RANKED: 5 Best (And 5 Worst) Fighter Planes In History

The National Interest ^ | 06/15/18 | Robert Farley

[Simon Green]

So what are the best and worst fighter aircraft of all time? What plane would you pick for a war in the sky?

On the surface, the questions seem easy to answer. One might look at which planes performed the best in combat as opposed to fighters that did not. Or, one could look at which planes had the best technology, took advantage of historical circumstances, or utilized a combination of the two.

Does America dominate the field of best fighters? What about Russia? Does China get any mentions? Does any one nation have more negative mentions? All good questions.

Robert Farley, one of the world’s best security experts, gives us his breakdown. Over two articles, combined for your reading pleasure written several years ago, provides a strong look at the contenders for best fighters, but also, the worst of the worst.

[South Dakota]

Yamamoto was pretty impressed with the P 38 lightning

[Jmouse007]

What a privilege, and a tremendous memory. It must have been something to experience. And an honor for your father's contribution to the war effort and to victory.

I recently watched a History Channel documentary on The Black Sheep Squadron on YouTube. Pappy Boyington and his guys flew Corsairs and racked up quite an impressive and distinguished kill record.

The one thing about the Corsair though was landings. It must have been a handful given the way the plane is designed.

[epluribus_2]

Time spans or a bit broad categories since it’s like comparing Justin Verlander to Cy Young. Can’t see a list not having F-16 Fighting Falcon that has earned its reputation and F4 Phantom for sure getting the job done over a long time even with some limitations made up for by other advantages German drivers I talk to in the 90s said they didn’t want the new eurofighter they were happy with their Phantoms.

[jamaksin]

Lest we forget ... Dornier 335 (Arrow) ... an interesting design.

[Calvin Locke]

That's another thing. The Germans had concentrated AAA. The P-38 was a big target, comparatively speaking.

As a fighter over the Pacific, there was a lot less ground fire to contend with.

[gigster]

While I don’t know of their air-to-air combat record, I rank the Lockheed P-38 Lightning as one of the best prop-driven military airplanes ever.

[wally_bert]

I forgot about the 38.

The F7F is another nice looking bird.

[tophat9000]

Whoever wrote this list really knows nothing about fighter aircraft or history

The f6f would not ever be in the top 3 for ww2 fighter

Both the A6M “Zero” and FW190 would be on the list for sheer game changing dominance when they 1st appeared on the scene

The Merlin engine P51 for being just being the right tool at the right time for what was needed in the ETO.

Conversely the poor little F2a “Buffalo” that always gets slammed was actually a very good fighter ..the rips all come from the Pacific where was going up against the A6M at the very earliest part of the war in desperate odds a course it was gonna look bad Especially because they’re all The later so called improved models that were really loaded down with armor and self sealing fuel tanks said just stole their good qualities

Converse the Finn with the early models kick the crap out of the Soviets and love the dam plane

It a Finn F2a Buffalo that has probably the highest individual airframe him kill count for any US built fighter aircraft in history for that historical fact alone you can’t say it’s one of the 5 worst

[fso301]

Nothing the allies had could deal with it until we figured out to attack them in their landing approach. Too late in war otherwise 262’s could have devastated strategic bombing.

Just because the US 8th AF brass in 1943 wanted to believe in the firepower of an unescorted box formation didn't mean a capable escort fighter wasn't available.

Had Hitler not ordered the ME-262 redesign as a bomber and it was available in 1943, I don't see where much would have changed.

The P-38 Lightning was available.

When compared against the ME-262, the P-38 had a slower horizontal speed, much higher climb speed and comparable dive speed.

The Lightning had significantly better low speed performance and had a significantly higher service ceiling than the 262.

In all probability, 262 pilots in 1943 would have been under orders to avoid contact with fighters. The 262's prime target in 1943 would have been bombers and all escorting Lightning had to do was interrupt the 262s pass on the formation.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Site is unnavigable on a tablet. So thans for posting the list.

The riiculous absence of the P51 is just to be controversial. Both lists suck. I can think of etter candidates for all 10 planes listed.

[fso301]

That's another thing. The Germans had concentrated AAA. The P-38 was a big target, comparatively speaking. As a fighter over the Pacific, there was a lot less ground fire to contend with.

This brings up the old argument of twin engine survive-ability. Does twice the target area of a twin engine aircraft confer any added survivability? Psychologically I'd say yes but in in reality, I'm not so certain.

In a ground attack role having to contend with concentrated German 20mm and 37mm flak, the P-38 was at a disadvantage versus single engine fighters due to the Lightning's overall larger target profile.

However, the P-38's concentrated firepower enabled the pilot to hit whatever he was aiming at from up to 2,000 yards in a shallow attack and even greater distances in a dive.

Whereas, single engine fighters had to close to whatever distance, 100 yds, 250 yds, 300 yds their wing guns were sighted to converge at.

[ealgeone]

Yamamoto was pretty impressed with the P 38 lightning.

Yes he was.

[fso301]

P-39 wasn't used for ground attack by the Soviets.

Thanks. I always thought that was one of its main roles but did a little research and you are correct. Thanks again!

[xkaydet65]

If the 262s were attacking alone. If in concert with 109s and FWs, P38s would have been at a disadvantage. Of course 51s would have been along as well. Thw 262s real threat aside from closing speed were its 30mm cannons converging at, I think 800m.Solid burst would rip a 17 apart.

[Snickering Hound]

Compared to Soviet aircraft, the P-39 was entirely made of metal so it was more rugged and had an excellent American made radio for communication.

Soviet fighters had an endurance typically under 40 minutes so its short range wasn’t a problem either.

[fso301]

If the 262s were attacking alone. If in concert with 109s and FWs, P38s would have been at a disadvantage. Of course 51s would have been along as well. Thw 262s real threat aside from closing speed were its 30mm cannons converging at, I think 800m.Solid burst would rip a 17 apart.

One reason why the Tuskeegee airmen allowed so few bomber losses on escort missions is because they stayed close to the formations they were escorting and were not lured away in search of glory against German fighters.

If American fighter pilots were under strict orders to stay just beyond the 8th AF bomber's protective fire envelope and engage German fighters no more than necessary to protect themselves, or disrupt an attack on themselves, I think ME-262 passes could still have been been disrupted. The escorting P-38s staying close to "home" would have extended the formation's defensive fire envelope out another +1000 yards.

[Rockingham]

Quite so. Yet, although a remarkable design, the Arrow never became operational and in prototype suffered from prosaic defects like weak landing gear. Although dictatorships are usually credited with a superior capacity to draft, organize, and apply a nation's resources, Nazi Germany proves the contrary. A wealth of technical talent and innovative thinking was squandered by corruption, bureaucracy, infighting, and Hitler's often erratic and ill-informed decisions.

In contrast, the US not only generated an extraordinary flow of weapons and equipment, but we also produced numerous new types of aircraft that proved effective in combat -- often only after the initial design was revised. The P-51, for example, despite its impressive clean lines, was a mediocre aircraft with its original American Allison engine. The British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine was then substituted, produced by car makers in the US under license. A larger belly air scoop and a bubble canopy were also added, and the result was an aircraft with superior performance at altitude.

Even after the new model P-51 arrived in theater, it took Eighth Air Force head Jimmy Doolittle to unlock its potential. He jettisoned the doctrine of close bomber escort and instead ordered his newly equipped fighter squadrons to chase the Luftwaffe and engage and destroy it wherever they could. Within months, the Luftwaffe's fighter arm in the West was in tatters.

One does not find similar narratives on the German side. Instead, through lush bribes to Goering, Messerschmidt was able to hog much of the Luftwaffe's fighter production capacity, with special favor to his cherished but obsolete Me-109. Meanwhile, production of the superior FW-190 was shorted and innovative designs like Dornier's Arrow never got beyond prototype.

Moreover, German tactics in WW II tended to be limited in their development because the combination of Prussian discipline and Nazi indoctrination usually weeded out innovators from the German military. Few dare to contradict military doctrine when it has the personal authority of a dictator behind it. Our messy, free-wheeling American ways and practical, get it done attitude have a lot going for them.

[jim_trent]

> “Any list without the P-51 Mustang is bogus.”

Agreed.

Interestingly, the Mustang used the US Packard version of the Merlin 1650, the same engine used in the Spitfire. However, the Mustang outperformed the Spitfire in almost all respects.

When the Packard Merlin Mustang came online, the Spitfire was re-engined with the Griffin 2240. Only with the 1/3 larger engine, could the Spitfire match the Mustang. Not exceed it in most cases, but match it.

Just think what the Mustang could have done with 1/3 more cubic inches of power.

[crz]

The 38 didnt have that range till they learned, or were convinced, to run them leaner in the air.

Guess who got them to do that.

For overall ruggedness, nobody could beat the 47 or corsair. More 51s were shot down in strafing missions than were lost in the air.

[jamaksin]

The guy from the first solo NY-Paris ... Lucky Lindberg.