Top 10 fighters

[Col.]

Anyone catch this on Discovery Wings last night? What seemed like an entertaining, allbeit controversial, program was mared by some really poor editing. The F-22 got 10th, fair enough given the criteria set, then the Sea Harrier came 9th. This was where I started shouting at the telly

While describing the SHAR a computer-generated 3-d image of an AV-8B was used, at some length. The same thing when it came to the No.2 fighter, the F-15. Talking about the C model, displaying an E. The Sea Harrier was also given a low score on innovation and fear factors. Lets see, the worlds first effective V/STOL fighter and one that struck the fear of death into it's foe during the Falklands War :D Hmm.

During a piece on the Sopwith Camel (that started with footage of a restored Neuiport) we were told WW1 saw the birth of combat aircraft. So how do they explain the Imerial Russian Air Service's use of aircraft to bomb and straff ground targets during 1913?

I'm not having a go at their particular list, I know it's a mater of oppinion, just the shoddy mistakes that were present and spoiled what was in many ways an enjoyable and informative program.

Ahh, that's better now I've had my wee rant :D Think I'll go do some modeling now that I've calmed down ;)

Edited November 1, 2005 by Col.

[Col.]

Well, don't get me wrong, it wasn't the worst I've seen. It just gets me when people who set themselves up as an authority on such matters make stupid mistakes :D

[KursadA]

During a piece on the Sopwith Camel (that started with footage of a restored Neuiport) we were told WW1 saw the birth of combat aircraft. So how do they explain the Imerial Russian Air Service's use of aircraft to bomb and straff ground targets during 1913?

Well, how do you explain the Italians' use of aircraft for reconnaissance and attack missions during the Italian-Turkish warof 1911/1912? It is the correct date for the first use of aircraft in combat. :D

[f14peter]

Discovery and/or History channels have as much to do with reality as . . . well, reality TV. Which means essentially nothing!

You'll still see programs that state the F6F Hellcat was a direct response to the Zero. Also watched a program that compared the Tiger with the Sherman head-to-head to see which was the better tank . . . not taking into account the fact that the Sherman was never intended to be an anti-tank platform (Which affected its design/attributes and US Army doctrine left that to dedicated AT units).

[GRAIL007]

So what were the other spots in the ranking?

10 f-22

9 Sea harrier

8 ?

7 ?

6 ?

5 ?

4 ?

3 ?

2 F-15c

1 Spitfire?

Cheer - Mark

[MaRiO FDZ]

So what were the other spots in the ranking?

10 f-22

9 Sea harrier

8 ?

7 ?

6 ?

5 ?

4 ?

3 ?

2 F-15c

1 Spitfire?

Cheer - Mark

10 Raptor

9 Harrier

8 Me 262

7 Camel

6 ??

5 Spitfire

4 Phantom

3 F-86 and Mig-15

2 F-15

1 Mustang

[Old72s]

10 Raptor - should be higher but it hasn't had a chance to really dominate in combat yet.

9 Harrier - not a fighter, it's a ground attack/close air support aircraft that can carry air-to-air missiles (is Apache helicopter a fighter too? what about A-10?)

8 Me 262 - not really a fighter, not good aside from its top speed, dangerous, unreliable, ineffective because of inaccurate weapons and lack of effective aiming given the speed difference with the target, Brits had better jet engine technology (albeit without the swept wing innovation) in the Meteor.

7 Camel - Snipe was a much better airplane but since no one's heard of it, might as well perpetuate the historical innacuracy.

6 ??

5 Spitfire - fair enough

4 Phantom - designed as an interceptor, really came into its own as a highly versatile fighter-bomber.

3 F-86 and Mig-15 - ah yes, the cop-out tie. MiG-15 was a heavily armed interceptor whose dogfighting prowess was a consequence of small size rather than good design (Sabre pilots routinely took advantage of MiG's unboosted controls).

2 F-15 - yes.

1 Mustang - number 1? only to please the uneducated masses. Superb escort fighter though.

What criteria did they use for their rankings? Famous airplane names seems to be the only one I can think of. How can you compare F-15 with a Camel?

Edited November 1, 2005 by Old72s

[MaRiO FDZ]

The whole "best fighter" issue is bunk because it's so mission-dependent. Yak-3 is one of the better dogfighters of the war but you would pick a P-51D for escort or a FW 190A with 4x20 mm cannons in underwing packs for sheer firepower.

True, too true.

AH, btw, on the Show, the "Historian" they showed is a complete Idiot...

Take Care

[Don]

You'll still see programs that state the F6F Hellcat was a direct response to the Zero. 

It wasn't? Most books I have read on the Hellcat state pretty much that it's design was "Strongly influenced by the need for a powerful fighter to counter the Japanese air superiority of the Zero" (Squadron Signal Hellcat in Action Page-4). So I don't think they (TV documentaries) would be too far off the mark to state that the Hellcat was designed and built to respond to the Zero.

However, I do agree 100% that many/most of those documentaries seen on the Wings and other TV stations need to be taken with a grain of salt...or a beer or two :) !

Regards,

Don

[Zmey Smirnoff]

only to please the uneducated masses. ....

Sorry to butcher it out of the context, but I couldnt have said better myself. The program wasnt meant for knowledgeable aviation enthusiasts. If the comparison was made between the planes that belong within the same time period, I could at lest tolerate it. Otherwise, its just another TV program.

[David Walker]

I would think it's pretty much impossible to try to do an over-view of aviation history and come up with the top ten fighter aircraft. Different times produce different needs and so different results.

[Bill Ficner]

Most books I have read on the Hellcat state pretty much that it's design was "Strongly influenced by the need for a powerful fighter to counter the Japanese air superiority of the Zero" (Squadron Signal Hellcat in Action Page-4).

Another Squadron Signal publication doesn't agree.

From page 46 of "U.S. Navy Carrier Fighters of World War II":

"Many stories have circulated to the effect that the F6F was designed specifically to master the Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero, that its design was recast in the light of reports of the Zero's performance. This is largely fanciful. Reports had indeed been arriving from Stilwell and Chennault in China accurately describing the Zero's abilities since mid-1940, but Stilwell was an Army officer and Chennault was considered a publicity-seeking crank and the reports were ignored. When the accuracy of their reports was proven in the skies over Hawaii, the Phillipines, Burma and Indonesia, the sole XF6F-1 was already under construction. (The first Zero to fall intact into Allied hands would be captured only about the time of the XF6F-1s first flight and would not be available for flight testing for months to come.)"

From "Hellcat" by Anderton/Watanabe on page 5,

"The Grumman reports and specification for the XF6F-1 were dated 24 February, 1941; those for the F6F-3 1 August, 1941. Both dates were well before Pearl Harbor, so that very little input of the Pacific combat could have been an initial design influence."

I'm sure I could dig up more from other books here, but I'm too lazy to dig today.

:)

[GRAIL007]

What no F-16 or F-18? Talking to the pilots of these planes both of them will win the dogfight with an F-15 down low. Immensely manueverable and not that expensive compared to the Eagle or Raptor.

Me-262 is ok, but it was a hangar queen with engines that spent more time on the workbench than in the air.

It is all subjective opinion I know, but I didn't like the ten ultimate bombers either. The first choice was ok B-52, but they didn't even mention the B-1 at all. Yet the Tornado made number 6 or 7. This is the same aircraft that was shot down the most in Desert Storm because they had to fly down low to use their weapon system. I think the F-15E is a better bomber than the Tornado but maybe thats just me.

Cheers - Mark

[Don]

"Many stories have circulated to the effect that the F6F was designed specifically to master the Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero, that its design was recast in the light of reports of the Zero's performance. This is largely fanciful. Reports had indeed been arriving from Stilwell and Chennault in China accurately describing the Zero's abilities since mid-1940, but Stilwell was an Army officer and Chennault was considered a publicity-seeking crank and the reports were ignored. When the accuracy of their reports was proven in the skies over Hawaii, the Phillipines, Burma and Indonesia, the sole XF6F-1 was already under construction. (The first Zero to fall intact into Allied hands would be captured only about the time of the XF6F-1s first flight and would not be available for flight testing for months to come.)"

From "Hellcat" by Anderton/Watanabe on page 5,

"The Grumman reports and specification for the XF6F-1 were dated 24 February, 1941; those for the F6F-3 1 August, 1941. Both dates were well before Pearl Harbor, so that very little input of the Pacific combat could have been an initial design influence."

I'm sure I could dig up more from other books here, but I'm too lazy to dig today.

Was the Hellcat design begun, from its very outset, to beat and compete with the Zero? Well considering the dates that the Hellcat project started, it is obvious that it was not. However, was its inevitable design and the final product influenced by the Zero’s (and other fighters from other air forces for that matter) capability and reports from pilots who saw it fly and flew against it (and others)? I think a person could make a good arguement for this. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with this premise either. Why not design a fighter, or incorporate designs into a fighter already on the drawing board or under testing using information gleamed from various sources, that would help it compete and beat the best an enemy has to offer once it goes into production. It does not make the Hellcat any less of a fighter or take away from it's place in aviation history. That was my point (which I guess was not explained properly ) and, like you, I am also away from my resources.

However, we are hijacking this thread :P . So we will leave it for another thread and agree to different points of view (Cheers!).

Regards,

Don :)

Edited November 2, 2005 by Don

[Bill]

What ! No P-47 ! Hmmmmm

[Zmey Smirnoff]

It is all subjective opinion I know, but I didn't like the ten ultimate bombers either.

I missed that program, what was the list and the rankings?

Z.S.

[Col.]

Well GRAIL007, the F-18 was given a breif mention as being a strong contender but only as the E model :D The only mention of the F-16 seemed to be in relation to how much "better" the Eagle performed against it :huh:

Bill, Don, given that the Zero was mentioned in the program I don't think you are "hijacking this thread". I'm glad to be witness to such informed discussion, it's something the program sadly lacked :)

[BlackCat]

I don't care what anyone says, the F-14 still rocks my socks off!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol:

Edited November 2, 2005 by BlackCat

[Col.]

Hmm, good point BlackCat. A combat proven aircraft with a long service record and it didn't even get a mention :) The list goes on.....

[RipVW]

I think that either the History Channel or Discovery should do a special on ARC and the membership's discussion/review of the top ten best fighters, bombers, Navy, and attack aircraft!

[Mad Viper]

Discovery had a show called the Greatest Ever. They had one a week ago about Fighter planes here in Holland. top ten looks like this a bit, don't know all the place anymore,

10. F-117

9. DR.1

8. Harrier

7.

6.

5.

4. F/A-18F Super Hornet

3. Mig-21

2. Spitfire

1. Mustang

Then you have the Sabre, Zero and ME109 to. They gave comments to why they are which place.

[JulesAustralia]

How can you talk about greatest fighter A/C ever, and not even bring the F-16 into it? The Israeli record speaks for itself. Then again, so does their F-15 experience.

The majority of those discovery channel shows are a bit of a giggle. The best documentaries I have ever seen have mostly been BBC productions. There was a doco. a few years back that went with E-2, FA-18, EA-6 and F-14 pilots out on southern watch patrols. Great footage of F-14s low and fast trying to get rid of SAM paints, and after footage of both Hornet and Tomcat guys reporting control issues to plane captains. What's best, was the voice over (from memory, it was Martin Sheen)- he hardly had anything to say. Most of it was the pilots, crew, and skipper talking.

THat's a docco.

[Les / Creative Edge Photo]

It is not fair to not break things into era.

There is not one best fighter, but one can make best fighters of various eras.

[Don]

As has been written here already, the "best of" is too hard to list as it is so subjective and peoples bias get in the way (because we all know the Spitfire is tops on the list... :( ). Seriously though, every aircraft listed here in this thread so far should/could be on the top of the "best of" list without a doubt. I was thinking about the F-86 Sabre myself, or the F4U Corsair. I mean there are so many great fighter aircraft, where does one even begin. Heck even the B-52 could be listed....hey it did shoot down some Migs...alright now that is a Discovery Channel stretch !

Regards,

Don

[Old72s]

Why is F-117 in the Fighters list?

Does anyone else think that Fokker Dr.I has been unfairly riding for years on the Red Baron fame? The airplane was a misguided response to the Sopwith Triplane (which had three wings because they were narrower and allowed better view down and to the sides), and was actually a rather mediocre airplane by all accounts. Same goes for the Bf 109.

MiG-21 has not proven to be particularly good in any conflict in spite of its very long service life. Not a bad airplane per se but there are contemporary aircraft with equally long careers which have accomplished much more (Phantom comes to mind).

Seems like these Top 10 lists are built on the authors' personal preferences rather than any objective information or historical evidence.

Edited November 3, 2005 by Old72s