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

• Feb 28, 2005

• #21

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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.............

 

• Feb 28, 2005

• #22

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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...

 

• Feb 28, 2005

• #23

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

was she roomy inside then??

 

• Feb 28, 2005

• #24

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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

It was also a multi role bomber

 

• Feb 28, 2005

• #25

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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............

 

• Feb 28, 2005

• #26

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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.

 

• Feb 28, 2005

• #27

DaveB.inVa

Airman 1st Class

225

5

Dec 20, 2004

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

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

 

• Feb 28, 2005

• #28

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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

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

 

Attachments

• p.108_a_438.jpeg

  32.7 KB · Views: 865
• p.108_a_captured_483.jpeg

  5.3 KB · Views: 854

• Feb 28, 2005

• #29

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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

 

• Jan 23, 2006

• #30

KC13

Recruit

1

0

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.

 

• Jan 24, 2006

• #31

DaveB.inVa

Airman 1st Class

225

5

Dec 20, 2004

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.

Click to expand...

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

 

Attachments

• p_108_cannon_104.jpg

  92.7 KB · Views: 3,484

• Jan 24, 2006

• #32

JCS

Senior Airman

667

4

Jul 15, 2004

Nicholson, PA

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

 

Attachments

• 3_460.jpg

  27.9 KB · Views: 1,493

• Jan 25, 2006

• #33

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

Nice drawings there Dave! 8)

 

• Jan 25, 2006

• #34

DaveB.inVa

Airman 1st Class

225

5

Dec 20, 2004

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!!

 

• Jan 25, 2006

• #35

syscom3

Pacific Historian

14,954

11,734

Jun 4, 2005

Orange County, CA

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.

 

• Jan 26, 2006

• #36

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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.

 

• Jan 28, 2006

• #37

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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..........

 

• Jan 28, 2006

• #38

DerAdlerIstGelandet

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Staff

Mod

50,312

15,973

Nov 8, 2004

USA/Germany

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed

 

• Jan 28, 2006

• #39

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

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..........

Click to expand...

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

 

• Jan 29, 2006

• #40

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

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............