The BFW N.I was a prototype German night bomber of the First World War, built by Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, the company that was reconstituted as Messerschmitt AG in 1938. In August 1917 Idflieg instructed BFW to develop a night bomber able to carry 500 kg of bombs. The result was a two-seat triplane powered by one 190 kW Mercedes D.IVa inline engine. It first flew in the summer of 1918 but did not enter production. The aircraft was 9.20 m long with a wingspan of 14.50 m and a height of 4.70 m, and it weighed 1,500 kg empty and 2,500 kg at gross weight. Its armament was one fixed, forward-firing 7.9 mm Parabellum MG14 machine gun and up to 744 kg of bombs.
Facts
Engine Class Maximum Mass (kg) Comparison
Body StyleAircraft (no road body style) 1 Connections
Exemplifies
Source BFW N.I (Wikipedia)
Of Make
Source Messerschmitt (Wikipedia)
In the Other Atlases
Manufactured By
Also in Business Atlas: the manufacturer of this subject.
Source Messerschmitt (Wikipedia)History, BFW renamed, makerQuote, History, BFW renamed, maker
BFW was reconstituted as "Messerschmitt AG" on 11 July 1938
Originated In
Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject originated.
Source BFW N.I (Wikipedia)Lead, countryQuote, Lead, country
The BFW N.I was a prototype night bomber aircraft developed in Germany
Sources
1. BFW N.I (Wikipedia)
Lead
The BFW N.I was a prototype night bomber aircraft
Development
The N.I first flew in the summer of 1918 but did not enter production.
Specifications
Powerplant: 1 × Mercedes D.IVa inline engine, 190 kW (260 hp)
Specifications, mass
Empty weight: 1,500 kg (3,307 lb)
Specifications, maximum mass
Gross weight: 2,500 kg (5,512 lb)
Lead, country
The BFW N.I was a prototype night bomber aircraft developed in Germany
View the SourceMesserschmitt (Wikipedia)
History, BFW renamed, maker
BFW was reconstituted as "Messerschmitt AG" on 11 July 1938
Of Make: Messerschmitt, History, BFW renamed
BFW was reconstituted as "Messerschmitt AG" on 11 July 1938
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.