Just how good was the Mitsubishi F1M 'Pete' (1 Viewer)

[Fatboy Coxy]

Hi all, I have been looking at the Mitsubishi F1M Pete, and just how versatile it was. The only real question mark against it for me is its survivability when encountering enemy fighter aircraft. Now traditionally, the Japanese went for very manoeuvrable fighter aircraft, able to out turn anything the allies had. Looking at this aircraft, with a view to its fighter capabilities, and despite its huge float, could it turn inside a Hurricane or F4F Wildcat in a dogfight?

 

[special ed]

Jeffery DeBlanc (MOH) attacked two Petes and after shooting one down, the rear gunner on the second got Jeff as he attacked it.
At the time Jeff had ten hours on his F4F.

 

[ThomasP]

According to Wiki the F1M2 Vmax was ~230 mph. The difference of 70-100 mph re the Vmax of the Hurricane (315-330 mph) and Martlet/Wildcat (300-330 mph) would allow the Allied airframes to control the fight despite the maneuverability of the F1M.

If the F1M can keep the fights at low level it would limit the maneuver options of the Allied aircraft somewhat, and maybe allow the rear gunner to get reasonable shots at the attacking aircraft.

 

[Barrett]

Wildcats snacked on Petes. The diners I knew best in that regard were Joe Foss, Jeff DeBlanc, and Bill Leonard.

 

[Shortround6]

Hi all, I have been looking at the Mitsubishi F1M Pete, and just how versatile it was.

The question/s is how good was it at many of these jobs.

From Wiki
"The F1M was originally built as a catapult-launched reconnaissance float plane, specializing in gunnery spotting. The "Pete" took on a number of local roles including convoy escort, bomber, anti-submarine, maritime patrol, rescue, transport, and anti-shipping strike; for example sinking Motor Torpedo Boat PT-34 on 9 April 1942. The type was also used as an area-defense fighter and engaged in aerial combat in the Aleutians, the Solomons and several other theaters. In the New Guinea front, it was often used in aerial combat with the Allied bombers and Allied fighters."

This sounds very impressive but look at some the jobs, like transport. One passenger? 100kg of cargo?

Now look at the Ryan ST.

Ex Dutch aircraft in Australia. around 108 delivered to the DEI and some of them were on floats.
Mainly trainers but possible transport? one passenger? fill the front cockpit with "stuff". At least they used a lot less fuel per transport mission
Ryans were fitted with one gun for training (I think out on the wing) and in South American service who knows for combat (strafing "rebels")
They were used for recon/patrol in the DEI campaign. How good they were at it is certainly subject to question.
Using a plane because it was the only thing available maybe more reflection on how desperate some situations were rather than how good or versatile a plane was.

Look at the Australian Wirraway trainer.

A fabric fuselaged Texan
One claimed a Ki-43. They were used for "the type performed aerial reconnaissance, photography, artillery spotting, communication, supply drops, dive-bombing, ground attack and propaganda drops" over New Guinea. Of note is the dive bombing. The standard plane could carry up to three 100lb bombs. A handful had dive brakes added and 135 were built with dive brakes and could lift two 500lbs and two 250lbs bombs (may have required leaving the rear seater on the ground and restricting the fuel load?). Supply of Lend Lease aircraft may have impacted their operational use?

Going back to the phrase "used as" they tried to use 8 Wirraway's to intercept around 100 Japanese bombers and fighters at Rabaul in Jan 1942. Only two survived without being shot down or heavily damaged. Granted those were impossible odds but "used as" does not mean successful.

 

[GrauGeist]

The Aichi M6A a would have been a handful for Allied fighters if it had been better armed.

 

[Fatboy Coxy]

Wildcats snacked on Petes. The diners I knew best in that regard were Joe Foss, Jeff DeBlanc, and Bill Leonard.

Hi Barrett, I've looked up the three pilots you mentioned, and saying they snacked on them is a bit of a stretch for me. I'll say at this point I'm quite ignorant of US aces and their exploits, so I can only go on the little I can read on the internet. Foss clearly was a class above the average flyer, shooting down 23 planes in just a 34 day period. However Wiki only has him shooting down two 'Petes' both on November 7, the rear gunner of the second one shooting him down as well, which is something ThomasP eluded to in the previous post. However, Japanese records only show the loss of one 'Pete' that day. William Leonard led a four plane group attacking Tulagi Harbour in the Solomon Islands on May 4, the day after the Japanese landed there with the intent of establishing a seaplane base, see William Leonard - Recipient -. This suggests they may have been destroyed while strafing. DeBlanc clearly shoot down two, January 31 1943, who were attacking a flight of SBD Dive Bombers he was escorting, and again the fire from the rear gunner was mentioned.

My expectation is that the Hurricane/F4F era fighter should be well capable of defeating the 'Pete' in a dogfight, but flown by a pilot who knows his plane well, the 'Pete' can make it difficult for them. And of course in discussing the quality of aircraft we always have to factor in the steady decline of the quality of the Japanese Pilot against the increasing competence of the Allied Pilot as 1942 moves into 1943. A second factor to weigh against plane capability is the way the sometimes senseless way the Japanese used their aircraft in operations.

 

[Fatboy Coxy]

The question/s is how good was it at many of these jobs.

From Wiki
"The F1M was originally built as a catapult-launched reconnaissance float plane, specializing in gunnery spotting. The "Pete" took on a number of local roles including convoy escort, bomber, anti-submarine, maritime patrol, rescue, transport, and anti-shipping strike; for example sinking Motor Torpedo Boat PT-34 on 9 April 1942. The type was also used as an area-defense fighter and engaged in aerial combat in the Aleutians, the Solomons and several other theaters. In the New Guinea front, it was often used in aerial combat with the Allied bombers and Allied fighters."

This sounds very impressive but look at some the jobs, like transport. One passenger? 100kg of cargo?

Hi Shortround6, yes claiming it as a transport is quite a stretch, unless we have a lost in translation thing from a Japanese document. Obviously working in the Pacific theatre, with a lot of small islands, the need for commanders to move about is greatly facilitated by the seaplane, and perhaps it is meant to suggest that. However, the 'Pete' would be no better than the Curtis Seagull, or Vought Kingfisher in that role, it just underlines the versatility of those aircraft in that environment.

 

[taly01]

Looking at this aircraft, with a view to its fighter capabilities, and despite its huge float, could it turn inside a Hurricane or F4F Wildcat in a dogfight?

Turn rate/radius is greatly dependent on aircraft speeds and G force limits, there is no "magic" way to make a plane turn in 100m radius at 700kph as the G forces would squash the pilot or break the plane. What I'm saying its no surprise if a F1M "Pete" biplane flying at 200mph could turn inside a Wildcat going at 300mph.

You should read "The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign" it is rigorously researched for both sides true losses, and covers actual combat encounters you are interested in to an amazing level, often plane vs plane. The F1M was used in attacks vs Henderson field in 1942 (as was the A6M2-N floatplane) and they both suffered heavy one sided losses against Wildcats.

 

[Fatboy Coxy]

Hi Taly01, thank you for this, I'm not trying to promote the 'Pete' as a fantastic plane, but determine what chances of survival it had when attacked by an allied fighter.

"The First Team and the Guadalcanal Campaign" does look like a book I would very much enjoy, as do all the rest of Lundstrom's books, unfortunalty my scope of interest is larger than my pocket. But I do value the debates that can be had, because they often turn up something I hadn't considered.

 

[taly01]

One "Pete" did manage to shoot down a Wildcat, a case of been in the right place at the right time. Even the A6M2-N floatplane left the Solomons by March 1943 as it was outclassed in combat, and there were plenty of new land bases on Bougainville for land based Zeros. The night time patrol duty was better carried out by F1M and E13 as they were plenty fast enough to chase subs and PT boats and had the advantage of an observer to help in spotting.

The convoy escort duty and night time hunting by Japanese floatplanes in Solomons is interesting from a flying standpoint.

 

[Fatboy Coxy]

One though did strike me as a negative about the "Pete", was, like all floatplanes, the vulnerability of the float. While you might not shoot the plane down, as it flies into a defensive turn, several bullet holes in the float is going to cause a lot of problems later, potentially sinking her. With that in mind, does anyone know if the floats were sub divided internally to help retain buoyancy?

 

[cammerjeff]

Yes they were usually subdivided for buoyancy and fuel storage

 

[beers]

but determine what chances of survival it had when attacked by an allied fighter

It depends on a lot of things. Despite the float, it's really not that heavy and being a (slow) biplane it definitely had a tiny turn radius.

I'm reminded of a story that I heard one time about an Arado 196 that was engaged by some ten Spitfires. The defensive gunner was hit early in the fight, but by using its ability to turn very tightly even at very low speeds, it was able to evade all of them for far longer than it maybe should have. Of course eventually they shot it down (or forced it to land? I forget exactly), but it's still impressive that it gave its attackers some trouble even when outnumbered so heavily.

It wouldn't be much different with the F1M, which is a little faster and much lighter than the 196. Though for either of them, their only real hope at actually surviving the encounter is evading until their enemy has run out of ammo or fuel. Even with the 196's much superior armament for later models, it would have been a real challenge to use it in such a fight.

 

[andrewgeorge]

Hi all, I have been looking at the Mitsubishi F1M Pete, and just how versatile it was. The only real question mark against it for me is its survivability when encountering enemy fighter aircraft. Now traditionally, the Japanese went for very manoeuvrable fighter aircraft, able to out turn anything the allies had. Looking at this aircraft, with a view to its fighter capabilities, and despite its huge float, could it turn inside a Hurricane or F4F Wildcat in a dogfight?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by survivability but I'll give it a stab.

If you're asking if it would be a fair fight between an F1M crew and a Hurricane or F4F pilot, the answer is no. Hurricane and F4F were almost 100 kts faster in level flight, and even faster than that in a dive. F1M was not underpowered, and had a comparable power-to-weight ratio as the F4F and Hurricane, but it was a lighter and MUCH draggier aircraft, so it simply wouldn't have been able to keep up except in certain circumstances.

As for survivability, F1M was armed with a couple rifle caliber machine guns shooting through the prop and a rear gunner with another light machine gun. It was also pretty much unarmored as far as I can tell. F4F and Hurricane were armed with a larger number of heavier-caliber MGs, and by the time a pilot in either one would have been tussling with a "Pete" they'd have adequate pilot armor. So not promising for the floatplane crew.

Would the F1M crew have a chance to escape the encounter or even gain an advantage on a fighter like a Hurricane or F4F? Of course, I think. As a biplane it had much lower wing loading than either the F4F or Hurricane, and at slow airspeeds would have been a relatively agile plane, even with the big honking float sticking out below. A skilled Pete pilot might have been able to deny the allied fighter pilot a clear shot long enough to escape, or even turn the tables if the fight devolved to the point where the fighter bled off its energy advantage. Think of a much more dramatic version of the way the same hurricane pilot might have neutralized and gained the offensive against a faster 109. Regardless of whether you'd have had some options, getting jumped by an allied fighter in an F1M would be a lousy situation to find yourself in.

 

[MikeMeech]

It depends on a lot of things. Despite the float, it's really not that heavy and being a (slow) biplane it definitely had a tiny turn radius.

I'm reminded of a story that I heard one time about an Arado 196 that was engaged by some ten Spitfires. The defensive gunner was hit early in the fight, but by using its ability to turn very tightly even at very low speeds, it was able to evade all of them for far longer than it maybe should have. Of course eventually they shot it down (or forced it to land? I forget exactly), but it's still impressive that it gave its attackers some trouble even when outnumbered so heavily.

Hi
Do you know the source for this story? When and where would be useful, I have seen info on its use to harass Coastal Command aircraft and the Bismarck's Arado attempt to drive off the shadowing CC Catalina but not the fight with ten Spitfires?

Mike

 

[special ed]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by survivability but I'll give it a stab.

If you're asking if it would be a fair fight between an F1M crew and a Hurricane or F4F pilot, the answer is no. Hurricane and F4F were almost 100 kts faster in level flight, and even faster than that in a dive. F1M was not underpowered, and had a comparable power-to-weight ratio as the F4F and Hurricane, but it was a lighter and MUCH draggier aircraft, so it simply wouldn't have been able to keep up except in certain circumstances.

As for survivability, F1M was armed with a couple rifle caliber machine guns shooting through the prop and a rear gunner with another light machine gun. It was also pretty much unarmored as far as I can tell. F4F and Hurricane were armed with a larger number of heavier-caliber MGs, and by the time a pilot in either one would have been tussling with a "Pete" they'd have adequate pilot armor. So not promising for the floatplane crew.

Would the F1M crew have a chance to escape the encounter or even gain an advantage on a fighter like a Hurricane or F4F? Of course, I think. As a biplane it had much lower wing loading than either the F4F or Hurricane, and at slow airspeeds would have been a relatively agile plane, even with the big honking float sticking out below. A skilled Pete pilot might have been able to deny the allied fighter pilot a clear shot long enough to escape, or even turn the tables if the fight devolved to the point where the fighter bled off its energy advantage. Think of a much more dramatic version of the way the same hurricane pilot might have neutralized and gained the offensive against a faster 109. Regardless of whether you'd have had some options, getting jumped by an allied fighter in an F1M would be a lousy situation to find yourself in.

Medal of Honor recipient Jeff DeBlanc, USMC, flying from Guadalcanal was shot down by a Pete, most likely an F1M2. His story is on DVD Dogfights season one, as well as in a couple of books on Guadalcanal. As an aside, I saw an original painting of the incident showing one Pete going down burning and Jeff's F4F being shot up by the second Pete gunner in DeBlanc's attempt to down it. At that time, about 1955, I was coming home from my paper route and saw the painting being loaded on a truck with a few pieces of furniture. Years later I realized they were probably being disposed of and have wondered ever since what happened to the picture.

 

[GrauGeist]

Hi
Do you know the source for this story? When and where would be useful, I have seen info on its use to harass Coastal Command aircraft and the Bismarck's Arado attempt to drive off the shadowing CC Catalina but not the fight with ten Spitfires?

Mike

During the Battle of Britain:

During the Battle of Britain, a lone German Arado Ar 196 reconnaissance seaplane fought against six RAF Spitfires. And shot one down. - The Aviation Geek Club

 

[MikeMeech]

During the Battle of Britain:

During the Battle of Britain, a lone German Arado Ar 196 reconnaissance seaplane fought against six RAF Spitfires. And shot one down. - The Aviation Geek Club

Hi
Thanks for that. Sorry for the delay I have been away from the internet for a little while, attending a conference (aviation related of course).

Mike

 

[beers]

During the Battle of Britain, a lone German Arado Ar 196 reconnaissance seaplane fought against six RAF Spitfires. And shot one down. - The Aviation Geek Club

Wow, I didn't know he actually managed to shoot one down. It has been ages since I had heard that story.