Warbird Information Exchange

Friend of mine and I were debating in the ole hangar what the U.S produced Fighter of the Decade was for the past 100 years. Here is what we came up with:

1910's-->Wright Flyer
1920's--JN-4 Jenny
1930's-->P-36 Hawk/P-40 Warhawk
1940's-->P-38 Lightning/P-51 Mustang. Real contentious as I am very pro-P-38 and he is pro-P-51. Mechanic overheard and threw in "Hellcat", Tug driver threw in the conversation "Corsair". Our secretary jumped in and she said don't forget the "Jug". We both laughed and said "We never forget the JUGS". Due to debate time we moved on.
1950's-->F-86 Sabre
1960's-->F-4 Phantom II
1970's-->F-14 Tomcat
1980's-->F-15 Eagle
1990's-->F-117 Nighthawk
2000's-->F-22 Raptor

I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter?

Regards,

Glenn

FWIW,
I would agree with your list, including "Jugs". However, IMHO, it might be a stretch to call the Jenny and the 117 Nighthawk a fighter.
Regards,
H

What no F-16?

The F-14 flew for @ 37 years and is basically done (Does Iran count?)


The F-16 has been in production for @ 32 years... @ 4,000 aircraft...still going and is flown by 24 countries.

It gets my vote for one of those decades....



And I don't consider the F-117 to be a "fighter" - It's a bomber.


The 20's - How about a real fighter like the Boeing Model 15 or the beautiful Curtiss P-6 Hawk.


As for the 40's...I'll stick my neck out and say P-51 ... although the Hellcat has the record for the best kill ratio ever.

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

I assume you mean most significant, sort of like Time's Man if the Year. If so the P-51 would seem to be it for US fighters. As for Hellcat, as good as it was in its area, it only came into combat the last part of the war, and only in the Pacific. Some of it's great record came against a Japanese force depleted of many of it's best trained pilots, and with numbers and logistics on the Allied side. It had no effect on the first 2/3 of the war, nor on the the more important European War.
The P-38 came into service earlier, but it's effect was still manly in the Pacific , and it fared poorly against the Me 109s due to poor performance at altitude, as well as some problems with cooling and reliability
The Mustang did a great job in Europe once it got the Merlin, and especially the D with the 6 gun wing. It did the long range daylight bomber escort to Germany, better than anything else, and was the only plane that could do the very long range Pacific escorts.
When I did the topic on Best Fighter, I came up with the Spitfire. I don't have it now, but I used about 10 categories. Even in some areas like climb, turn, and versatility, where the Spitfire may be tops,usually the 51 would be a close second or rate up there at least an 8. Of course the parameters you set can dictate the choice. If range is not a factor at all, and versatility is then the 51 falls a bit, for instance no Seamustangs. Or if you emphasize the first 2 years of the war the 51 wasn't even there. I think range is a factor, maybe not the top, not as important as high alt ability. I don't think the 38 is superior to a 51 except in armament and for ground attack. Once again it's main success was in the Pacific, and at war's end the Hellcat was better for that job. The 38 had good range and great armament, but could not operate off carriers, and may have required better pilot skills to be at it's best, than a single engine fighter.

_________________
Bill Greenwood
Spitfire N308WK

I really can't see calling a Jenny a fighter, nor particularly calling the Wright Flyer a fighter or from the 1910s, since it was from 1903.

I would think the Spad would be near the top for that time period rather than a Wright Flyer.

I agree, the Jenny isn't much of fighter, is it? What about the Grumman that was operating with the Airships. That's 20's, right?

I think the P-51 is the winner hands down since it flew successfully in the ETO, MTO and the PTO with the necessary range to do the job and do it well.

Instead of the JN how about the Curtiss P-1?
The F-86 actually entered squadron service in the 40's, so should that supercede the WWII types as "fighter of the decade"?
How about the F-100 for the 50's?
The trouble I see is that a decade, prior to the 60's, embodied so much development that picking the best for the whole 10 year span would ignore all the great types that came before it.
If we, on the other hand, are talking about combat records then a WWII type (the F6F?) would have the most kills, and there wouldn't be any US contender for the 20's and 30's.

_________________
I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.

You all make excellent points. Thanks.

I think:

Correct me if I am wrong but the U.S. military's first plane was the Wright Flyer (Curtiss built another military type at that time?)
1910's SPAD was foreign designed (Swiss/French& British built) so can't be considered in the list of US built Fighters of the Decade.
Curtis P.1 is an excellent choice for the 1920's. Thanks Raconnel good choice.
1930's could also be the P-26 peashooter. but saw limited combat compared to either th P-36 or P-40.
1940's "Hornets nest of debate" but Bill Greenwood makes convincing arguments for the P-51. Wish the Spitfire was U.S. Built it would certainly be considered. Still love the P-38. Yamamoto strike, Bong/McGuire, North Africa actions & the Beauty of that Kelly Johnson design.
1950's Chose the F-86 for its combat activities in Korea not its operational late 1940's ability.
1970's Very good point on the F-16. For some reason it was overlooked for the F-14. Guess its the whole Iron Eagles vs. Top Gun thing. But we have NAVY guys and they get upset if they don't get included. Thus the F-14.
1980's Love the Marines Harrier but alas again like the SPAD it was not U.S. built but licensed out.
1990's Excellent point about F-117 is not a fighter, technically its a Night bomber. Insert F-16 or F-18.

Simple answer: it's not a real fighter.

It's a miniature representation of a real fighter.

So that's how it's gonna be?...you must be a P-38 kinda guy too...

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

One other point that seems to me to be often overlooked regarding the P-51 is that it was cheaper, used less gas, and not too much harder to maintain than any of the other fighters available. North American really got the mass-production thing down, while the P-38 was a much more complicated aircraft to build. Also, the P-51 used a lot less gasoline than either the 38 or the 47 - which, while it might not matter one whit to the pilot, certainly meant that supplying the aircraft and keeping them flying was easier.

Ryan

_________________
Aerial Photographer with Red Wing Aerial Photography currently based at KRBD and tailwheel CFI.
Websites: Texas Tailwheel Flight Training, DoolittleRaid.com and Lbirds.com.

The horse is prepared against the day of battle: but safety is of the LORD. - Prov. 21:31 - Train, Practice, Trust.

Length: 49 ft 5 in (14.8 m)
Wingspan: 32 ft 8 in (9.8 m)
Height: 16 ft (4.8 m)
Empty weight: 18,238 lb (8,272 kg)
Loaded weight: 26,463 lb (12,003 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 42,300 lb (16,875 kg)

If this is tiny what's a P-51???

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Not that anyone gives a hoot, but I'm with Randy on this one!

From Bill Greenwood:

Mmmm, not quite. A quote from the accompanying link:

https://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=31572

Also, the Royal Navy used them in Europe:

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/ai ... an_f6f.htm

_________________
Bob

"Fighter of the Decade" is a bit vague: What do you mean? Best performing? Most militarily useful in the fighter role? Most useful in any combat role? Most cost-effective? Most prolific? Most popular?

For example, during the forties, the Mustang was most militarily useful in the fighter role in Europe, but the Jug probably did more physical harm to Germany, owing to its multi-role capabilities. The Corsair could fly as well as the Mustang and hit as hard as the Jug, but played only a cameo role in WWII or Korea. The Lightning was the most effective fighter in the Pacific, but was a hangar-loving second-rater across the Atlantic.

I think there is little doubt which planes capture the public imagination, though, and that may be as reliable as any comparison:

1910-20 none (The French Spad was the plane of choice of USAAF units during the war)
1920-30 none. The USAAF is busier delivering mail than fighting.
1930-40 Hawk/Warhawk
1940-50 Mustang
1950-60 Sabre (but the Panther gets the best movie part...go figure)
1960-70 Phantom
1970-80 Phantom, over 5000 built! Eagle is now in production, but has yet to make itself felt. Tomcat gets an honorable mention.
1980-90 Eagle, although the Tomcat may be more famous during this time and the F-16 is probably the most cost effective.
1990-2000 Definitely the Eagle, no modern jet can touch its combat record.
2000-2010 Raptor, assuming they can build more then a dozen of them. they will probably have to, now that the Eagle broke.

I have several major fighters represented on the t-shirts in my gift shop. The Mustang is by far the best-selling shirt. (The A-10 is the next most popular, but I wouldn't call it a fighter)

_________________
What is red, furry and on your six?