The AEG B.I was a German two-seat biplane built for unarmed reconnaissance and produced in very small numbers in 1914 by the electrical combine Allgemeine Elektricitäts-Gesellschaft. It flew with a single water-cooled Mercedes six-cylinder inline piston engine of about 74.5 kilowatts, spanned 14.5 metres and weighed 650 kilograms empty, with a top speed near 100 kilometres per hour. It served with the German Army air service, the Luftstreitkräfte, and its main importance is as the starting point from which AEG developed its more successful B-type and C-type aircraft that followed during the First World War.
Facts
Engine Class Top Speed (km/h) Comparison
Body StyleAircraft (no road body style) 1 Connections
Exemplifies
Source AEG B.I (Wikipedia)
Of Make
Source AEG B.I (Wikipedia)
In the Other Atlases
Manufactured By
Also in Business Atlas: the manufacturer of this subject.
Source AEG B.I (Wikipedia)Lead, makerQuote, Lead, maker
It formed the basis for the more successful B- and C-type aircraft from AEG.
Originated In
Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject originated.
Source AEG B.I (Wikipedia)Lead, German aircraftQuote, Lead, German aircraft
was a German two-seat biplane unarmed reconnaissance aircraft
Sources
1. AEG B.I (Wikipedia)
Lead, production
produced in very small numbers in 1914
Specifications, powerplant
Powerplant: 1 × Mercedes D.I 6-cyl. water-cooled in-line piston engine, 74.5 kW (99.9 hp)
Lead
two-seat biplane unarmed reconnaissance aircraft
Specifications, performance
Maximum speed: 100 km/h (62 mph, 54 kn)
Specifications, empty weight
Empty weight: 650 kg (1,433 lb)
Lead, maker
It formed the basis for the more successful B- and C-type aircraft from AEG.
Lead, German aircraft
was a German two-seat biplane unarmed reconnaissance aircraft
In Group: First World War Bombers and Two-Seaters, Lead, role
two-seat biplane unarmed reconnaissance aircraft
Exemplifies: Aviation, Lead, aircraft
two-seat biplane unarmed reconnaissance aircraft
View the SourceReader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.