This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
Thanks for posting all the refs above. Obviously these refs contradict the cited refs, especially the Flight Global and AVweb refs in the article, so give me a bit of time to sort them all out. I will probably have some questions for you, since even a preliminary read of them doesn't entirely agree with what you have said above. - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I have read all the refs, the ones in the article and the ones you have noted above and I have to admit they all add up to some confusion.
The Magnus company website lists the following aircraft: Fusion UL, 212, 213, sFusion, all piston-powsered and the eFusion, which is all electric. It is described as being a joint "Magnus-Siemens" project. There is no listing for a hybrid version there that I found.
The first cited AVweb article deals just with the hybrid only and calls it a Siemens And FlyEco project.
The Flight Global article on the crash indicates it was an all-electric model and indicates it is a Magnus project with a powertrain by eAircraft at Siemens. This is consistent with the Magnus website.
The second cited AVweb article on the crash implies that the crashed aircraft was a hybrid and that "The aircraft was built in a collaboration between Siemens and Magnus Aircraft, and debuted at Aero Friedrichshafen in Germany in April this year." This seems to contradict or at least confuse with the Flight Global report
Your Hungarian accident report ref indicates the crashed aircraft was an all-electric eFusion, built by Magnus, but owned by Siemens and operated by Magnus. This preliminary report does not come up with a cause factor for the crash.
The Siemens project page you cited indicates that the hybrid is "This hybrid Magnus eFusion is equipped with a Siemens SP55D electric motor and a FlyEco Diesel engine" Siemens terms these projects a collaboration.
The Siemens press release just indicates the company developed an electric motor for aircraft use
The press release] mentions FlyEco as the provider of the diesel engine for the hybrid model
This AeroKurier article credits the hybrid to Magnus, using a Siemens electric motor and FlyEco diesel engine in the hybrid.
The Magnus product page for the eFusion in fact says "The Magnus-Siemens cooperation has given birth to the eFusion, the fully electric driven aircraft".
The press release by Siemens credits both companies for the development of the all-electric version, but does call it the Magnus eFusion.
Once again the Hungarian preliminary accident report does not draw any conclusions about the cause of the crash of the all-electric eFusion. It just rules out mechanical failure. So the cause of the accident is still yet to be determined.
All of this indicates that at least some of the sources, like AVweb, have confused the all-electric and the hybrid models. It was an all-electric model that crashed, not a hybrid as AVweb had reported. Magnus and Siemens both call the all-electric model the product of cooperation between the two companies, but name it as the Magnus eFusion. The hybrid version's name is not clear as Magnus does not have it listed as one of their products. Siemens calls it a "hybrid Magnus eFusion", but there is no clear nomenclature for it. It isn't clear at all who developed the hybrid model, whether it was a Magnus project using Siemens and FlyEco drive components or a Siemens project using an eFusion airframe. It is pretty clear that Fly Eco just provided the diesel, though. Did I miss anything here?- Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}