i am for Hawker Hurricane…
Fabric or metal?
I enjoy metal. 
The Hurricane also deserves honorable mention. Didn’t it shoot down more Luftwaffe aircraft during the Battle of Britain than the Spitfire did?
I’d be worried if you enjoyed fabric.
I think so, not least because I think Hurricanes substantially outnumbered Spits in service in that campaign. Somebody will have the details to confirm this or not.
I’ve met a few WWII pilots who flew both types. They thought that the Spit was actually a bit of a bitch to fly in some respects where the Hurricane was less so. Sort of like the difference between a temperamental thoroughbred and a decent stock (sort of like a quarter horse in US) horse. Each had their own pros and cons.
Definately the p51-D. My main reason for choosing this plane is because it was very fast and manuverable. It could out fly about every plane in WWII.
But not this one, my dear Mr. Davies C 12. You see, this tiny machine, which is representing my personal Fighter Airplane of Choice No. 1, was capable to held the upper hand in nearly every engagement:
Yak 3-U
You see, the main problem in modern evaluations of WW2 airplanes is the fact that standard numeric measures of merit for fighter aircrafts (rate of turn, corner speed, wing load, specific surplus power, etc.) are not always completely sufficient for a differentiation between a good and a not-so-good fighter. For example, while the turn rate at corner speed is generally discussed, ability of the airplane to rapidly execute those changes in its state is also very important, but almost completely neglected in numerous discusions. If an airplane is capable to execute those changes of state simultaneously - for example, pitching and rolling at the same time, maneuver tenderly acknowledged as “bank and yank” - an airplane will be much superior in its total combat effectiveness. Numerous analysts are almost always focused on purely steady-state performance abilities of the given airplane, whereas a real dogfight is always characterized by continuous change in aircraft’s state.
Control of velocity, for example, (directly dependable upon total mass of the aircraft and its power-to-weight ratio) is also more important than maximum velocity. It is almost completely neglected that maximum airspeeds need not to be greater than that required to pull 9-12 G (human bodily limitations). In practice, speeds greater than 350 km/h are of little use in the aerobatic dogfight - particularly if the aircraft, due to ist high power-to-weight ratio, can climb vertically without relying on stored energy (speed), like our tiny candidate.
Since control of airspeed is more important than maximum airspeed, a lower wing loading always allows aerobatic figures to be performed at lower speeds and with lower G forces, or with similar G forces in a smaller airspace, and this may allow an advantage in the classical gun attack, in which a tail chase with your opponent in front of you is the desired outcome.
Yak 3-U combined a very high high structural strength with highly desirable possibility for positive and negative accelerations (larger rather than a smaller airplane is inevitably heavy with a relatively high structural weight) with the ability to manouvre (significantly lower wingload) at incredibly small airspeed (too much kinetic energy through too much speed is not desired in a real dogfight!), as well as crisp reponses to effective controls and the ability to fly erect, inverted or on the side with ease. Marvelous power-per-weight coefficient, low wing loading, and adequate firepower [Berezin B-20 was significantly lighter (25 kg) then ShVAK (40 kg), but without sacrificing rate of fire or muzzle velocity of the projectile] were coupled with the high-speed performance character, near neutral stability about all axes, and extreme agility. Being small, this tiny fighter actually reacted so quickly when control was applied that average pilots were left behind mentally. 
Of course, these characteristics were not for novices. 
Here are some basic figures connected with this sadly forgotten airplane:
• Height: 2.42 m
• Length: 8.17 m
• Wingspan: 9.40 m
• Wing area: 17.15 m²
• Empty weight: 2,273 kg
• Loaded weight: 2,792 kg
• Powerplant: 1× Shvetsov ASh-82 FNU, air-cooled radial piston engine - 1,850 HP
• Maximum speed: 705 km/h (at 6100 m)
• Range: 778 km
• Service ceiling: 11,250 m
• Wing loading: 162,79 kg/m²
• Power/mass ratio: 0.66 HP/kg
• Rate of climb: 20,83 m/sec
• Armament: 2 × 20 mm B-20 S cannon / 120 shells per cannon
Of course, my Airplane of Choice No.2 in this category, without any doubt, is the Spitfire Mk XIV. Just in case you are interested…
F4U Corsair…Just a good plane all around.
Spitfire with clip-wings-My personal choice and IMHO the best.
Mess 109 Fw 190 are my second choice.
The Hurricane shot down twice as many aircraft down in the BOB as the Spitfire did, but there were twice as many Hurricanes in service than Spitfires, so both types shot down enemy aircraft at around the same rate as each other.
The advantages of the Spitfire’s superior performance showed itself in the fact that a pilot was twice as likely to be killed flying a Hurricane than if he flew a Spitfire
I’ve met a few WWII pilots who flew both types. They thought that the Spit was actually a bit of a bitch to fly in some respects where the Hurricane was less so. Sort of like the difference between a temperamental thoroughbred and a decent stock (sort of like a quarter horse in US) horse. Each had their own pros and cons.
The early Spitfires (up to Mk IX) were, by all accounts, very nice aircraft to fly, but later models with the far more powerful engines were a little less forgiving of errors in flying.
Wooden:)
As the all Soviet vets recollects the Hurricane was the WORST lend lise airplain that they had to fly.
It was even worse then early Jak-1b. Real “flying coffin”.
If seriously, i don’t realy think that some of us gentlemens, might to advocate the best ww2 fighter , coz no one of us NEVER fly any.
If to go out from my personal experience on WW2 fly simulators - it’s all depend on where you fought and when.
if i fought on Eastern front - with its low-altitude battles, the La-7 is the best for me.It was really simple-managed and powerful.
In Western front - the FW-190D9 was the out of competition.The Ta-152 wasn’t endeed the best on low and medium altitudes . It was just a perfect the piston Bomber-Killer the world ever seen.
BTW as it had been proved by the war, the air-cooled piston firhter were MORE superior in some tactical characteristics kinda manuevreability and acceleration.Bothe the FW and La had a more power engeens then its water-cooled “counterparts” - Jak and Me.
Of all the aircraft discussed (excluding the Do 335 which did not make a significant contribution and although I appreciate the Beaufighter it was not a “single seat” fighter) I would choose the P-38 for one reason - two engines give you a better chance of getting home.
Westland Whirlwind was also a good aircraft but badly let down by it’s engines.
Excellent! I’m ashamed I overlooked the Whirlwind, it seemed to have such potential. There were other engines available and I’m guessing at the time the British had to be most careful with their resources. Also I think they put a great deal of faith in the Typhoon-which took too long to develop – and as with the Whirlwind – the problem was the engine.
There is way too much Soviet planes to choose from the poll, so I pick La-7.
Hawker Tempest for me (originally called the Typhoon II), love the Typhoon as a low level fighter bomber and this update and improvement was a great aircraft.
Pity the Fury was cancelled at the end of the war which left the Sea Fury to be the final member of this stable after the war.
A couple of comments
“Reaching Newchurch airfield at 480 mph I held “RB” down to 20 ft from the runway and then pulled her up to a 60 ° climb holding it as the speed dropped slowly off and the altimeter needle spun round the dial as if it were mad. At 7000 ft the speed was dropping below 180 mph and I rolled the Tempest lazily inverted, then allowed the nose to drop until the horizon, at first above my head, disappeared below (or rather above) the now inverted nose, the fields and woods steadied into the centre of the windscreen and then whirled around as I put the stick hard over and rolled around the vertical dive. Steadying again I pulled out over the tree tops at 500 mph, throttled back and pulled hard over towards the airfield in an over-the-vertical climbing turn, lowering the wheels and flaps in a roll as the speed dropped. What a magnificent aeroplane! They could have all their Spitfires and Mustangs!”
(“My part of the sky”, Roland Beamont)
“The Messerschmitt Me 262’s most dangerous opponent was the British Hawker Tempest - extremely fast at low altitudes, highly-manoeuvrable and heavily-armed.”
(Hubert Lange, Me262 pilot)
Fiat G.56, an improved version of Fiat G.55, italian plane with german engine. The Fiat G.55 was already praised by a commision leaded by Oberst Edgar Petersen, Chief Testing Command, as “best Axis fighter”, to be used instead of BF-109 and FW-190. Also Adolf Galland suggested to Goering to produce G.55 in Germany and use it as front-line fighter.
The Fiat G.56 used the DB 603 engine, an enlarged version of DB 601, already used by Messerschimdt BF-109 among others. German autority refused to allow Germans or Italians to produce it, even after test where Fiat G.56 wins against updated version of BF-109 and FW-190. One of the reason for this is that G.56 is more production time-consuming than German fighters.
I like it because it retains the well-known manoeuvrability of italian airplanes adding the engine perfomances and reliability of german engine and also the lethality of mauser cannon.
Regarding the fact that we are able to choose the best fighter, i agree with the person that said that in real we are not able to definitely choose the best one nor to has a source that can explain every aspect of perfomances for every airplane mentioned in this post. Anyway we are only amateur fan, not enginer at Skunk Works or military pilot that risk their life choosing an airplane or another :).
The F4U Corsair. The Thunderbolt of the Pacific. A beautiful plane and tough too
THe P-51!!!
P51. No doubt. Range: from somewhere in England to Berlin. Drop tanks. Speed: catch it if you can. It’s airframe is still used by prop racers today. Maneuverability: if you catch it, get inside it’s turn radius. If I’m not mistaken, most enemy planes from ‘43 and up weren’t as maneuverable. Fire power: maybe the .50 cal ain’t as bad as a 20mm, but six of them? With an underwing AtoG missile cluster, it could give you a bad day in a hurry! Bisibility: bubble canopy. Didn’t kill it’s looks either. Service length: used for ground support roles in Viet Nam. Some nations had them in their arsenal until the 1970s. (Bhutan? Mongolia?) Looks: not stately like the Hawkers, or sexy like the Spitfires. Not practical like the Yaks, or fierce like the Messerschmidts. Just good ol’, all American, original badass! Almost sci-fi. It looked like a plane from the future. Apropriate for an arrogant, young nation to field!
I love the Mustang as much as anyone, but Mongolian P-51’s(? Not likely, as late as the 1980’s there many thousands of USSR troops stationed in Mongolia. I can find no record of P-51’s being used during the US part of the Viet Nam War. Cavalier Aircraft marketed much up-graded versions into the early ‘70’s but none were used (at least not for combat) operationally by the USAF.
As to ground support, the water cooled engine was found to be very sensitive to ground fire, they were used in numbers in Korea simply because they were available.
How about some Axis planes- late model Focke-Wulf 190’s and Ta-152’s; Kawanishi N1k2 and Nakajima Ki-84’s- were evaluated and found as good or better than comparable Western Aircraft.
“The ultimate air superiorty is a tank on the runway”