Hi Kraftwerk. This argument will still be going on long after I've departed this mortal coil. Everyone has their favourites but I think the best all-round land-based fighter of WWII would be the P-51D Mustang. I believe the Hellcat had the best kill ratio of any fighter in WWII, 50% better than the Corsair. Remarkable when you consider that much of this was over the ocean. Legendary RN test pilot Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown probably still holds the world record for the number of different types flown & evaluated, 487 including captured German & Italian aircraft. He was the only Allied pilot to fly the Me 163 & also carried out the first jet landing on an aircraft carrier. I can't find the quote but I heard his favourite WWII fighter was the little Grumman Wildcat.

I am shocked that nobody has mentioned the Spitfire-since thats seems to be the overwelming favorite on this board.

My personal favorite of the war is either the P-51D or the P-38, but I would image that the P-47 was probably superior to both in many ways. 

But again, this is all a personal opinion thing-so I guess there is no right answer.   

I got hooked into plastic modeling of WW2 acft when I read "The Hurricane Story" (until @9 yrs old, I primarily read midieval stories) and also took particular interest in their characteristics and whatever facts I could glean from WW2 veterans who knew anything about them.
As each of these responses indicates, everyone has their own opinion, including the veterans that flew them. Obviously, each acft is better for certain operations than for others. It may be neat to think about a dogfight between a B-17 and a Heinkel 111 but in reality it would probably be quite boring to an observer. My point is that the P-38 and, especially, the P-47 hit the scene in large numbers sooner than the P-51, were fast for their time but not as manouverable in a dogfight as were many contemporaries -- if they got their guns on you, however -- yet this was true for most! The P-47, in particular, was very durable and could carry a substantial payload; although the P-51 (or even a Spitfire) could definately do the job, I'd agree with many that the P-47 was the better choice for a ground attack -- but I'd certainly vie for the P-51, Spitfire or even a Hurricane (a bit slower but very manueverable) for a tight-in dogfight.
Then you have the fact that many designs would have been more proficient had a better power plant -- or other factors -- been applied to them (the first P-51s did not perform so well with the Allison engine). For some, looks seem more important than performance: good and bad are not necessarily stand alone adjectives when both looks and performance are considered.
My overall opinion is that, when it comes to flight, any operable plane is much better than flapping your arms real fast at 3000 feet without one .

The Spitfire doesn't come into it. This was the question.
Quote:

I think my answer would be to consider WHICH WERE GOOD ENOUGH TO CARRY OVER TO THE KOREAN CONFLICT... that brings in the p-(nowF)51, AND the Navy original piston CORSAIR.
BTW the '51 actually killed a few MIGS.
papa-metro USAF 1953-57

It's hard to say.  All of these were superior:

Early war:
BF-109 - manuverable but with limited range
Mitsubishi Zero - manuverability, but no armor or ss tanks
Supermarine Spitfire - manuverability, higher celing than BF109
F4 Wildcat - limited manuverability but good firepower and rugged

Late war:
P39 Thunderbolt - can outdive a rock, and rugged and firepower
FW-190 - manuverability
ME-262 - can you say, speed?
P51 Mustang - fast, manuverable, long range
F4U1 Corsair - rugged, firepower, speed
F6F Hellcat - rugged, firepower, speed

Honerable mention
Mosquito - not a fighter, but what a FAST!!! attack plane

The Soviet Union made good use of the P-39 Airacobra; a comparitively small plane, it was a bit underpowered but still served in ground attack.