Supermarine Spitfire
Focke-Wulf Fw 190
Lavochkin La-7
Messerschmitt Bf 109
Grumman F6F Hellcat
Macchi C.205 Veltro
Yakovlev Yak-9
Mitsubishi A6M Zero
Messerschmitt Me 262
North American P-51 Mustang
Hawker Tempest
Nakajima Ki-84

It really looks like every test pilot who flew the C.202 or C.205 was impressed by the way they flew, by their great maneuverability and just pure pleasure of flying.
I remember Eric Brown's opinions about the 205, but it's nonetheless nice to see the 205 there.
What a shame there isn't a flyable 202 or 205 in the world (apart from the Macchi owned one which flew in the 80s, which is stored inside their hangars by now ... :evil: )
It would be so cool to see one going up in the sky again.

Putting aside which airframe was superior to which, this gentleman Eric Brown had an remarkable and priviledged opportunities in his life to experience what we others barely can imagine. Simply wow!

What makes the 109 and Spit different and outstanding is those two were competitive throughout the entire war, not only during a certain period.

If you put in 'mission capability' and 'service record' the those of a P-51/P-47/Fw 190 would be zilch in 39 and 40...
++++++

Agreed, those two are the "iconic adversaries" of WW2, atop of eveyplane else for the simple reason that these two planes were there from start to end. The 109 even fought in the spanish civil war. Both found their way in one form or another into Israel, which must be considered the greatest irony of all.

So maybe not the best, but certainly the most epic.

I've found this nice article http://www.historynet.com/messerschmitt-me-109.htm . Just read the first few sentences

Few arguments are more futile–yet more perennially enticing–than the question of which was the greatest fighter of World War II. What criterion does one use to define 'great?' Performance? Versatility? Combat record? Don't ask veteran fighter pilots to settle the matter. They have their own opinions, best expressed by the late Soviet ace of aces Ivan Kozhedub's answer to the question: 'The La-7. I hope you understand why.' The Lavochkin La-7 was indisputably a great fighter. More important, it was his fighter.

That quote pretty much says it all, most aces from WWII would probably say the same thing....

Don Blakeslee thought so much of it he couldn't swap them quick enough for Mustangs

Absolutely Osprey, it's a very subjective list and naturally not everyone (myself included) will agree with Corky's opinion. He did mention 2 things which counted against the Mustang quite heavily, firstly the Mustang's Achilles heel...radiator damage during ground attacks and secondly stalling during landing...in particular as it's in the circuit and turning onto finals if an inexperienced pilot didn't keep an eye on the speed during the turn the aircraft would stall quite sharply and dive in.
If you use his criteria as a basis, the Mustang fails in 1 aspect (pilot compatibility) and struggles in part of another (air to ground troop support). So you can see why he has placed other aircraft ahead of the Mustang.

I'm surprised the Sea fire is on the list, and astonished the Zero isn't.