Your Top 10 Favorite Fighter Aircraft.

  • Thread starter Thread starter TVRKing
  • 161 comments
  • 5,158 views
It's quite hard to pick the top ten, but here's my list (in no order):

Supermarine Spitfire Mk IXC (The most beautiful of them all)
North American P-51D Mustang (The best of them all)
Messerschmitt Bf109G (They saved my home country)
Hawker Tempest Mk V (Equal to jets)
Vought F4U-1D Corsair (The unsurpassed Navy fighter)
Lockheed P-38J/L Lightning (Higher, faster, farther)
Messerschmitt Me262A-1a (The beginning of the Jet Age)
Lockheed P-80A Shooting Star (Me262 was no match for it)
Gotha Go229 (If it only had made it into production...)
Focke-Wulf Ta183 Huckebein (The Mig-15 is actually German!)

Thanks for reading!
 
Solid Lifters
You could fly the plane with one wing and one engine just fine. (In real life, during the Gulf War, one A-10 had over half of one wing shot off, and one engined blown, and it flew like normal.)
Click to expand...
You know, I'm not sure if I should be raving about how durable A-10s are, or saying it flew like "normal", because it doesn't fly that well in the first place. :D

Greycap
Focke-Wulf Ta183 Huckebein (The Mig-15 is actually German!)
Click to expand...
I wonder how much of American and Soviet stuff after the WWII were actually German technology. Japanese during the War had developed jet and rocket powered planes, even atomic bomb, but they were all based on German technology. German engineers and scientists(I think some were Jewish?) from back then were simply brilliant.
 
a6m5
I wonder how much of American and Soviet stuff after the WWII were actually German technology. Japanese during the War had developed jet and rocket powered planes, even atomic bomb, but they were all based on German technology. German engineers and scientists(I think some were Jewish?) from back then were simply brilliant.
Click to expand...

The entire space race and all space technology today would not be where it is today without those scientists. There was a famous one who went to America who developed rockets but I can't remember his name :(. They seemed to ignore the war and just experiment in remote parts of Germany for their own interests funded by the government who had differing interests.
 
keram
The entire space race and all space technology today would not be where it is today without those scientists. There was a famous one who went to America who developed rockets but I can't remember his name :(. They seemed to ignore the war and just experiment in remote parts of Germany for their own interests funded by the government who had differing interests.
Click to expand...
I had a huge brain-fart. :lol: I was going to get to the space race. :D
 
keram
The entire space race and all space technology today would not be where it is today without those scientists. There was a famous one who went to America who developed rockets but I can't remember his name :(. They seemed to ignore the war and just experiment in remote parts of Germany for their own interests funded by the government who had differing interests.
Click to expand...
As far as I know that man was Werner von Braun .
 
Affirmative on the historical reference to the 'father' of rocketry (well, one of the several fathers but he's pretty famous :D).
 
Oh yeah my WW2 Planes -

Gloster Meteor.
Stuka Dive bomber.
Mosquito.
P-51 Mustang.
B-17 Flying Fortress.

Not all fighters but that's what made WW2 so great for planes, there was such a variety.
 
It (the A-10) surely looks mean as anything and has impressive gun-totting stats but unfortunately it's turned into something of a white elephant don't you think ledhed?

It's too vulnerable both from the supposed targets on the ground and the 'proper' fighters in the air (even helos have 'scored' against it).
Click to expand...


...Your joking right ? The a-10 is one of the LEAST ' vulnerabal aifframes that has ever existed . It was designed from scratch for close air support and IS capable of fighting air - air . Its not meant for it but last I looked the harrier ( sub-sonic jump jet ) . Did very well in that role . The only reason the A-10 is will be put out to pasture after its awe inspiring performance in the two gulf wars is that they will wear out . White elephant ? Ask any Iraqi that drove a tank or armored vehicle or who just took a stroll what happens when you " see the elephant ' if you can find one who lived .
 
I did say it polarised opinions, led :D.

Depends on what you read and who you believe I guess - it's either a tough, unstoppable tank-killer or a short-legged, slow flying, half blind target :shrugs:.

I'm not looking to break up the thread with an argument so I'll shush.
 
a6m5
Great link. :) I thought it was capable of vertical take-off and landing, but it says STOVL(short-take-off-and-vertical-landing). I guess it can't take off vertically. Too bad!
Click to expand...
Screw the A-10! The JSF is one of the coolest planes to even be designed. It freaking kicked the Boeing "Flying Frog" in the teeth. The Boeing plane could only vert take off without gear door covers, and some other parts, and it had problems with hot air ingestion (hot exhaust gasses being sucked back into the intake). Plus, it couldn't go supersonic without the missing parts. Needless to say, this was all without weapons, too.The Lockheed has a shaft driven prop that runs off the turbine, creating a pocket of cooler air between the jet exhaust at the rear and the intake at the front. It actually runs more efficiently (more thrust at cooler temps) hovering than flying normal. It is the first aircrapt to ever transition from vertical take off to supersonic flight, and from supersonic flight to a vertical landing. And it was all in the same flight.

I got most of this stuff off of Nova, which did a great show on the two planes. Watched it on OPB when we lived in The Couve. The official site is pretty good, too, with a lot of cool video. http://www.jsf.mil/
 
I tend to view fighters from more a historian's perspective more than anything else, so it's no wonder my favorite planes are choosen more for their historical signifigance more than how cool I think they are. There's a few exceptions in the list, like the Thunderbolt II and the Tornado.

Also, you may notice the list is all post-WWII, which stems mostly from the fact that I've always been fascinated with jets.

So, in rough order of chronology...


Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 bis. In many ways a better plane than the F-86 Saber. Bet you didn't know it was Rolls-Royce powered; the powerplant was copied without license from a prototype.

Dassault Mirage III/5/50. Gotta give credit where credit is due. The Mirage family is the one of the most prolific and successful fighter designs in the last 50 years. A testimony to the basic design's fundamental goodness.

McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom II. (All variants) Pretty much the daddy of all modern fighters. Probably the most succesful western fighter design ever.

Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. Needs no introduction.

Panavia Tornado IDS. Simply the best all weather deep-interdiction/strike aircraft of it's day.

Lockheed F-16 Fighting Falcon. Simple, light and cost effective.

McDonnell-Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle. Heavier and less manuerable than the C fighter variant, but is perhaps the first all weather fighter/bomber that can operate comfortably without escort for long range missions.

Lockheed F-117A Nighthawk. Perhaps the most pivotal fighter airplane since the introduction of the jet engine.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 Fulcrum. Represents a huge leap in capability over the MiG-23 series. This plane showed the Soviets could still hang with the West in fighter design.

Lockheed/Boeing F/A-22 Raptor. All that and a bag of chips. A real stealth fighter. (the Nighthawk is a strike fighter with no air-air capability)


M
 
Viper Zero
Top 9:
  1. F/A-22 Raptor
  2. F-15E Strike Eagle
  3. F-14D Super Tomcat
  4. P-51D Mustang
  5. F4U Corsair
  6. Supermarine Spitfire
  7. P-38 Lighting
  8. F/A-18E Super Hornet
  9. F/A-35
Click to expand...


Finally someone mentions the F-22! I thought I was going to be the first.

Its comes as the F-15 replacement, which was also the worlds best fighter before the F-22.

Then there is the F-16, the most succesful fighter ever built.

and of course I think the airforce's true roots started with the P-51, which was the true inspiration for the car Ford produces known as the mustang. (Not the horse)

Then when you think of the Navy, you think F-14.

And the Marines have their plane, the Harrier.

The A-10 of course is one of the most orignal, and great come back stories of any US fighter, as it almost got scraped before seeing any real combat. The first gulf war fixed that though.

Then you have the Stealth fighters F-117. Expensive, but look really cool flying next to a B-2. Pretty much says air supiority.

And what about the SR-11 Blackbird whose speeds are still classified, and may be the cause of serveral UFO sightings around the world.

And here is one that may surprise you, a C-130 Hercules armed with a cannon that with the help of the planes ability to fly steady and at low speeds was a tank destroyer.
 
Wow, wikipedia says that the Eurofighter has one wing produced in one country by one company, and the other wing in a different company by a different manufacturer. Sounds like too many cooks in the kitchen to me!
 
skicrush
Wow, wikipedia says that the Eurofighter has one wing produced in one country by one company, and the other wing in a different company by a different manufacturer. Sounds like too many cooks in the kitchen to me!
Click to expand...

It seems i'm the only one who doesn't trust wikipedia. The fact that you can edit other people's information easily explains the many mistakes. Although what you said might be true I don't know.
 
///M-Spec
I tend to view fighters from more a historian's perspective more than anything else, so it's no wonder my favorite planes are choosen more for their historical signifigance more than how cool I think they are.
Click to expand...
Yeah, ///M, this is about the list I would have chosen if I hadn't just typed my list off the cuff.
👍
 
Lockheed F-117A Nighthawk. Perhaps the most pivotal fighter airplane since the introduction of the jet engine.
Click to expand...
Then you have the Stealth fighters F-117. Expensive, but look really cool flying next to a B-2. Pretty much says air supiority.
Click to expand...
I have heared alot of sources state that while the Nighthawk is designated an 'F' it actually has very little air-to-air capability.

Now the F-22 is a real stealth Fighter, the JSF also and the EuroFighter is a Low radar oberservatory. (which technically all stealth planes are, but some much more than others.)
 
ExigeExcel
I have heared alot of sources state that while the Nighthawk is designated an 'F' it actually has very little air-to-air capability.

Now the F-22 is a real stealth Fighter, the JSF also and the EuroFighter is a Low radar oberservatory. (which technically all stealth planes are, but some much more than others.)
Click to expand...
Do they classify the Euro as a stealth plane? I don't think the radar cross section really is small, I think it uses a radar cancellation system to give it the illusion of being invisible to radar--kinda like those noise cancelling headphones.
 
skicrush
Do they classify the Euro as a stealth plane? I don't think the radar cross section really is small, I think it uses a radar cancellation system to give it the illusion of being invisible to radar--kinda like those noise cancelling headphones.
Click to expand...
No, the EF is not classified as stealth. But I do think it has a naturaly low(ish) radar cross section and also uses ECMs.
 
///M-Spec
McDonnell-Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle. Heavier and less manuerable than the C fighter variant, but is perhaps the first all weather fighter/bomber that can operate comfortably without escort for long range missions.

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 Fulcrum. Represents a huge leap in capability over the MiG-23 series. This plane showed the Soviets could still hang with the West in fighter design.

M
Click to expand...

The MiG 29 showed that the Russians could copy, then improve some on the proven design of the plane mentioned above it.

I still applaud the genius of the engineers at MiG for their ability to improve on the design of the F-15.

I also like the planes that stood out historically. But I have a soft spot in my heart for the some of the "oddballs" such as the P-39, and the P-61,
And while the Stuka never stood a chance against any of the fighters that it might come up against it was an interesting single purpose plane of the era.

Another plane that I haven't seen mentioned but played a large part in WWII is the PBY Catalina, affectionately known as the "Duck"
 
Am I the only person here who doesn't really like the F-22? Don't get me wrong, it's an outstanding aircraft, the first true stealth fighter, and it should be the most powerful air superiority aircraft for many years to come, but there's just something about it that lacks the character of the other aircraft. Who knows, maybe once it develops more of a heritage and gets some good stories behind it, the Raptor will gain the mystique it deserves.

Also, I'm surprised at the low number of Sukhoi aircraft here. They produce some very good air superiority fighters. Heck, Indian Air Force SU-35s just beat USAF F-15s in a dogfight exercise.
 
ExigeExcel
I have heared alot of sources state that while the Nighthawk is designated an 'F' it actually has very little air-to-air capability.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's right. The Nighthawk has no air to air capability whatsoever. It doesn't even have a gun. I noted this in my later entry of the F/A-22.

I used "fighter" as a generic term, as the title of the thread suggests. The F-117A is technically a "strike fighter", or in layman's terms, a small bomber. It's typical payload is a guided gravity bomb.

Duke
Yeah, ///M, this is about the list I would have chosen if I hadn't just typed my list off the cuff.
👍
Click to expand...

I thought your list was pretty good. :)

Ev0
Am I the only person here who doesn't really like the F-22? Don't get me wrong, it's an outstanding aircraft, the first true stealth fighter, and it should be the most powerful air superiority aircraft for many years to come, but there's just something about it that lacks the character of the other aircraft. Who knows, maybe once it develops more of a heritage and gets some good stories behind it, the Raptor will gain the mystique it deserves.
Click to expand...

Despite my love for the F-15, it's not a very colorful looking airplane. I look at the Raptor in the same way. The Mud Hen is neat looking to me because they paint them in a very tough-looking color. I guess all fighters look boring in air superiority gray. :)

Unfortunately, the only way for a fighter to develop that character is through combat.

Gil
The MiG 29 showed that the Russians could copy, then improve some on the proven design of the plane mentioned above it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Russians did a lot of copying. That's because they were playing catch up through most of the Cold War. No arguments there. I think the importance of the Fulcrum really can't be understated, however.

For the same reason, I wanted to include the MiG-25 for the good scare it gave NATO.


Ev0
Also, I'm surprised at the low number of Sukhoi aircraft here. They produce some very good air superiority fighters. Heck, Indian Air Force SU-35s just beat USAF F-15s in a dogfight exercise.
Click to expand...

I wanted to include the Su-22. But I felt it's impact was represented by it's little brother. You really have to realize that the Flanker is more or less just a "Super-Size-Me" Fulcrum. The fact that the Fulcrum was finished and flew first, takes the wind of the Flanker's sails.


M
 
Ev0
Am I the only person here who doesn't really like the F-22? Don't get me wrong, it's an outstanding aircraft, the first true stealth fighter, and it should be the most powerful air superiority aircraft for many years to come, but there's just something about it that lacks the character of the other aircraft. Who knows, maybe once it develops more of a heritage and gets some good stories behind it, the Raptor will gain the mystique it deserves.

Also, I'm surprised at the low number of Sukhoi aircraft here. They produce some very good air superiority fighters. Heck, Indian Air Force SU-35s just beat USAF F-15s in a dogfight exercise.
Click to expand...
I don't terribly love it, but I like it a lot more now than I used to--my scouts chose it as the background on their high adventure shirts, and I gained a little love for it through that ordeal. However, I have a friend that flies F-15s for the National Guard out of Portland, and he says his contacts that have test flown the F-22 don't have much positive to say about it's flight characteristics. Invisible? Deadly? Impressive on paper? All yes. A pleasure to fly? Anything but.
 
skicrush
I don't terribly love it, but I like it a lot more now than I used to--my scouts chose it as the background on their high adventure shirts, and I gained a little love for it through that ordeal. However, I have a friend that flies F-15s for the National Guard out of Portland, and he says his contacts that have test flown the F-22 don't have much positive to say about it's flight characteristics. Invisible? Deadly? Impressive on paper? All yes. A pleasure to fly? Anything but.
Click to expand...
Cool. I went to the air show for the first time, just last year. It was cool to see the Blue Angles and everything, but one of the cool feature of the show was the P-51 and Oregon National Guard F-15 doing flyby together over the crowd.

As for the F-22, I kinda agree with M-Spec. Maybe it'll gain little more character through "combats".
 
///M-Spec
Unfortunately, the only way for a fighter to develop that character is through combat.
Click to expand...
Not necessrily. Look at the F-14, aside from 'mundane' bombing missions throughout the '90s and this decade, it's seen absolutely no action, aside from a pair of skirmishes with the Syrian Air Force (where it kicked major ass). Yet, the F-14 has boatloads of character, it's the muscle car of fighters.

Although many would argue the F-14 has an entire movie centering around it. But, if you ask me, the F-14 made the movie great. The movie didn't make the plane great.
 
Ev0
Not necessrily. Look at the F-14, aside from 'mundane' bombing missions throughout the '90s and this decade, it's seen absolutely no action, aside from a pair of skirmishes with the Syrian Air Force (where it kicked major ass). Yet, the F-14 has boatloads of character, it's the muscle car of fighters.

Although many would argue the F-14 has an entire movie centering around it. But, if you ask me, the F-14 made the movie great. The movie didn't make the plane great.
Click to expand...
Funny that--the F-14 was originally designed with NO Air-to-ground capability, arguably the only modern fighter designed strictly for air-to-air combat. And the ONLY platform for the most wicked AAM of all time. The D variant (I think) remedied this, but it was still poorly suited to the job.
 
The F-14B was supposed to give the Tomcat an Air to Ground capability, but the variant never made it into production if I'm not mistaken. But I'm sure they put what they learned into the F-14D; probably made development a helluva lot faster.
 
///M-Spec
You really have to realize that the Flanker is more or less just a "Super-Size-Me" Fulcrum. The fact that the Fulcrum was finished and flew first, takes the wind of the Flanker's sails.


M
Click to expand...

The Flanker is an interceptor the Fulcrum plays the defense role. They are very different.

Common miss-perception
 
Funny that--the F-14 was originally designed with NO Air-to-ground capability, arguably the only modern fighter designed strictly for air-to-air combat. And the ONLY platform for the most wicked AAM of all time. The D variant (I think) remedied this, but it was still poorly suited to the job.
Click to expand...
Hasn't the F/A-18 started carrying them now?

They had to make it multi-role, or it would have been extinct long ago. Even if it was just for political means.
 
Back