The Fieseler Fi 166 was a project for a rocket-launched fighter that could reach high altitude faster than conventional fighters. In 1939 Wernher von Braun presented the German Ministry of Aviation with a concept for a fighter launched vertically to about 8,000 metres on a main engine and then flown horizontally on a smaller second engine. The ministry first passed it to Heinkel, then moved it to Fieseler, where it received the designation Fi 166. Erich Bachem, Fieseler technical manager, proposed two designs in which liquid-fuelled rockets lifted the aircraft before turbojets took over. The project never advanced beyond the drawing board, and Bachem left in 1941 to found Bachem-Werke. His later Ba 349 Natter interceptor of 1944 revisited the Fi 166 concept.
Facts
Engine Class Engine Class StatusDesign only (never built) 1 Comparison
Body StyleAircraft (no road body style) 1 Connections
Exemplifies
Source Fieseler Fi 166 (Wikipedia)
Of Make
Source Fieseler Fi 166 (Wikipedia)
In the Other Atlases
Manufactured By
Also in Business Atlas: the manufacturer of this subject.
Source Fieseler Fi 166 (Wikipedia)MakeQuote, Make
but it was later transferred to Fieseler, where it received the designation Fi 166
Originated In
Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject originated.
Source Fieseler Fi 166 (Wikipedia)Lead, country of originQuote, Lead, country of origin
presented a concept to the German Ministry of Aviation
Sources
1. Fieseler Fi 166 (Wikipedia)
Lead
rocket-launched fighter
Design and development, rocket
launched vertically to high altitude by liquid-fueled rockets before switching to turbojets
Design and development, turbojet
launched vertically to high altitude by liquid-fueled rockets before switching to turbojets
Lead, status
The Fi 166 project never advanced beyond the drawing board.
Make
but it was later transferred to Fieseler, where it received the designation Fi 166
Lead, country of origin
presented a concept to the German Ministry of Aviation
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.