Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

RANKED: 5 Best (And 5 Worst) Fighter Planes In History
The National Interest ^ | 06/15/18 | Robert Farley

Posted on 06/15/2018 7:14:01 AM PDT by Simon Green

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last
To: G Larry

I knew two fighter pilots from WW2. One really liked the P-38 and the other swore by the P-47. Both felt the P-51 was a tad tender. Pilots put a lot of stock in “get me home”.

Our planes in the Pacific were so dominating because the Japs had lost all their pilots. By late 1944, our air cadets were being converted to bomber crews according to the CBS reports I am listening to from that period


21 posted on 06/15/2018 7:34:02 AM PDT by AppyPappy (Don't mistake your dorm political discussions with the desires of the nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

The P47 blew up more tanks than the P51. But the P51 was prettier.


22 posted on 06/15/2018 7:34:21 AM PDT by Vermont Lt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

The greatness of the P-47 was that it was without peer in ground support, but if jumped by enemy fighters it could drop its ordinance and duke it out with the best the enemy could offer.


23 posted on 06/15/2018 7:35:13 AM PDT by Skooz (Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green
P-38 should be mentioned. It proved to be an outstanding fighter in the Pacific and Mediterranean although experienced assorted reliability issues over Northern Europe that no one to my knowledge has ever fully explained.

P-51 deserves mention as the best allied fighter in the hands of the average allied pilot.

24 posted on 06/15/2018 7:35:17 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green
Here's a trifecta. Bf-109, Me-262, Ho-229, in models for scale. The 229 never fired a shot in anger, but it did best the 262 in mock combat trials.


25 posted on 06/15/2018 7:36:13 AM PDT by PLMerite ("They say that we were Cold Warriors. Yes, and a bloody good show, too." - Robert Conquest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

The BE2 was not a fighter. It was an observation aircraft. In WWI, things changed so fast that there wasn’t really a fighter that deserved to be on the “worst list.” One month a fighter would be ruling the skies, the next it would be obsolescent.
The Buffalo worked great for the Finns and did okay for the Brits in the Far East.
The LaGG-3 deserves to be there.
Dunno why the Century series would make the “worst” list - at worst they were simply mediocre. Now the F-89 Scorpion with its all-rocket armament...
The MiG-23 was only mediocre, too. I think it gets its bad reputation from the undertrained pilots flying the export version.

Dunno ‘bout the ‘best’ list, either.
It doesn’t have the YAK-3, Spitfire, P-51, P-47, P-38, Bf-109 or FW-190, but has the MiG-21? I don’t think that works.
Don’t think Me-262 deserves to be in there either - it simply didn’t see enough service to earn such a position.


26 posted on 06/15/2018 7:37:22 AM PDT by Little Ray (Freedom Before Security!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“The most shot-after girl in the South Pacific”


27 posted on 06/15/2018 7:37:25 AM PDT by Spruce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Conan the Librarian
The Finns showed the Soviets that the Brewster Buffalo was a great plane when flown by competent and motivated pilots.

Against poorly trained pilots flying equally obsolescent aircraft.

28 posted on 06/15/2018 7:37:51 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Skooz
Give me the P-47 for CAS and the P-51 for CAP. You could win a war with those two planes alone!

Oh, wait....we did.

29 posted on 06/15/2018 7:38:49 AM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: rjsimmon

“The ME262 was an excellent fighter aircraf”

As I understand it, for the longest time Hitler was adamant on using it strictly as a bomb carrying ground attack aircraft. Adolph Galland put up such a stink that Hitler finally relented and allowed it to be used as an interceptor against bomber formations. 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.


30 posted on 06/15/2018 7:39:37 AM PDT by Bonemaker (invictus maneo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: robroys woman

By 1944, the Japs were using different planes that we all seemed to call Zeros. The Zero was actually pretty much kaput by 1943, mostly due to the entry of P-38’s. The Japs still had good planes but the pilots were gone.


31 posted on 06/15/2018 7:42:23 AM PDT by AppyPappy (Don't mistake your dorm political discussions with the desires of the nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

The ME 262 made a difference in the war for my family. My cousin was killed when his B26 was shot down by one in 1945


32 posted on 06/15/2018 7:42:56 AM PDT by myerson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

A best of five list without the Japanese Zero is nationalist nonsense. The plane, best of the world in its day, weighed the same as an SUV, but the radial engine produced over 1,000 horsepower. If you can imagine driving a thousand HP SUV, you can imagine what it was like handling a Zero.


33 posted on 06/15/2018 7:43:46 AM PDT by sparklite2 (See more at Sparklite Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bonemaker

They demonstrated a jet for Hitler in 1939 and he dismissed the whole idea.


34 posted on 06/15/2018 7:43:58 AM PDT by AppyPappy (Don't mistake your dorm political discussions with the desires of the nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green
LOL! As soon as I saw the headline, the first thing that popped into my head was the Brewster Buffalo.

Imagine the look on the faces of the pilots when they were told, "Here's your new plane. Behold the chode!"


35 posted on 06/15/2018 7:45:21 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (In God We Trust, In Trump We MAGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robroys woman
the zero was great partly because there was no extra weight for pilot protection.

Fighter design involves many tradeoffs. With the zero, the Japanese maximized range in order to have a fighter able to cover large distances between islands of the Japanese mandate of WWI. Maximizing range came at the expense of ruggedness and armaments although they were able to make the zero nimble.

As one surviving zero pilot put it in a post-war interview, fighting in the Zero was like going to war wearing a bathing suit.

36 posted on 06/15/2018 7:46:42 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

I was a big WWII plane buff back in the late 60’s and 70’s. I then spent a fair amount of time in online WWII flight simulators around the turn of the century.

It was fun to read about the planes and then compare the specs to how they flew in combat simulators. Some simulators were pretty accurate. When I came up against a Zero, while flying a P-38, it was all about speed, because they could easily out-turn me. In fact, the Corsair was the same. The fun part was when I came up against a bunch of them I could always just pour on the coal and bug out. They couldn’t catch me.


37 posted on 06/15/2018 7:47:12 AM PDT by robroys woman (So you're not confused, I'm using my wife's account.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

Supermarine Spitfire should be in the list of the best.


38 posted on 06/15/2018 7:48:05 AM PDT by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
I believe power:weight and turn radius were strikes against the Mustang. U.S. valued the weight of armor.

We did.

What's missed in these "top insert number" lists are the differing requirements of the various battlefields.

In Europe, we needed planes with long range. The Mustang fit that bill.

In the Pacific we needed planes that could take the pounding of landing on a carrier. The Hellcat was designed for that.

We didn't adapt the Mustang for that.

I'm not going to turn either one down for sure.

A stronger case could be made for the Corsair to be on the list vs the Hellcat. The Corsair was a more versatile plane once the pilots figured out how to fly it.

You could even make the argument in some ways it was better than the Mustang.

39 posted on 06/15/2018 7:49:06 AM PDT by ealgeone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Simon Green

262 does not belong on the list at all.

Better to pick one or two from each era.

Worst? Dont really care about the losers.


40 posted on 06/15/2018 7:49:08 AM PDT by Sequoyah101 (It feels like we have exchanged our dreams for survival. We just have a few days that don't suck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson