Let's try a non-controversial topic, shall we? (Heh heh.) I'll submit the P-51 for consideration.

BW and FS, if you come on here and say that the Rafale was the best fighter of WWII, I am going to fly over to France and personally beat you senseless with Obama's ego. (However, feel free to talk about the D.520.)

Counter-rotating propellers, found on twin- and multi-enginepropeller-drivenaircraft, spin in directions opposite one another. The propellers on both engines of most conventional twin-engined aircraft spin clockwise (as viewed from the pilot seat). Counter-rotating propellers generally spin clockwise on the left engine and counter-clockwise on the right. The advantage of such designs is that counter-rotating propellers balance the effects of torque and p-factor, eliminating the problem of the critical engine.

I do not know?
one more thing to add to the list of things you do not know

But My ideas are;  

1. The Me-109 shot down more enemy AC in combat that the next three types combined. That makes it the most effective,

as pointed out many time by many people as you are not comparing like with like then this is a false statement, as you could replace the Me 109 with just about any front line fighter of the period and got the same result 

but then it comes down how do you define "Best"? 

 

 

2. Pointability is the single most important factor in any planes ability to shoot other planes down.  

important yes but not overriding, to be a good fighter you need a range of abilities and being good in just one certainly doesn't make it the best

3. Counter, or Contra rotating props are the single largest positive factor in pointability!

Are you aware that the first attempts to fit contra rotating props to a single engines fighter resulted in aircraft that were far worse in roll and turn than the single prop version? whilst the reduction in torque steer was attractive as was the power conversion the loss of turn and roll meant that it was another 44 before they got a version working sufficiently well for combat use, the use of counter rotating props is limited to twins and twins when put against top front line single engine fighter always came out second best

4. CL guns are the single largest factor in determining the effectivness of a planes weapons during the guns combat time line! 

then why did a large proportion of expertern say that wing guns were preferable? If you have Mike Spick's books and had actually read them (particularly "The Ace Factor" and "German Fighter Aces") As well as numerous other reports that rate the spread of a wing gun to be preferable in a fighter unless the pilot was an expert shot

5. Given all of the above, I nominate the P-38 as the best fighter plane of WW-II!  

given the German pilots opinion of fighting the P38 I certainly wouldn't

 

if we look at WW2 in total and not just half of it then the best has to be either the Spit or the 109 was these were the only two to run the full course of the war, if we only look at part of the war then the best has to be one of those that entered service at the last moment the Late mark Spits, the Sea fury, the Bearcat the Hornet,  the do353, the FW190D

the Me262 or meteor, the p80 or the DH Vampire

 

in fact the best fighters of ww2 are those that entered service so late that they missed combat

The best fighters were the ones statistically that an average  pilot could easily master and use competitively against an enemy in air to air and air to ground combat combined.

 

Spitfire (despite some rather complex flight controls [engines], and mainly air to air work still capable of ground attack)

FW 190 

La 7

Hellcat

Zero

Tempest 

Machi 205

Reggiane 2005

Wildcat

 

Of that list, the most general purpose were the FW-190, Hellcat and Wildcat, La 7, and the Tempest.  

 

 

Note that planes that were difficult to fly and master such as the P-38 (twin engines), P-47 (turbo-charger),  P-51 (flight stability-fuel management) and the BF-109 (landings, takeoffs, and engine controls) are not on this list. 

 

If a pilot lived long enough or received enough training hours the omitted planes were formidable, but my criterion for success is an average pilot under wartime conditions with not enough time to properly learn. The plane must be easy to learn the flight basics, be easy to maintain, be easy for an imbecile to use and fly, be competitive against contemporaries.   

 

 

        Read Martin Caidin's Fork Tailed Devil: The P-38 to find a different point of view!

This idea is a non-starter as the Average pilot never shot down a single enemy aircraft! Not one! Statistics show that if you make a kill, you have to be in the top 50%!  Except for the late models with two or four 20s, the rest are WO Merrit!
But all of those planes were the ones that turned out to be the MOST effective!
This is the single most silly argument ever posted! The "Average" Pilot has no place on the list at all! In all Air Forces, in every Nation, NO-ONE in the bottom 50%tile ever shot down a single Enemy Air Craft! Never Ever! Typical stats show the top 1% of all fighter pilots account for about 40% of all kills! The next 4% get about 25% of kills, while the next 10% get about 15% and the next 35% get the last 20% spread around thinly!
 

1. The Me-109 shot down more enemy AC in combat that the next three types combined.

as pointed out many time by many people as you are not comparing like with like then this is a false statement, as you could replace the Me 109 with just about any front line fighter of the period and got the same result       
How do you say that? This is silly!    

2. Pointability is the single most important factor in any planes ability to shoot other planes down.   
important yes but not overriding, to be a good fighter you need a range of abilities Yes, this is true, BUT, there can only be one most important atribute! And pointability is it! Or maybe speed?

No speed and pointability may be important but NOT to the exclusion of other criteria, the faster combat fighter of ww2 was the me262 yet was it the best fighter, no it suffered in to many areas to be handed this monica

3. Counter, or Contra rotating props are the single largest positive factor in pointability!

Are you aware that the first attempts to fit contra rotating props to a single engines fighter resulted in aircraft that were far worse in roll and turn than the single prop version? No, I am not. Can you list the source for this?

As far as I know, the Spitfire was one of the first in to production, even if only a few dozen, and it seemed to go very well! 

whilst the reduction No, it is elimination, not reduction! as was the power conversion the loss of turn and roll against top front line single engine fighter always came out second best
Where on earth did you get the idea that turn and roll had anything to do with what kind of prop is on the plane?

 

 

  

then why did a large proportion of expertern say that wing guns were preferable? One more falshood! The vast majority of "Experten" preferred the engine mounted/CL guns! If you have Mike Spick's books and had actually read them (particularly "The Ace Factor" and "German Fighter Aces") I have, and what's more I have talked to some of those "Experten"

 

and the Fork Tailed Devil and Me-109 by Martin Caidin

that quotes Generalleutnant Adolf Galland that dispute your claims above!

 As well as numerous other reports that rate the spread of a wing gun to be preferable in a fighter unless the pilot was an expert shot
-This last is pure BS! No-one of note ever claimed that wing guns were better than CL guns. In fact, most in the RAF thought that the Hurricane was the better gun platform when comp'd to the Spitfire!

5. Given all of the above, I nominate the P-38 as the best fighter plane of WW-II!  

given the German pilots opinion of fighting the P38 I certainly wouldn't

Read Martin Caidin's Fork Tailed Devil: The P-38 to find a different point of view!
I have and its "woohoo us is best and the rest is rubbish" US rewriting of history at its worst, have you read professional reviews of this work?

if we look at WW2 in total and not just half of it then the best has to be either the Spit or the 109, Only if you count September 1939 as the start of the War. But many historians count either the Spanish Civil war, Sino Japanese or Russian Japanese conflicts as the start of the Second World War!

 

But if that is your criteria, then only the Me-109 can be considered! As to the rest, late mark Spits accounted for only a tiny bit of the total Spit score

 

 So mid-war, the P-38/47/51s EACH scored more planes down than the Fw-190D and all the late model Spits combined!

 
Lets see, only the Me-262 ever shot down a single enemy aircraft1 That makes the rest non-starters, don't you think?

no, it means you need to define your question better
But then the best of the Bunch would have to be the TA-152H?

The best fighters were the ones statistically that an average  pilot could easily master and use competitively against an enemy in air to air and air to ground combat combined.

This idea is a non-starter as the Average pilot never shot down a single enemy aircraft! Not one! Statistics show that if you make a kill, you have to be in the top 50%!

The point is that you don't know who is the top 50% or 1% until they fly. But of course this escapes the perfect ideal Shooter. Also the assertion that the bottom 50% do not score kills is so like the LIES that this man writes. Statistically the effectiveness in combat is based on training hours, tactics, attitude, and opportunity. Graphed as a function it is a bell curve. In other words, you have never flown, Shooter. Besides, I do NOT restrict to mere dogfighting the criteria which is the least work an average pilot did. More often he bombed and strafed.

Spitfire (despite some rather complex flight controls [engines], and mainly air to air work still capable of ground attack)

Except for the late models with two or four 20s, the rest are WO Merrit!

You do know that for most of the war the Spitfires carried 20 mm cannon?

Note that planes that were difficult to fly and master such as the P-38 (twin engines), P-47 (turbo-charger),  P-51 (flight stability-fuel management) and the BF-109 (landings, takeoffs, and engine controls) are not on this list. 

But all of those planes were the ones that turned out to be the MOST effective!

Not so. The P-40 Tomahawk contributed far more overall to the war tactically than the P-38. But I did not list it as it was an inferior plane to the ones I listed as effective by MY criteria.

If a pilot lived long enough or received enough training hours the omitted planes were formidable, but my criterion for success is an average pilot under wartime conditions with not enough time to properly learn. The plane must be easy to learn the flight basics, be easy to maintain, be easy for an imbecile to use and fly, be competitive against contemporaries.  

This is the single most silly argument ever posted! The "Average" Pilot has no place on the list at all! In all Air Forces, in every Nation, NO-ONE in the bottom 50%tile ever shot down a single Enemy Air Craft! Never Ever! Typical stats show the top 1% of all fighter pilots account for about 40% of all kills! The next 4% get about 25% of kills, while the next 10% get about 15% and the next 35% get the last 20% spread around thinly!

Again a LIE. Many mediocre pilots have one or two ACE kills to their credits from opportunity attacks. These same mediocre pilots did most of the air to ground work which most WW II fighter pilots DID most of the time.

So, I counter your "Average" pilots with; I would rather have the top 1% of shooter pilots than the entire bottom 50% of the average! In fact, I would rather have the top 5% than the MIDDLE 50%, who at least got to win some fights!

And that would prove you do not know how Human beings and actual war works.

You write as a child understands, not a an adult. Reality, where the rest of us live, tells us you must deal with consistent data results from what every air force has learned about Human beings and air combat.

Numbers MATTER. The more planes you have, the more training time you have, the better average pilots you have, the sooner you kill all the enemy aces and win control of the air and can bomb the ground under it, than a smaller force of elite pilots can defend.

It was the Germans who fully-embraced (and glorified) the concept of the 'ace' as a distinct entity - this fed through to incorrect allocation of pilots and training priorities. As an example they didn't (until it was too late) use the most-skilled pilots where they would have been most useful (training) or even identify fighter training as a top-priority so as wartime attrition reduced their best fighter pilots those who came to replace them were not nearly as capable - this explains why the Luftwaffe suffered increasingly heavy losses in the air even as their technology improved and (arguably) outpaced opposing platforms - it was a lack of skilled pilots which came down to its initial failure to prioritise, and an unrealistic appraisal of the duration and scope of the conflict. 

 

So when you take the statement:

 

So, I counter your "Average" pilots with; I would rather have the top 1% of shooter pilots than the entire bottom 50% of the average! In fact, I would rather have the top 5% than the MIDDLE 50%, who at least got to win some fights!

 

That is more or less what the Luftwaffe did - they assumed their air war would be a short-duration event where their top-pilots would decisively overwhelm the enemy -  "First we've got to beat Russia, then we can start training!". So they threw their best into battle repeatedly until they were KIA/MIA/POW status.

 

Post to follow..

 

R 

"The attrition of pilots and skilled aircrews was perhaps the most important factor in the destruction of the Luftwaffe as an effective fighting force. The rise in the attrition rate for pilots resulted in a steady reduction in the skills and experience of those flying German aircraft. While the losses among the fighter pilots may have been somewhat heavier than for other categories, they undoubtedly reflected what was happening throughout the force structure. The increasing attrition of pilots forced the Germans to curtail training programs to fill empty combat cockpits. As a result, new pilots with less skill than their predecessors were lost at a faster rate. The increasing losses, in turn, forced the training establishments to produce pilots even more rapidly. Once they had begun this vicious cycle, the Germans found no escape. One of the surest indicators of the declining skill of German pilots after the 1940 air battles was the rising level of noncombat losses. By the first half of 1943, they had reached the point where the fighter force suffered as many losses due to noncombat causes as it did to the efforts of its opponents. Thereafter, the percentage of noncombat losses began to drop. The probable cause of this was due less to an awakening on the part of the Luftwaffe to the need for better flying safety than to the probability that Allied flyers, in their overwhelming numbers, were shooting down German pilots before they could crash their aircraft.

 

R