Top Ten Fighter Aircraft of all time!

[Bret]

I don’t agree I think the Harrier is right at home in that list. The British used them in the Falklands with great success taking out something like 21 Argentine aircraft in the Air with 0 losses in the air.

Here are some of the more advanced aircraft the Harrier took out.
9 Daggers Darts (basically an Israeli version of Mirage V).
1 Mirage III.
8 A4 Skyhawks.

Worth mentioning is that while that while most agree the Harrier isn’t a premier front line fighter aircraft, it’s pretty dang impressive kill list considering the only Harrier combat losses where due to ground fire.
/bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/thumbsup.gif

 

[PC]

Many folks say that the two best "fighters" in WW II were the ~L-4~ (Piper Cub) and the ~DAKOTA~ (DC-3 / "Gooney Bird")….

Great war birds? Yes! Fighters? No.

…And Russian IL-2 ~STURMOVIK~ probably had a huge effect on the outcome ot WW II because they were so effective against the German's eastern front. …

Got to agree with the immense importance of the “flying tank” to the eastern theater but if we start mixing in non-air-to-air relevance the Thunderbolt and Corsair blow away the Sturmovik and perennial faves like the Mustang and Spitfire, having great records in both close air support and air-to-air engagements.

…F14's while I think are cool looking aircraft, I never really cared for them too much. Aside from it being the only fighter capable of carrying the Pheonix A-to-A missile, I wasn't ever very impressed with it... Don't ask me why, I just wasn't. Maybe it has something to do with "Top Gun"...

Or maybe it was because it was an expensive, overweight, overcomplicated “electronic weapons platform” with so-so maneuverability and poor reliability. Or that super high-tech missiles aren’t very useful when the enemy is on your six and in a head-to-head gun fight it would get its butt kicked by pretty much any other fighter in US inventory.


PC.

 

[aeronca65t]

Yes, I agree...L4s and Dakotas were Warbirds but not fighters (hence the quotes). And truly, it's not just L4s but all the L-Birds (or "Warbugs") including Stinsons, Birdogs, my L3 and even the Fieseler Storch.

And I suppose , to stretch the point, the best WW II fighting vehicle was the Duece and a Half truck.

But back to planes....I also agree that The Jug and the F4U were truly more effective than their more sexy V12 hanger-mates. We have a flying Corsair at my local airport.

I love all this stuff and even have some personal connections with some of it:

One of my friends at our local airport flew Mustangs in Korea. He told me that the pilots all hated Mustangs because they were so slow compared to the jets. I always thought it would be glorious to fly a Mustang, but he felt he had gotten the "second bannana" airplane compared to the jets......I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Lin's ~Uncle Sid~ was a well-known WW II Mustang pilot Major Sid Newcomb (they did a comic book story about his exploits with the "Sid's Kids" squadron in Burma). He just passed away.
And my secretary's step-Dad is ~Charley Fox~ , the famous Canadian Spitfire pilot who shot Rommel.

 

[Baz]

Bret,
I think Rob was suggesting that the mere designation of AV-8, threw it into the catergory of attack aircraft, close support etc, instead of an air superiority fighter, which the Sea Harrier is.
With the exception of the vectored thrust and shape, the two aircraft are very different and the role of the Harrier in the Falklands was what it was designed for. It was the only fighter there, the RAF, with their Jaguars, F-4s, Lightnings, Buccaneers etc, were sitting back home doing their hair.
On a side note, air superiority was achieved by a submarine in the Falklands. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

I certainly agree, that if the peramiters were attack aircraft, then it would be in the top 5, along with the Typhoon, A-10, IL-2 and Ju-87.

 

[Bret]

Barry,

I know it's a bit confusing but I'm an old Jarhead and we've always called our Harriers AV-8's and the program referred to it as such. In fact the first Harriers the USMC got back in the 70's where called the AV-8A's and was exactly the same as the GR1 the Brits used with minor modifications. BTW don't be fooled by the “A” designation (that’s something we Americans do), because from the start the British referred to it a Fighter serving as their front line “Maritime strike/air defence fighter aircraft.”

The Harrier has undergone many upgrades & variants over the years. Longer wings better engines larger payloads etc it is still a Harrier. The second Generation Boeing/BAE variant is the Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier II and the Brits just call it the Harrier II.

 

[TRDejaVu]

I don't claim that it was the best as it hardly saw any action, but I always loved seeing the Brit Lightning's at air shows back in the 60's and 70's, where it would take off, go gear up, drop back down to hug the runway until the end and then go fully vertical until it was out of sight. 50's technology and I believe the first aircraft that was able to achieve supercruise (1954). Apparently there were trials conducted with a Concorde as a target to NATO F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, Mirages, F-104s and the Lightning, where they tried to intercept it at max speed from behind; only the Lightning could overtake it.

Of course it was a typical Brit interceptor - hardly any fuel capacity so without air to air refueling it couldn't loiter for very long.

 

[Baz]

I gotcha Bret, that being said, if ~I~ were on an LC, I would much rather see an AV-8 than a Sea Harrier heading to the beach with me.
:insert saluting smiley with various flags here:

 

[piman]

Hello ian,

I was based in Northern Saudi Arabia many years ago, working at their airfields. They had a Lightning squadron there, immensely impressive to watch and the noise was magnificent.
Apparently a Saudi pilot who tested the Lightning during the sales negotiations was the first pilot to achieve Mach 2 on his first fllight.
I certainly was a remarkable aircraft for its time.

Alec

 

[Twosheds]

And +1 for the A-10. It deserves a mention just because it's so darn homely (plus it has that great big gun in the snout).

I helped build and inspect hundreds of A-10As at Fairchild and I can attest to the fact that they are as stout as they are ugly. Won't win any beauty or speed contests built will get you home after absorbing damage with impunity.

Although they are not fighters, I believe that an A-10A pilot is credited with downing a helicopter in the Gulf War. If just one of those 30mm rounds hit the transmission or engine, the helicopter would be toast. I have a dummy round somewhere, and it's big.

 

[DrEntropy]

I was in attendance at the first multiple round firing of that monster gun, in Burlington Vermont many moons ago. Seven foot barrel! It tore itself out of the angle iron mount and opened up the roof of a steel building as if someone had taken a giant can opener to it. Right to the peak. GAH!

...and it was only a half-second burst!

 

[Twosheds]

...and it was only a half-second burst!

That would be 40 rounds at high rate or 20 rounds at low rate.

 

[macino62]

my list of important fighters (i prefer heavies ), in no order....

P-51
Spitfire
F-104 Starfighter (this was still used by Germany until last year)
F-4 Phantom II
F-15
MiG 29 OVT (sadly surpasses our F-22 when it comes to maneuverability)
SU-30
Vickers F.B.5.
Me262
P-38

 

[DrEntropy]

...and it was only a half-second burst!

That would be 40 rounds at high rate or 20 rounds at low rate.

It made quite an impression on that building! The only thing that stayed put was the "brass recovery" bin: they had a 55 gallon drum sitting beside the mount for the test firing.

 

[swift6]

Nobody's even mentioned the Mosquito... The Germans would award two kills for shooting down just one. Multirole airplane and had an impact due to its pure speed capabilities.

I know, not a 'fighter' right. Wrong, it fulfilled many 'fighter' roles and excelled at them all.

 

[coldplugs]

The Japanese Mitsubishi Zero should be on any list of great fighters. I'm not sure I'd include the Me-262.

Car connection: The Berkeley company evolved from a furniture outfit that got its start repairing wooden aircraft components during the war. I presume the Mosquito was one.

There were lots of others, of course - GM built Wildcats, Pressed Steel Limited did Spitfire pieces and also made bodies for every British car ever built, and on & on. That would be a topic in itself.

 

[Bret]

Several folks have mentioned the Japanese Zero and there’s no doubt that it was a major threat and racked up an impressive combat record early on in the war. But there are several major reasons why IMO this aircraft dosn't qualifiy for the top ten.

Taking Japan’s minimalist approach to war fighting as seen throughout their military the Zero was designed with several short comings. Even with it’s outstanding maneuverability and Japan’s best battle hardened most aggressive pilots holding the stick (many lost early on in the Battle of Midway BTW) as time would eventually show us - the Zero wasn’t as immortal as most thought it was.

The zero was poorly armored, had no self-sealing fuel tanks like most allied aircraft did. Other Achilles heals for the Zero included a propensity for stiff handling at speeds above 300 MPH & in a dive and poor performance at altitudes above 20,000 feet. Those limitations meant that the Nippon pilots preferred engaging the faster heavier allied aircraft in low altitude & low speed turning battles. It also preferred to roll to the left as it didn’t roll so well to the right.

As this information came to light through captured A6M aircraft, intel and first hand battle experience - the training of Allied fighter pilots in air to air tactics changed accordingly. Allied fighters like the supposedly “inferior” F4F Wildcat where brute’s and because of their ability to take battle damage that would have blown an A6M from the sky with little fanfare, held their own & helped turned the tide of the war - while faster more dangerous allied fighters where developed & delivered to the theater.

Heck even the poor little Citrus P-40 Warhawk took a heavy toll on the Zeros in toe to toe knife fights if the pilots weren’t intimidated and kept cool heads & avoided slow turning battles the P-40 was an even match.

 

[PAUL161]

One of the toughest fighter aircraft ever built was the Navy F4U. It wasn't the fastest, but it was fast, especially with the water injection turned on for short bursts, nor the most maneuverable, but it was a tank and could take unbelievable punishment. It was the most accelerating feeling setting in the cockpit and firing it up. With that big radial cranking and that big fan out front chomping at the air, you were in a world all your own. It was almost a religious experience. I don't know of another aircraft that had a wing as strong as the old Corsair. I never heard of a wing being pulled off of one in flight without being shot up. As with all Navy aircraft, it's landing gear was one of the toughest in the industry. The old AD was a tough old bird also and proved it's worth in Nam. It could carry it's own weight in armament. Hmmmmm

 

[Bret]

Won't get an argument out of me Paul as the F4U was a wonderful bird. But alas the it had terrible sea legs, as I pointed out in a previous post. Horrable carrier aircraft and that's why it was religated to mostly land bases and was only put on carriers when there was little choice. The F6F Hellcat was by far the best fighter in the Pacific.

Here is a quote from another thread on the same subject in a different forum.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:] The Grumman F6-F "HellCat" is the greatest fighter aircraft of all time ...

Hellcats were involved in practically all engagements with Japanese air power from that point onward. Navy and Marine F6Fs flew 66,530 combat sorties (45% of all fighter sorties of the war, 62,386 sorties were flown from aircraft carriers) and destroyed 5,163 enemy aircraft (56% of all Naval/Marine air victories of the war) at a cost of 270 Hellcats (an overall kill-to-loss ratio of 19:1). The aircraft performed well against the best Japanese opponents with a 13:1 kill ratio against Mitsubishi A6M, 9.5:1 against Nakajima Ki-84, 28:0 against Kawanishi N1K-J, and 3.7:1 against Mitsubishi J2M during the last year of the war. In the ground attack role, Hellcats dropped 6,503 tons of bombs.

The F6F became the prime ace-maker aircraft in the American inventory, with 306 Hellcat aces.[/QUOTE]

Cheers,

 

[PAUL161]

Won't get an argument out of me Paul as the F4U was a wonderful bird. But alas the it had terrible sea legs, as I pointed out in a previous post. Horrable carrier aircraft and that's why it was religated to mostly land bases and was only put on carriers when there was little choice. The F6F Hellcat was by far the best fighter in the Pacific.

Here is a quote from another thread on the same subject in a different forum.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:] The Grumman F6-F "HellCat" is the greatest fighter aircraft of all time ...

Hellcats were involved in practically all engagements with Japanese air power from that point onward. Navy and Marine F6Fs flew 66,530 combat sorties (45% of all fighter sorties of the war, 62,386 sorties were flown from aircraft carriers) and destroyed 5,163 enemy aircraft (56% of all Naval/Marine air victories of the war) at a cost of 270 Hellcats (an overall kill-to-loss ratio of 19:1). The aircraft performed well against the best Japanese opponents with a 13:1 kill ratio against Mitsubishi A6M, 9.5:1 against Nakajima Ki-84, 28:0 against Kawanishi N1K-J, and 3.7:1 against Mitsubishi J2M during the last year of the war. In the ground attack role, Hellcats dropped 6,503 tons of bombs.

The F6F became the prime ace-maker aircraft in the American inventory, with 306 Hellcat aces.

Cheers,
[/QUOTE]

I agree with you Bret on the F6. She was named right, as she was a real Hellcat. The F4 had very strong landing gear, but was very stiff and the struts didn't flex a lot. This in my opinion was it's down fall as a carrier aircraft. They'd bounce like crazy in a hard landing, such as a carrier landing. A lot of carrier pilots can attest to that with their bad backs!

 

[Bret]

I agree with you Bret on the F6. She was named right, as she was a real Hellcat. The F4 had very strong landing gear, but was very stiff and the struts didn't flex a lot. This in my opinion was it's down fall as a carrier aircraft. They'd bounce like crazy in a hard landing, such as a carrier landing. A lot of carrier pilots can attest to that with their bad backs!

Never heard that about the F4U's landing gear before. I was always told that the short fall of the Corsair and what made it dangerous to land was it's Gull-Wing design and the location of the cockpit. It is my understanding that during the design phase in order to accommodate the huge propeller that the wings where canted giving it it’s distinctive look. The trade off was that this design made carrier landings extremely difficult due to poor pilot visibility.