SM 79 vs the Cant Z 1007

[brady]

Other people have sugested this be done as well, i dont know why they dont this or if they ever will, I am not shure if HTC has comented on it one way or another...

[bigjava]

in order that this post remains in notice i add this link about SM 79
that is my bomber-dream


SM 79 pic & history and Details

[Furball]

Originally posted by bigjava
in order that this post remains in notice i add this link about SM 79
that is my bomber-dream


SM 79 pic & history and Details

you mean nightmare?!

[Arlo]

Savoia-Marchetti SM.79  
Italy
 
The most important Italian bomber of World War II, this tough three-engined aircraft established a reputation that contrasted with most Italian weapons of the day, and it was flown with courage and skill.  [/size]


It was the most important Italian bomber of World War II, this tough three-engined aircraft established a reputation that contrasted with most Italian weapons of the day, and it was flown with courage and skill. SM.79s served widely in the normal bombing role; but it is as a land-based torpedo bomber that the type deserves its place in military aviation history, being regarded by many as one of the finest torpedo bombers of the war.

The prototype appeared in late 1934 and subsequently had a varied career, setting records and winning races with various engines and painted in civil or military markings. The basic design continued the company's tradition of mixed construction with steel tubes light alloy wood and fabric (this being the only way to produce in quantity with available skills and tools); but compared with other designs it had a much more highly loaded wing which demanded long airstrips,

The prototype SM.79 had flown on 2 September 1935, powered by three 750 hp AlfaRomeo 125 RC.34 engines, and so following the Regia Aeronautica's preferred tri-motor formula. About 1,300 production models were built over a nine year period. They had internal provision for 2,750 lb (1,250 kg) of bombs, supplemented by under fuselage racks for a pair of heavy bombs, or two torpedoes in the case of the SM.79-II and SM.79-III.

The SM.79 had a distinctive 'hump' on the upper forward fuselage, which housed both the fixed forward-firing heavy machine-gun and the dorsal gunner's position. Its appearance earned the aircraft the nickname 'Gobbo Maleditto' ('Damned Hunchback'). In spite of its cumbersome appearance and outdated steel tube/wood/fabric construction, the S.M.79 was a rugged, reliable multi-role medium bomber which did quite a bit of damage in the face of heavy opposition.

Developed from a civil airliner, the first Sparvieros entered service with the Regia Aeronautica in late 1936, just in time to fly combat over Spain with the Aviacion Legionaria, the Italian contingent fighting in support of the Nationalists. The SM.79-I established an excellent reputation in combat with the Aviacion Legionaria in Spain in 1936-1939. Its performance drew favorable comments from both sides, leading to a succession of export orders. The SM.79-I served with the Italian Aviazione Legionaria in support of Franco in the Spanish Civil War.

In October 1939 the Regia Aeronautica began to receive the 79-II with 745.2 kW (1,000 hp) Piaggio P.XI RC.40 engines (one batch had the Fiat A.80 of similar power) and this was the dominant version in action subsequently. About 1,200 served with the Regia Aeronautica including a handful of the III sub-type with forward-firing 20 mm cannon and no ventral gondola.


 
The SM.79 had a distinctive 'hump' on the upper forward fuselage. Its appearance earned the aircraft the nickname 'Gobbo Maleditto' ('Damned Hunchback'). [/size]


When Italy joined the war in 1940 its air force had nearly 1,000 bombers, of which well over half were Savoia-Marchetti S.M.79 Sparviero (Hawk) medium bombers. These trimotors, were thought by many to be among the best land-based torpedo bombers of the war. They could carry 1,250 kg (2,750 lb) of bombs internally or two torpedoes. Also active as a medium bomber around the Mediterranean and on anti-ship duties was the Cant Z.1007bis Alcione (Kingfisher) ,production of which began in 1939. It also was a trimotor, powered by 1,000 hp Piaggio radials, and it carried four machine guns for self-defence as well as up to 2,000 kg (4,410 lb) of bombs or two torpedoes.

In the summer of 1942, Allied efforts to relieve beleaguered Malta culminated in 'Operation Pedestal', when 14 merchantmen with heavy Royal Navy escort left Gibraltar on August 10. Among the enemy aircraft sent against them were 74 Sparvieri (Sparrow Hawks), a number of which had already scored hits on the battleship HMS Malaya and the carrier HMS Argus. 'Pedestal' eventually got through to Malta, but at the cost of one carrier, two cruisers, a destroyer and nine merchant ships, many of them having been hit by torpedoes from the S.M.79s.

The more powerful SM.79-II served in North Africa, the Balkans, and Mediterranean during the Second World War, while other units called Aerosiluranti (aerial torpedoes) pioneered use of these large fast bombers in the anti-shipping role. When the Italians surrendered on September 8,1943, it did not end the combat record of the SM.79, and a new version, the SM.79-III torpedo-bomber, was placed in production by the RSI, the fascist government in northern Italy.

An effective torpedo bomber as well, the S.M.79 served in the air forces of Brazil, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Romania and Spain, some right up to the end of the war. The Romanians flew them on the Russian front from 1941 to 1944, an unprecedented record for an aircraft designed in the early 1930s. Though known as a tri-motor, several versions were built as twin-engined aircraft using a number of different powerplants, including Junkers Jumo 211 D 1,220 hp inlines. Regardless of the version, its handling pleased most pilots and its ability to come home with extensive damage endeared it even more. Used throughout North Africa and the Mediterranean until the Italian surrender in September 1943, the Sparviero remained flying with both the Italian cobelligerent forces fighting alongside the Allies and the surviving pro-Nazi units.

About 100 were exported to Brazil Iraq and Romania - all of the twin-engined S.M. 79B variety. Romania built the 79JR under license with two 894 kW (1,200 hp) Junkers Jumo 211Da liquid-cooled engines. These were used in numbers on the Eastern Front; initially as bombers with visual aiming position in the nose and subsequently mainly as utility transports.

Post-war surviving SM.79s were converted into various versions of utility transports during the last phases of the war and survived in that role until 1952.


 
An effective torpedo bomber as well, the S.M.79 served in the air forces of Brazil, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Romania and Spain, some right up to the end of the war. Surviving SM.79s were converted into transports during the last phases of the war, serving in that role until the early 1950s.  [/size]



Specifications: [/size]
------------------------------------------
Savoia-Marchetti S.M.79 Sparviero  
------------------------------------------
Dimensions:  

Wing span:  69 ft 6 1/2 in (21.2 m)  
Length:  53 ft 1 3/4 in (16.2m)  
Height:  13 ft 5.5 in (4.1 m)
------------------------------------------
Weights:  

Empty:  16,755 lb (7,600 kg)  
Operational:  24,192 lb (11,300 kg)  
------------------------------------------
Performance:  

Maximum Speed:  270 mph (434 km/h)  
Service Ceiling:  23,000 ft (7,000 m)  
Range:  1,243 miles (2,000 km)
------------------------------------------
Powerplant:  [/i]

Powered by three 559 kW (750 hp) Alfa-Romeo 126 RC.34 radials. Later three Piaggio P.XI RC40 1,000 hp 14-cylinder radial. The twin-engined S.M. 79B variety. Romania built the 79JR under license with two 894 kW (1,200 hp) Junkers Jumo 211Da liquid-cooled engines.  
------------------------------------------
Armament:  [/i]

It carried a 12.7 mm Breda-SAFAT gun firing ahead from the roof of the cockpit humpback that enabled bullets to clear the nose propeller; a second firing to the rear from the hump; a third aimed down and to the rear from the gondola under the rear fuselage; and often a 7.7 mm firing from each beam window. this needing a crew of at least five. The bombardier occupied the gondola with his legs projecting down in two retractable tubes during the bombing run. Up to 1,000 kg (2,205 lb) of bombs were carried in an internal bay; alternatively two 450 mm (17.7 in) torpedoes could be hung externally.  

http://www.aviation-history.com/savoia-marchetti/sm79.html

And the most important reason why the Sparrowhawk is the better choice .....

drumroll please ......

It flew in SPAIN![/b]

[brady]

Well that is a very nice read on that plane but it doesent say why the SM 79 was not as good as the Z 1007.

 Now If we look at the capabalities of the two we soon see the following, The Cant Z 1007 was:

Faster: Top speed aprox 10 to 30 mph faster than the SM 79(depending on model)

Climb Rate: Cant Z 1007 climber initialy aprox 500 ft per minute faster than the SM 79.

Z 1007 initial climb rate aprox.1, 550 ft/min.

SM 79 initial climb rate:1,150ft/min(typical)

Range: The Cant Z 1007 had aprox. twice the range as the SM 79. SM 79 aprox 1,243 miles Cant Z 1007 aprox. 3,100 miles.

Defensive Arament:Both had a very simmilar defensive package, two 12.7mm and two 7.7mm guns, the 12.7mm being dorsal and ventral guns and the 7.7mm beams guns. The SM 79 howeaver on some models had a 12.7mm fixed firing ahead.

Bomb load, the Cant Z 1007 could cary a larger bombload.

SM 79 aprox2,640 pounds(later models) or Two 450mm torpedos.

Cant Z 1007 aprox. 4,410 pounds internaly, alternatively two 1,000 pound torpedos and 4 bombs up to 551lb on under wing racks.

So in conclushion the Cant Z 1007 is Faster,Climbs Faster, Has Twice the range, and Twice the Bomb Load and is as well defended, also In torpedo mode it not only has the same torpload but can cary Four 500 pound bombs at the same time.

  I am not looking to get laid in the plane just go bomb the H!ll somthing, I dont care what it looks like, but thats easy for me to say I think the Sm 79 is kina ugly, and the Z 1007 is sleak and sexy, I even have some pictures bove my bed, used to piss my GF off she keep saying I loved it more than her.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by brady
Well that is a very nice read on that plane but it doesent say why the SM 79 was not as good as the Z 1007.

You're right, it doesn't say "why the SM79 was not as good as the z1007." It shows that the 79 is good enough. You already know the "uber is better" argument never impressed me much.

10 to 30 mph faster? No big deal, actually.

500 more ft per min? Again, so what?

Range of over 3,000 miles? AH overkill.

On some models the 79 had a 12.7 fixed. So what? On some it had a 20mm. Still ... so what?

The Z1007 bombload was 1100 kg ... only 100 kg more.

I made the most important reason really really big so you wouldn't miss it and you still did.

[brady]

Twice the Bombload:

 SM 79 aprox2,640 pounds(later models) or Two 450mm torpedos.

Cant Z 1007 aprox. 4,410 pounds internaly, alternatively two 1,000 pound torpedos and 4 bombs up to 551lb on under wing racks.


 The fuel load being twice as large means you can take less from the hanger and get better preformance.


 You know Arlo you kinda come across as being a salamander sometimes.

[Arlo]

And about a third of the production of the SM-79.

Sorry your feelings are gettin' hurt but hey, I don't agree. "Uber" shouldn't be the first consideration when modeling a plane in AH. Especially when you're focusing on the MA which already has bombers that outclass both of the Italian models we're discussing.

Now there's some gaps need fillin' ... and who knows ... maybe someday after the fourth or fifth patch of AHII is out, HTC will consider fillin' `em in. But if the current models are plugged in first, then the remainder needs to be:

1: Something that fills in the gaps for a country's planeset that will help historically based events gain more latitude.

2: Common enough to be used in virtually any campaign.

3: Not the bestest best of it's class if it can be avoided. Work up to that. Introduce something that will get as much use in older setups as it will later war ones. But if the choice comes between one that's slightly more "uber" than the other ... go with the "other" so players will be more prone to try them and discover their strengths and continue to use them once the "more uber" variant or model is added.

It kinda falls into the difference in how the Navy and the Air Force build their air bases. The Navy will build the runways, hangars, tower, fuel farm, supply, etc ... first ... and then when it comes to the e-club and stuff, if they run short of funds, tough chit. The Air Force will build the E and O clubs, the theater, the pool, the chowhall ... then when they run short of funds for the runways, hangar, tower, etc ... hell yeah, they'll get it.

Hold back on the uber ... it'll come with time.


I know you don't either understand or agree with this philosophy. But I do and I'll bring it up everytime it looks like it needs to be.

[brady]

I realy dont think this machine (either of them) would see much if any use in the MA, The places it would be used would be in event's or in the CT and both would fit in any scenario that could include Italian Aircraft, and the Z 1007 did see contunied service after the surender in 43 with the allies.

 At this point as I illuded to above, I realy dont expect to see this machine, or any buff for Italy, in the near future...year maybe, if then. Frankely whatever hope I had for this has morfed into apathy.

 You are right wanting a less capable machine to fill the role for the only Italian bomber were ever likely to see is not somthing I am going to back.

  The Cant Z. 1007 was intended to replace SM 79 units and many converted to it during the war. Production simply did meat demand.

 We also know that production numbers are not a criteria for inclushion or exclushion in AH.

  From,Ali D'Italia 18 C.R.D.A. Cant Z 1007:

Some Quotes from this Volume:

p.9 "The cant Z 1007 apears to be the most advanced Italian landplane bomber wrote the Air Staff Office( on 3 Augast 1938)"

p.11 " Magor Giuseppe Colavolpe, commandor of the 1st Flying unit, described the handeling qualities as excellent and satisfactory under every aspect."

p.11 "On 12th Augast 1939, the Air Staff Office informed Gabaereo that the preformance recorded placed the type very clearly ahead of the SM 79."

p.11" Since the Cant Z 1007bis has been shown to have better preformance than all other Standard Bomber aircraft currently in service, and in the event that such results be sanctioned by practial experience with service units{they were}, it will presumably be necessary to orient future orders towards this aircraft type."

p.22 "upon entering service the Cant Z 1007bis immedately showed qualities that endeared it to it's crews- docile handeling, stable platform, good low speed characteristics."

p.22 " bombs were well placed, making for predictable trajectories that inproved accuracery."

P.22 "Defensive arament was also found adaquate to keep enemy fighters at bay."

p.22 " wooden structure extreamly strong"

p.26 " the gradual increase in of the Cant Z 1007bis production rate translated into greater availabaility, which in turn allowed sereral SM 79 units to convert onto the new bomber."

p.35 "1942..."by now the aircraft formed the backbone of the reconnaissance and bomber units."

p.37 " Lt Vittorio Sanseverino, a veteran of the 256th squadrigilia, testifies that the 1007 could take great punishment and was not easily set on fire."

After the armistice, the Germans and the allies made use of the Cant Z 1007 howeaver the alies seam to of made greater use of the type suporting operations in Italy and in suport of Titos paratisans. In various forms/ and in varing roles the type saw service untill the end of the war on both sides and the last of it's type was finaly withdrawn from service in November 1949.

[Sakai]

Originally posted by brady
I realy dont think this machine (either of them) would see much if any use in the MA,

The 1007 was a terrific plane by all accounts.

The Italian planes carried up to two torpedos (although handling was impaired in the 79 with that load)--likely they would get some use.

We ned one desparately.  As well as the Gloster Gladiator.

Sakai

[Arlo]

Originally posted by brady

 You are right wanting a less capable machine to fill the role for the only Italian bomber we're ever likely to see is not somthing I am going to back.

Problem is .... and I've seen it mentioned time and again (by you, as well, if I'm not mistaken) .... if the "uber" model gets modeled first then one of the main excuses used to not model the other one is the existance of the uber model.

Your being CT staff, I'm surprised you're not an advocate for getting both of these modeled. How many times have all of us cringed when a plane had to be subbed for another because the game didn't offer the historically correct model?

I'd like to stay optimistic about things and hope that after AHII is released and debugged more aircraft (and even vehicles) will get modeled. Having the IJ and Italian gaps filled (as well as others) can only help the game (whether we're talking TOD, CT, whatever). But if the models selected are done so with only an "uber" mentality .... that same mentality will end up the excuse to not bother with the other models. Models which probably serve to fill in the historical gaps better than the uber ones do.

And if that isn't enough ... there's player preference to be considered. There are lot's of AH players now wondering why the Billy Mitchell was never modeled. It's been said that the B-26 "is similar enough" or "better" so what's the point. The point is what I said earlier. Subbing sucks. Same would go for the SM-79. What I'm seeing more and more of here are players that would prefer to see the Sparviero modeled ... uber be damned. I bet these same players would gladly back the Z1007 once they get their "first draft pick."

[brady]

Both were in service during the same time throught the war, and saw service prety much in all the same areas, so subbing is not realy an issue. Unlees of course as a matter of personal preferance one simply likes the SM 79 better, then their screwed or could be as in the case of the B25, Kate vs Jill, ect, but in this case it is not a time of service or place of service question, since as i stated both were in use during the whole war, the Z 1007 was simply the better model and was as i mentioned intended to replace the SM 79 but production dident catch up in time so the SM 79 soldiered on.

 I am trying to be somewhat realistic in my hopes for the future in terms of modeling by picking just one, and granted I am being a bit of a dreamer in just wanting this one buff, I cant imagine them doing both of these.

[bigjava]

Why i prefer the SM79 called by pilots "il gobbo" (the hunchbacked): it's moore GOODLOOKING only that
it's my only reason

Brady  says true writing the CantZ is the best:

the italians Heavy bombers structure was composed mainly by 3 plane all three engined:

the SM79, the Cantz1007 and the Fiat Br-20 .
all that plane have worked durin all wwII and on every front-line even in spain war.( 40 Br-20 had figth with jap flags even in the pacific front).


1) THE SPEED
cantz-1007-bis    278mph
sm 79                  267mph
Br 20                   291mph

as said above the cantZ was faster than the 79 but not so much

2) THE RANGE with full loads of bombs
cantz-1007-bis     794.88 miles
sm 79                 1242  miles
Br 20                  1708 miles

The CantZ was able to have a range over 3,000 miles only whitout bombs.... carring fuel instead Bombs

3) CLIMB RATE ON TAKE OFF
cantz-1007-bis    472 m/min = 1548 ft/min
sm 79                  350 m/min = 1148 ft/min
Br 20                   275 m/min = 902 ft/min

Here tha CantZ is largely the king!

4) BOMBS

cantz-1007-bis    3000 kg = 6600 Lb
sm 79                  2000 kg = 4400 Lb
Br 20                   2500 kg = 5500 Lb

also there the cantZ is a king able to carry 2000Kg inside + 4 X 250kg on   wings and as Brady says the drop's mechanism was moore efficent on the 1007 making sure a better precision-drop.


Cantz was more manovrable both at low altitude and  higth,
a litle more strong, and rather arming.

As i wrote i like so much the SM-79 that the pic i had post is my deam .
I put also the link at the main page where i took the pic only for consuetude.
i would't produce a discussion about what is so clear :
Cantz is better than SM-79
i'm proud and happy to listen Brady  speeking whit a great knowledge about italian air force.
but i'm so romantic that  if they get me a SM-79 i will be moore happy than CantZ , but CantZ  will made me satisfy too

BUT AT LEAST GIVE ME ONE PLZ!!!:D

[brady]

Well, hopefully we can eveuntaily both get our Dream:)

[Sparrow]

Z.1018 Leone? So what if only ~20 examples where made.