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

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?

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)
Gross weight: 65,000 pounds (B-17G)
Top speed: 287 mph (B-17G)
Cruising speed: 150 mph (B-17G) Typical cruise was 150mph IAS at 26K~210mph TAS with 6000 bomb load
Range (max.): 3,750 miles (B-17G) 2000mi range with 6K bomb load with reserves for assy, climb, bad weather
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)

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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

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?

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

I think the Heinkel 177 takes the cake there.