jack of all trades (interceptor fighter, day fighter, fighter-bomber, reconnaissance, carrier-based fighter, low-level interceptor, anti-V1, etc), and although it may not have been the best at any of these roles, it was at least able to hold its own in them all, and took on more different tasks than virtually any other combat aeroplane.

My second nomination would be the Harrier, as quite simply it revolutionised the concept of the fighting aeroplane in a way that nothing else has done since (and probably before). Whereas almost every other combat aircraft is a logical evolution of previous types, the Harrier did something completely different, and did it in the best way possible.

[Mal]

It's a question that's impossible to answer,how do you compare a Sopwith Pup with F-14 ,combat records are not much use as most fighters type never meet others were never involved in combat,the Lightning being an example.

I seem to remember that Eric Brown (who if anyone should have an idea about the merits of WWII aircraft it should be him),selected the Spitfire XIV and the FW190D-9 as the best WWII fighters but I can't remember the criteria he used.

I also seem to recall seeing somewhere that more Bf-109's were shot down than any other fighter,not a glowing record for the best fighter,but you can prove anything with statistics.

If I had to select it would have to be the Spitfire,it's simply iconic

Malcolm

Edited January 7, 2011 by Mal

[Daniel]

I would like it to be the Lightning, but although it served well, it never really achieved everything it could have done (does a Fighter need to have proven itself in a bloody war?). I would like to say it was not a fault of the plane that it did not have the opportunites/chances etc.

In which case it was the Spitfire, which did the opposite, and totally outlived its expectations, the first and last versions were so different, it had such a life!

But I still love Lightnings more so there

Dan

[Pilgrim_UK]

I am a great believer in the human element. Its become cliched in how the modeller makes the model its the same with the pilot and plane. The Mig 15 was a better fighter over the Sabre on paper but the pilots showed otherwise same with the P40 and the Zero. Also how do you overcome the western bias as Eastern bloc planes were always considered the enemy so are labelled inferior. Now we know different with the likes of Normandie nieman with there yak9/3's or the the cool looking mig29's and Sukhoi's.

Splitting it into eras/conflicts would be an easier option then picking your favourite out of the winners of those eras. Seminal aircraft are part of the decisions as well i guess.

(40's)WW2 - has to be spitfire not based on actual aircraft shot down or on technical merit but how it inspired a nation through dark times. I am sure if the spitfire was on the russian front ( in sufficient numbers and at the start of the war) the 109 Kill ratios would not have been so high.

honourable mention has to go to the Zero surely magnificient unforutnately lightly armoured.

(50's)Korea - Mig15

(60's)Vietnam - Phantom

(70's)F14 tomcat

(80's)Falklands - Harrier

(90's)Gulf war - F15

(00's) F18 Super hornet

(2010) F22 Raptor

Still to think of others to get a final but the Fa18 superhornet is looking good at the moment. Is it a clean fighter role or multirole that makes a good plane?

Edited January 7, 2011 by Pilgrim_UK

[Tashengurt]

I'm tempted to say the F15 but of course it's success has been aided by the associated platforms and systems it usually operates with (E3 etc). The Mustang probably pips it in terms of the impact it made in its time.

[SimonR]

There's only one winner for me - for its day it has to be the Hawker Hunter.

Cheers

Simon

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Uhm, Mohammed Ali?

Seriously I think there are 2 answers.

The first is the F-22 'cus at this moment in time it is probably the most capable "fighter" in service. When something comes along thats better than it - it will be whatever that is.

Second: The merlin engined P-51. A fighter which did change the course of the war.

There are loads of others too but for my money these 2 are "it"

Jonners, standing well back

[Andrew Jones]

I'd also have to say the Spitfire, as Obi-Jif has already pointed out , it served right through the war and beyond , in many different variants and sub variants, from Mk's 1 to 24. It also went to sea as the Seafire's Mk 1 to 47. No other fighter I can think of before or since has served in as widespread a variety of roles or geographical spread, or over such a long period of time.

Post-war I would think the F-86 in it's many variants would qualify.

[davidelvy]

I always like to look at these threads because some interesting reasons are given for people's choices.

As for my opinion - entirely predictable, I'm afraid. My heart says the Spitfire but my head also provides some sound reasons - most of which have appeared already. At the time it first appeared it was the best interceptor available to any country. I think it was a very close match with the 109 but the clincher is that in the air it was an easier aircraft to fly. However, what makes it a truly great fighter is its capacity for development and its adaptability. It was not always the best performing aircraft wherever it fought, but it was seldom outclassed to the extent that it could not put up a fight. Even at the end of World War Two it was superior to many of its opponents. It also formed the backbone of many airforces in the immediate aftermarth of the Second World War. And finally, just look at how many are still flying.

[JohnT]

Nick - thats a loaded question !!

Jonners beat me to it with the Mohammed Ali answer !!

Term fighter is too generic perhaps so here is my best refinement

Best interceptor - Spitfire

Best escort - Mustang - no contest that one ( our US friend will have to live with the Rolls Royce engine though )

Best ground attack fighter adapted from air superiority role (excludes ga designed types) - Typhoon = with P47 Thunderbolt (I exclude Harrier which was designed as a ga type)

Best night fighter - Mossie (He 219 rejected as Winkle Brown didn't rate its qualities as a flyer)

Fighter that has had the biggest impact on a conflict - I can't seperate the Hurricane from the Mustang, Sabre or Sea Harrier. All outcomes different if those types had not been available

Lastly - sorry Nick - I can't place the 109 in top spot. Everything you say is true but able of qualification (eg most kills but thats because she served in a target rich environment as opposed to Allied fighters in the later part of WW2 etc) While she was ahead in 1938 she didn't wear well (think? I had a girlfriend like that? ) and she didn't develop as well as the Spit and while both had narrow track undercarriage I read (I think?) that the 109 had more landing etc accidents as write offs than combat losses though that seems ott. Either way she was a wee bit of a beastie to handle. But in fairness she is a contender - no question.

[General Jumbo]

I don't think that a single type can be selected (not by me anyway). However, here are some of my contenders...

(WW1) Fokker DVII, SE5a

(20's) Bristol Bulldog

(30's) Hawker Fury

(WW2 and late 40s) I'll have to include the Spitfire but for me the Tempest stands out. Also, the FW190 and Mustang can't be overlooked, nor can the P-47 (if memory serves the highest kill ratio of any WW2 fighter). For post war, I'd go for the DH Hornet and Meteor.

(50's) Hawker Hunter

(60's) EE Lightning, Harrier, Phantom

(70's) F-15, F-18, SU-27

(80's) Tornado (can't think of anything else!)

(90's) Sea Harrier FA2 (Blue Fox radar was simply stunning)

(00's) Harrier GR9

(2010) EF Typhoon (based on capability and cost)

PS I've just realised I've listed the Harrier three times, however, I'm not going to apologise!

[The Velociweiler]

I know it's not exactly on topic but I remember a tale of an interview Bill Gunston carried out with Yuri Gagarin - ostensibly for his career as a Cosmanaut. When the 'official' interview was concluded, he later took the opportunity to request of Gagarin and Leonov what they considered the greatest threat to them in the cockpit was. Apparently they talked very briefly and confided that they thought it was the F-8 Crusader, because it could appear anywhere in the world and would present a credible and decisive air-combat threat to them in any Soviet-bloc airframe they might fly in.

Just fer interest, y'know.....

[Obi-Jiff Kenobi]

Gunston must have conducted the interview between April 1961 (when Gagarin went into space) and March 1968 (when Gagarin died), so it's very interesting that Yuri and Alexei nominated the F-8 over the F-4, which is ostensibly a more capable aircraft. Perhaps they were swayed by the fact that USN F-4s lacked guns - after all, every proper fighter pilot knows that there's no kill like a guns kill!

Edited January 7, 2011 by Obi-Jiff Kenobi

[Basosz]

Fokker DR.1 cause it's kind of Dutch and I'm Dutch so that is my not very scientific reason. Seriously though... the DR.1 was a VERY capable aircraft even though pretty much all those WW1 planes were apparently pigs to fly.

But then I would consider other era's of flight and wars etcetera and I get confused so I'm sticking to the DR.1 for now

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

Gunston must have conducted the interview between April 1961 (when Gagarin went into space) and March 1968 (when Gagarin died), so it's very interesting that Yuri and Alexei nominated the F-8 over the F-4, which is ostensibly a more capable aircraft. Perhaps they were swayed by the fact that USN F-4s lacked guns - after all, every proper fighter pilot knows that there's no kill like a guns kill!

And just to hijack it a little more.

Its funny isnt it - how even with todays multi quadrillion dollar uber-capable fighters, loaded with fire and forget, helmet-cued missiles. They all have a gun! I mean look at the brou-ha-ha with the Typhoon when the RAF said it wasnt going to have one.

Even back in the late 60's/early 70s, the USAF relented with the F-4 in the end and ordered the 4E.

A fighter without a gun sir, why its like an Australian without a winning cricket team: Possible, but highly unlikely.....

Jonners

[Vulcanicity]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the continuing reliance on guns is a legacy of Vietnam: all though the 50's and 60's the "Missile is the Future" attitude prevailed, and designers desinged ever faster and more complex aircraft with a move away from guns towardss AAMs, but combat experience in SE Asia actually demonstrated that a lot of air combats could still be won by the more skilled pilot in a lighter, more manouevrable aircraft, which had at least one gun to fall back on when the AAMs were used up or failed to work correctly. Hence the Soviet awe of the F8 rather than the F4, and the triumph of the SHARs over the Mirages etc in the Falklands.

Anyway, that may or not be true. To me the best fighters wer the ones that truly were game-changers at the time, be it during peace or war, which revolutionised air combat and forced the opponents to pull up their socks-or loose the race. Thus I'd have to pick a handful:

Fokker Eindekker

Albatros D.V

Spitfire (to some extent)

FW190A

A6M Zero

ME262

Mig15

Harrier

F-4

[F111Fan]

A very good question sir! For me, it would have to be the F-4. It served with great distinction in many conflicts, being an air defence and mud-mover in Vietnam and serving with other nations in conflict as well. It had it's share of losses, but, as previously mentioned, was hugely successful in the export market and is still in service with some nations nearly 60 years after it's inception. It also looks absolutely fabulous. That said, the F-22 is phenomenally capable, but has yet to walk the walk. So I'll stick with the 'Toom for now

[thx6667]

Me personally, for anything to qualify as the greatest fighter then it must have fulfilled the second part of the title, i.e. have actually seen action. For examplke, F-22 - yeah looks good on paper, but until such time as it goes up against something in the heat of battle, its a bit like a boxer who is excellent at sparring but has never squared off in a heavyweight contest.

Its hard not to argue against the Spitfire, because not only does it tick the boxes in terms of combat record, versatility, development, pilot experience and overall looks, but it ascended into the status of an icon, a symbol of everything that made Britain great and the freedoms it fought for.

[Mal]

OK I might be missing the obvious, but I was always under the impression the Harrier was a ground attack aircraft, surely even a Sea Harrier wouldn’t cut the mustard against a F-15 in the air to air role.

I better pick up my coat and leave the room

Malcolm

[General Jumbo]

OK I might be missing the obvious, but I was always under the impression the Harrier was a ground attack aircraft, surely even a Sea Harrier wouldn’t cut the mustard against a F-15 in the air to air role.

I better pick up my coat and leave the room

Malcolm

Perhaps the fact that the Harrier (and others - the F-18 springs to mind) were designed as mud movers first but can give a good account in a dog fight adds to their claim to be on this list. Also, the SHAR with Blue Fox and BVR with AMRAAM really made them a potent fighter. Maybe a somebody with betterknowledge could comment on whether the vectored thrust gave them any advantages in a dog fight?

[Col.]

So far as I'm aware Harrier/Sea Harriers never used the 'viff' in combat as it would bleed off too much airspeed thus leaving the aircraft in a difficult position in anything other than a 1on1 fight where it was able to get a successful shot after the manoeuvre. As for it's abilities against other fighters; I've read reports it gave a very good account against several US types including the F-5E and F-15 due in part to the excellent radar, small size and manoeuvrability.

For these reasons I'll pick the Sea Harrier as my favourite for the title.

Honourable mentions have to go for the Fokker Eindecker, Sopwith Camel, Spitfire, Fw 190 and Mustang for the many reasons mentioned by others as a 'golden oldies' list.

In the jet age there has to be the MiG-15 simply for the "Holy Mother of God!" factor it elicited from US and Commonwealth pilots at the beginning of the Korean War and the SAAB Viggen for it's brute strength as well as an unusual and advanced aerodynamic design. Although the Swedish machine was never tested in combat I'm sure it would have given a good account for itself in the hands of a skilled pilot. The Sukhoi Su-27 also seemed a potentially potent machine whose capabilities also came as a surprise to NATO and their constant desire to underestimate the worth of Russian equipment.

As a current front-line type I'll take the Eurofighter Typhoon thank you. The cost/capability balance seems right for most operators and I have as yet unfounded suspicions the stealthy design of an F-22 makes for compromise elsewhere.

[Paul RH]

Harrier...cos my father in law helped design it.(honestly)

Edited January 7, 2011 by Paul RH