# Piaggio P-108 vs. Boeing B-17 -- Heavy Bomber Comparison



## DAVIDICUS (Feb 26, 2005)

Let me start off by saying that while like many, I know a fair amount about the B-17, I know very little about the P-108. 

How do these two aircraft compare against each other as heavy bombers?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

I know lots about the P.108 however, it _is_ my favourite plane after all 

And I say the P.108 is better 8)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

any arguements to back yourself up??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

More advanced, could carry a bigger payload further, faster, just as well armed


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

what whas the P.108's dammage tollerance like?? what was it's construction?? how reliable was she?? did she suffer any major problems?? what was her MTOW?? what were her engines rated at???


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

I dont know what its damage tolerance or construction was like, its bloody hard finding information on it you know...

Engines? 4 x 1350hp Piaggio radial engines..

As far as I know it was reliable...

The only major problem was that the controls were a little difficult to get to grips with...

And what the hell is MTOW?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

maximum take off weight..........

and i think you need to know how damage tollerent it is before you can make a claim like you are..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Maximum take-off weight was 29,885Kg, which I think is about 70,000lbs...

Dude damage tolerance is going to be *extremely* hard to find, with only 163 being made it didnt see a lot of service...

It was also a night bomber in case you wanted to know...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 26, 2005)

ah well this changes things...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 26, 2005)

Im not sure that it was intended as a night bomber, but it was used, more often than not, at night.


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Feb 26, 2005)

cheddar cheese,

Do you have some stats indicating that the P-108 was more advanced, could carry a bigger payload further, was faster and just as well armed? I always thought the B-17 was better armed.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 26, 2005)

from the net, http://www.comandosupremo.com/P108.html (as a starting point)

The Piaggio P.108 B was the only heavy four-engine bomber to see service with the Regia Aeronautica during World War Two. Too few were built to play a significant role in the war, only 163 P.108 Bs having been built. The P.108 B was an all-metal cantilever low-wing monoplane with an retractable under-carriage, driven by four 1,350 hp Piaggio P.XII radial engines. The first prototype was finished in 10/39 and had a very advanced defensive armament for its day of two 7.7 mm machine waist guns, a 12.7 mm machine gun in the lower turret and a similar weapon in the nose turret, and two remotely-controlled twin gun turrets in outer engine nacelles. The first Allied bomber with a similar armament was the Boeing B 29, developed four years later. The bomb load of the Piaggio comprised of 7,700 lbs, all carried internally in the bomb bay.

The only unit of the Regia Aeronautica ever to fly the P.108 B was the 274th Long-Range Bombardment Group. This unit was formed in 5/41 around the first machines that came off the assembly lines. The training of the crews lasted far longer than anticipated and in 6/42 the 274th became operational. The most spectacular raids with the P. 108 B were flown in 10/42 when several night attacks against Gibraltar were undertaken from Sardinia. Several versions were derived from the P. 108 B: such as the P.108A, which had a 102 mm anti-shipping gun in the nose; the P.108C airliner and the P.108T transport. The latter two versions had a larger diameter fuselage for transporting passengers or freight. They were hardly used by the Regia Aeronautica, the main user being the German Luftwaffe. In 9/43, after the Italian armistice, the Luftwaffe had captured all fifteen P.108 Cs and P.108 Ts built. They were used at the Russian front, as part of Luftflotte 2, where they performed sterling duties, among others during the evacuation of the Crimea in 1944.

Article by JDG 

Model Piaggio P 108
Horsepower 1350 x 4
Engine Piaggio P.IIX RC 35
Max Speed 420 km at 3,900 m
Range 3,520 Km
Max Elevation 8,050 m
Wingspan 32 m
Height 7.70m
Weight 17,320 Kg
Max Weight 29,885 Kg
Length 22.92m
Crew 6
Payload 3,500 Kg
Armament 6 x 12,7 mm + 1 x 12,7 mm + 2 x 7.7 mm


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Feb 27, 2005)

Below is information from Boeing's website regarding the B-17G:

Span: 103 feet 9 inches (B-17G)
Length: 74 feet 9 inches (B-17G)
Gross weight: 65,000 pounds (B-17G)
Top speed: 287 mph (B-17G)
Cruising speed: 150 mph (B-17G)
Range (max.): 3,750 miles (B-17G)
Ceiling: 35,600 feet (B-17G)
Power: Four 1,200-horsepower Wright R-1820-97 engines (B-17G)
Accommodation:	2 pilots, bombardier, radio-operator, 5 gunners (B-17G)
Armament: 11 to 13 machine guns, 9,600-pound bomb load (B-17G)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 27, 2005)

The B-17G never usually carried that amount...usually about 5-6000lbs...


----------



## DAVIDICUS (Feb 27, 2005)

I thought they ordinarily carried more. At any rate, I think the maximum bomb payload was higher than the P-108. I understand that the B-17 could carry 17,000lb. payloads for short distances. Also, the armament appears to have been much heavier.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

Yes, it could carry a heavier load, but the P.108 could carry a heavier load further. It could also carry 3 torpedos.

It may have heavier armament, but It is stil fairly primative. If you look at the P.108, you will notice it has remote gun turrets, rather like that of the B-29 - and we're talking 5 years earlier and by a country with not nearly as many resources.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)

how do resorces count towards a turret design?? and do you know they worked?? they could have been useless, not much ammo and prone to damage..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

Ive not seen any evidence saying so...I dont know the ammo count though, like I say, information is extremely hard to find...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)

i appreciate that but you need info like that before you can make claims like you are.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

A wile back I did see a site that said that the only real problem was that the controls were a little difficult to get to grips with...If any of the things you mentioned were a problem then I think they would also have been listed...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)

so you're saying the plane's only problem was the controlls were a little hard to get used too?? perhaps the site that said that also couldn't find out much bout the plane.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

It was an Italian site...It had quite a detailed overview of the plane compared to other sites and also many pictures of each model...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)

was she roomy inside then??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

I think so...only needed a crew of 7 8) 

It was also a multi role bomber


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 28, 2005)

oh dear lord they made a version with a huge gun in it, a torp bomber version of it and a transport version, and about one of each, a true multi role aircraft i think you'll agree lads............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

Nope, it was...

Day Bomber (P.108B)
Night Bomber (P.108B)
Torpedo Bomber (P.108B)
Anti-Shipping (P.108A)
Civil Airliner (P.108C)
Military Transport (P.108T)
Ground Attack (P.108A)

They built 1 P.108A, and 12 P.108T's. I dont know the numbers for the others, But I'm thinking about 125-130 P.108B's though.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Feb 28, 2005)

What about the controls made it hard to get used to?

Also do you have any pictures of the P.108A?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

I dont know why, just poor layout I guess...

Yeah I only have the 2 pictures of it...Both in Luftwaffe marking im afraid...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 28, 2005)

Actually ignore that last one, I just realised thats the T, not the A...


----------



## KC13 (Jan 23, 2006)

163 is an often quoted production total for the P.108B, but in fact probably no more than 36 were produced. 1 prototype and 11 series 1, then 12 series 2 and 12 series 3. Squadron records never list more than 7 as being serviceable so that total rings true. Records also list only 36 MM numbers as being allocated for the B. For more info, track down a copy of Giancarlo Garello's Il Piaggio P.108. Excellent monograph.

Edit: I'll drag out my copy and post more info later, but the conclusion was that the 108B was equivalent to a B-17C.


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 24, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> It may have heavier armament, but It is stil fairly primative. If you look at the P.108, you will notice it has remote gun turrets, rather like that of the B-29 - and we're talking 5 years earlier and by a country with not nearly as many resources.



There was some discussion about this before on the B-29 yahoo group. The P.108 did have the remote turrets but they werent like the B-29's in that they provided no lead, parallax, altitude and other ballistics corrections. Still its a pretty cool airplane and I wish there was more info about it plus more pictures. I have an old book at home with a nice drawing of a P.108 in colors resembling the desert camo you find on other Italian aircraft.

I also really wish there was more info on the version with the cannon in the nose!!

A yahoo picture search will get you about 4 pages of decent pictures.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=Piaggio+P-108&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt


----------



## JCS (Jan 24, 2006)

Heres another shot of the Artigliere for whoever it was that asked about it....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 25, 2006)

Nice drawings there Dave! 8)


----------



## DaveB.inVa (Jan 25, 2006)

Correct me if Im wrong... but looking from these pictures and from other pictures on the internet it seems that the P.108 has handed props!!


----------



## syscom3 (Jan 25, 2006)

The B29 remote conrol turrets were fundamentally different from that of the Italian bomber. The turrets of the B29 were controlled by a central fire control station with target data entered into a ballistics computer that then controlled the guns.

The P108 did not have this ballistics computer nor the centralized fire control station.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 26, 2006)

Nope, it had wing turrets controlled by two observers in dorsal observation turrets...Although not on the level of the B-29, it is a step towards it and fairly advanced and imaginative for the era.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2006)

did it really offer any advantages over just a normal dorsal and ventral turret though? it did on the B-29 because they were using very reliable equiptment, one gunner could, if nessisary control all turrets and it solved the problem of having to pressurise individual turrets, none of which are really advantages it offered the P.108..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 28, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> Nope, it had wing turrets controlled by two observers in dorsal observation turrets...Although not on the level of the B-29, it is a step towards it and fairly advanced and imaginative for the era.



Agreed


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 28, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> did it really offer any advantages over just a normal dorsal and ventral turret though? it did on the B-29 because they were using very reliable equiptment, one gunner could, if nessisary control all turrets and it solved the problem of having to pressurise individual turrets, none of which are really advantages it offered the P.108..........



I think they were just controlled by simple mechanical links - and it had a ventral gun too for good measure.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 29, 2006)

well then i fail to see the advantages they offer when it's easier to put in manned turrets, which are more accurate given you're sitting behind the guns (don't worry sys i know the B-29's were accurate, they had computers the P.108 didn't) and if you get a jam or problem with the ammo feed there's a chance you can do something about it............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 29, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> (don't worry sys i know the B-29's were accurate, they had computers the P.108 didn't)



Thankyou for emphasising that! If you had not we would have gone into a whole 2 more months of argueing why the B-29 was better than the Lancaster or P.108, even though everyone knows the B-29 was the best bomber of wW2.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2006)

P.108's did have some kind of sighting system, im sure of it - and if Automated turrets arent as effective as manned turrets then why did they put them on the B-29? Sure, they had computers, more technology and a few more years worth of advances, but from what your saying manned turrets would be better. Look at the other side though, for the the cost of one turret, you have 2 turrets on the wings which should give more field of fire. Kind of like waist gunners if you think about it. Also it means less crew lost when a plane goes down.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> P.108's did have some kind of sighting system, im sure of it - and if Automated turrets arent as effective as manned turrets then why did they put them on the B-29? Sure, they had computers, more technology and a few more years worth of advances, but from what your saying manned turrets would be better. Look at the other side though, for the the cost of one turret, you have 2 turrets on the wings which should give more field of fire. Kind of like waist gunners if you think about it. Also it means less crew lost when a plane goes down.


Manned turrets would of been better for that time period. The concept was there, I don't think the engineers who designed the system had the technology to back it up...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 29, 2006)

Agreed - lots of new, supposedly better technology always seems to be a flop when it first arrives on the scene. It takes time and development for it to be recognised as a success. 

Piaggio designers had the right idea but lacked the technology to make it work effectively. Gotta applaud em for trying though.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 29, 2006)

YEP!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 29, 2006)

That you do.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Jan 31, 2006)

it would be freaky sitting in a cramped little manned turret behind the roaring engine!
and like u cant get out 'till after landing


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 1, 2006)

You dont sit in those turrets. They're controlled by men in the observation posts on the dorsal part of the fuselage.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 2, 2006)

i know that... i was just trying to interpret how it would be if they were manned turrets


----------



## P38 Pilot (Feb 2, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> You dont sit in those turrets. They're controlled by men in the observation posts on the dorsal part of the fuselage.



Seems like shooting down allied aircraft was a challenge for the gunners in the P.108. I think just having a airman just swivle the gun around seemed much easier.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2006)

yeah i don't really see the advantages they offer over man operated turrets in the fusilage, not without proper sighting computers anyway.........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 4, 2006)

Without some kind of computer assistance it would be very difficult. It was a decent idea just not quite there yet.


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 4, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Without some kind of computer assistance it would be very difficult. It was a decent idea just not quite there yet.


Agreed, given more time maybe then it would have been perfected but that is something the Italians ran out of...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 5, 2006)

Speaking of the Italians, Mussolinis last son died the other day. I know its off topic, but what you said made me think of that for somereason.


----------



## Dogwalker (Feb 5, 2006)

The crashed P.108 of capt. Bruno Mussolini, 7 aug 1941.






DogW


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 8, 2006)

survived it quite well really..........


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 8, 2006)

The aircraft did but not the occupants all but the co-pilot died.

[quote="Witness to War" by Richard J. Aldrich P336]However Bruno died not in action but away from the front line at the large aircraft factory at Pontedera. Previously a specialist air-engine factory, it now produced a range of fighter, transport planes and bombers. One of these, the Piaggio 108, an experimental 4 engined heavy bomber, crashed in the countryside outside Pisa on it first test flight on 7 August 1941. *Everyone on board died except for the co-pilot. The chief pilot was Bruno Mussolini*[/quote]


----------



## Dogwalker (Feb 8, 2006)

However, the aircraft of Bruno Mussolini was not "experimental". It was the first operative plane delivered to 274th Squadriglia.

DogW


----------



## thezerech (Nov 4, 2013)

I'm just started to get interested in the P.108. I think however that it is impossible to say "which one is better". It is easier to simply recognize the P.108's accomplishments and her interesting and good design. From what I have heard she preformed well, no real problems with it. If it was for example used as a heavy daylight bomber during the second world war in large quantities I think she would have been successful, perhaps not as successful as the B-17, but who knows. I simply want to see and learn more about this interesting (at least to me) aircraft.


----------



## pattle (Nov 12, 2013)

I think the thing with this and a lot of other later war Italian aircraft is that so few of them were produced that we will never know how much potential they possessed, I do think however that on the surface of it these later Italian designs look pretty sound.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that this aircraft was known as the Italian B17, I assume the likeness was only due to coincidence?


----------



## Rick65 (Nov 15, 2013)

This comparison is not very fair to the P.108 as the plane was produced in small numbers, and was not developed through a series of improved models. 
By comparison the B-17 was built in large numbers, developed, improved and debugged through a series of new models and heavily tested as a weapons system in combat.
The P.108 looks to be a design with lots of promise but based on internet sources, one that was handicapped by poor handling, unreliable engines that restricted it from achieving it's design performance and which were not turbocharged so restricted altitude performance, a complex wing turret system that was unproved and which comprised much of the defensive fire power.
As an aside, apart from the A-26, B-29 and the like late war US planes did any of these remote turret systems work successfully operationally?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 15, 2013)

DAVIDICUS said:


> Below is information from Boeing's website regarding the B-17G:
> 
> Span: 103 feet 9 inches (B-17G)
> Length: 74 feet 9 inches (B-17G)
> ...



The range for unloaded B-17 wrt bombs, ferry tanks and cruise at best cruise speed (187mph IAS) was around 3750 miles.

The question is two fold:

What is the P-108's range unloaded (as B-17Max above) and at what airspeed and altitude?

What is the P-108's best operating altitude and how does that relate to threat profile? I.E the Fort, cruising at 26,000 feet is less vulnerable to flak - except to largest calibers of 88 and 120mm. The P-108's Implied best operating altitude for speed purposes is 420kph @ 3900M. So, is that without bomb load - and what is its capability at say 15-18000 feet in order to get out of 37mm and 57mm flak?

Nobody has mentioned that with external racks the B-17 could carry up to 4x2000 internally and 2x2000 externally for approximately 300 mile operational radius (but with severe drag penalty to speed -which is why the practice did not go very far in fall of 1943 for 8th BC) nor has there been any discussion of bombsight/delivery capability of the P-108.. does anybody know what the Italians used for precision aiming and flight controls?


----------



## drgondog (Nov 15, 2013)

Rick65 said:


> As an aside, apart from the A-26, B-29 and the like late war US planes did any of these remote turret systems work successfully operationally?



You could argue that the Me 410 barbette's were occasionally successful and the He 177 also.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 15, 2013)

Hi Bill, if it's not too much of a problem for you - would you post a line or two about usual cruising altitudes in ETO (B-17s their escorts) in this thread?


----------



## ChiliPowderKeg (Nov 16, 2013)

with the little info about the P.108, I'm leaning towards the B-17 besides the range, the B-17 clearly takes all of the advantages in terms of firepower, bomb load, etc. I do find the P.108 interesting for being the only four engine bomber that was made sorta en masse in the axis powers, so I congratulate them on that.


----------



## Rick65 (Nov 19, 2013)

There are photos of the P.108 in the middle of this great collection of photos of Italian planes.
http://www.lasegundaguerra.com/viewtopic.php?t=3961


----------



## Greyman (Nov 19, 2013)

ChiliPowderKeg said:


> with the little info about the P.108, I'm leaning towards the B-17 besides the range, the B-17 clearly takes all of the advantages in terms of firepower, bomb load, etc. I do find the P.108 interesting for being the only four engine bomber that was made sorta en masse in the axis powers, so I congratulate them on that.



I think the Heinkel 177 takes the cake there.


----------

