Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:19, 9 September 2010

Military history: Aviation / Balkan / European Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft Start‑class

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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Ridiculous Fairytale

Coanda's plane was described as a ducted fan aircraft which was unable to get off the ground by all contemporary sources. In fact, no sources before 1956 claims it was a motorjet. All later claims trace back to Coanda's personal assertions made after others had developed jet engines. Coanda would have us believe he invented the motorjet, built one with a greater thrust-to- horsepower ratio than any motorjet developed during world war II, demonstrated it's fantastic thrust potential, and then abandoned the project entirely and ,even though he continued to work in the field of aeronautics, never told anyone about it until others independently developed motorjet and turbojet engines. Was he keeping this a secret because he didn't want to give the allies a powerful new engine that might help them defeat the Nazis? In addition, the photographs clearly show a ducted-fan aircraft. If the 1910 Coanda had been intended as a jet the cowl would taper into the fuselage on the top and bottom and only project out from the body where the alledged jet nozzles were later claimed to be rather than leaving superfluous high-drag steps on the top and bottom of the fuselage.

He also claims that he discovered the Coanda effect at this time but didn't bother to patent it ,or tell anyone about it for 24 years! This attempt to make his story sound plausible by a tie-in to something he actually did discover decades later is internally inconsistent as well. The photographs of the plane show a straight fuselage where he claimed the jet nozzles were, and the following of a straight surface by a jet of air or hot gas emitted parallel to it is not a demonstration of the Coanda effect.Romanianlies (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary references which unambiguously describe the 1910 Coanda's engine as what is now referred to as a ducted fan

The Technical world magazine - page 615 (1911)

Cassier's magazine - page 199 (1911) (Even says in the article that "The inventor declares that he can get a higher efficiency from his turbine than from the best screw propeller built." If Coanda was making any declarations about his plane, why wasn't he declaring that the engine burned fuel in the airstream? If this had really been the case, he surely would have mentioned it to the many reporters asking about the plane's strange looking engine.)

Aircraft - page 367 (1910) (mentions the "enormous wind velocity" Claimed to be the driving force of the plane)

Proceedings - page 178 (United States Naval Institute - 1911)

Can anyone find a single reference to the supposed motorjet nature of this engine that pre-dates the well established development of the motorjet in the 1930's ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaniantruths (talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

See also: Popular Mechanics - March 1911 page 359. (Descibes the "suction turbine, which takes the place of an ordinary propeller, and forces the machine forward by drawing in and forcing back the air." Romaniantruths (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the description of the 'turbopropuseur' from motorjet to suction turbine, as per the linked reference. I'd like to hear from every single person who has participated in the discussion on this page up to this time as to wether they have any objection to this change.Romaniantruths (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I have no objection.Romaniantruths (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Gibbs-smith on 1910 Coanda

It was equipped with a reaction propulsion unit consisting of a 50-H.P. Clerget engine driving a large ducted fan in front of it, the latter enclosed in a cowling which covered the nose of the machine and part of the engine: the fan was a simple air-fan driving back the air to form a propulsive 'jet'. -Aviation: An Historical Survey from its Origins to the End of World War II Romaniantruths (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

look into this

Here's a post on one of the external links for this site which suggests source for the engine schematics which could settle this matter.

"But for sure we can not say he invented the jet engine. A good source of information for me was an old Romanian Models Magazine named 'Modelism' where are some detailed schematics of the plane and ducted fan propulsion. There were also some engine cross sections which helps to understand how it works. I have this magazine pages scanned."

this was posted by Cristi on 10 Mar 2010.Romaniantruths (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the schematics Coanda later supplied to bolster his claims

From: The Aeronautical Journal (of the Royal Aeronautical Society) Volume 84 Pg 412

"There is a wholly new description of the inner workings of the machine that does not appear in any of the accounts given above and which defies all the patent specifications."

"The differences between this version of Coanda's story and his earlier are marked and hardly need to be pointed out; though the obvious ones are; the planned verses the completely unintentional and accidental flight; the immediate flight verses the busy taxying about the field; Coanda being thrown from the plane after it stalled verses Coanda pitched forward after landing, and so on. Apart from his personal recollections, Henri Coanda also bestowed upon the museum some drawings and illustrations of his turbo-propulseur. The drawings, purporting to show internal details of the machine, are unfortunately modern. That is to say, they were obviously executed in the 1960's, not in 1910 or 1911; worse, the fuel injection outlet tubes into the aft end of the turbine seems to be an even later addition to the original drawings. In brief, the drawings by themselves do not constitute evidence in Coanda's claim."Romaniantruths (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaniantruths (talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Coanda's patents

take a look at Coanda's patents. None of them describe the injection or combustion of fuel. This includes a patent he filed on this system in 1911. This is after the date he claims for his 'test flight'. Romaniantruths (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I put an external link, is in PDF, and i think that clrify the problem. The aircraft and his original story, plans etc, and a scale model, is on display in Air Museum o Bourget in France, and as it can see on that link, it was clearly the first jet engine powered aircraft. The link you provided with the british patent from 1911 (one year later after Coanda 1910) is not the same with one from France from 1910, and is not related with Coanda 1910 aircraft. Is possible that seeing what happened with the flames, and how the plan get fire, he renounced next year to burn fuel, until he understand what happened (which he did later at the begining of 30's when patented the Coanda Effect and "aerodina lenticulara"). So i remove that reference who is not related with the aircraft we discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.23 (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The patent you removed IS the 1910 French patent. If you read the document, or had an understanding of the 1907 Patent act in question you'd know this. You have removed another valid reference. You have also replaced it with a reference of no value whatsoever. I recommend you try learning some of the rules here.Romaniantruths (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

engine mechanism

useful info though it comes from the letters pages a writer in Flight interprets the engine described in the patent as a turbine using the extra energy from the driving engine - from both the engine coolant and the exhaust - to heat the air. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

for those interested this is the letter to which it was a response. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The letter I cited from Flight magazine's letters to the Editor was By Gibbs-Smith, a well-known aviation historian, and was a summary of his verdict on the 1910 Coanda in his recently published book. The letter to the Editor you cite, however, was written by one John W. Lane. Do you have any reason to believe that this Mr. Lane Knew what he was talking about? I quote from the heading of the letter section on that page: "The Editor of 'Flight' does not hold himself responsible for the views expressed by correspondents in these columns;..." In addition I believe some of the assertions made in that letter to be questionable. The patent certainly describes the heating of the air before it reaches the diffuser, But Mr. Lane seems to be claiming that this heating of the air before it's compression is somehow driving the centrifugal blower. Did you notice that, or am I somehow mistaken? Romaniantruths (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

From my reading of it, Mr Lane (whoever he is) seems to well-versed in patent language. I don't read that the engine heat is driving the blower in the same manner as a jet turbine. the author says its not simple mechanism and its nearly - but not - a jet engine. As I qualified my first posting - this is an interpretation of one of Coanda's patents and not the 1910 aircraft. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think the Mr. Lane is saying the engine heat is driving the blower then what do you think he means when he says:"A compressor-impeller arrangement...driven primarily by a water-cooled reciprocaring engine and secondarily on the turbine principal by means of the exhaust gasses of the driving reciprocating engine.."? He doesn't actually say in his letter that it's almost a jet. He says it's almost a gas-turbine. "He only just missed inventing the aircraft gas-turbine..." (His comparison of the heat-exchanger in the intake with an intercooler is also less than confidence inspiring since they're totally different in function: the heat-exchenger would decrease the mass-flow of the centrifugal fan.)

But all these considerations (although potentially interesting and stimulating topics for discussion)are beside the point if Mr. Lane does not qualify as a reliable source by the standards of Misplaced Pages. Allow me to summarize my position on this topic: I Agree that the intake air was heated, but I feel that we can use the actual patents, or other references, to demonstrate this rather than Mr. Lane's interpretation of that patent. I also feel that this would be much the preferable course since this letter does not, In my opinion, meet the standards required for Misplaced Pages references. This last is a comment not on the accuracy of Mr. Lane's opinions, which I believe to be beside the point, But on Mr. Lane's unestablished Identity as an authority in this field, and the lack of Imprimatur bestowed upon it the circumstances of it's publication.Romaniantruths (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Romaniantruths (talk)

Hmm, see what you mean. I make no claim as to Lane's authority - difficult to ascribe any authority to a letters page. The difficulty with patents is getting an RS to say what the item described is - the patent on its own wold be a primary source. There is also the issue at the moment that sources on what the 1910 aeroplane was are few. The patent text are rich in information but we have to avoid SYNTH and/or OR in ascribing the characteristics of the patent to the 1910 aircraft, or countering the claims of others as to what the 1910 engine was under the cowling. In some respects its best to state the facts and let the reader decide. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The royal aeronautical society Journal (Volume 84 page 412)reference(at this time footnote 10) says Coanda's claim about this aircraft, "defies all the patent specifications". It also contains an account of his presenting badly-made false information to bolster his claim. And I suspect that this Journal's status would satisfy everyone with the possible exception of the mysterious Romanian with the dynamic I.P., who seems to be asserting that ANY British source is unacceptable because it is British. (He also seems to feel that any source which says Coanda invented the jet is automatically reliable, so I'm kind of wondering what he'll do if he finds a British source which says it was a jet. Will he put aside his objections, or will thee contradiction make his brain explode?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaniantruths (talk • contribs) 18:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I also have certain reservations about calling it a turbine, as opposed to saying he called it a turbine. All sources I have checked define a turbine as a device to derive energy from a fluid flow. I suspect his English was a bit dodgy.Romaniantruths (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the average person understand a turbine to mean a fan thing (that isn't a propeller) that spins round whether its taking energy from the wind or being powered to make a draught but perhaps an appropriate wl will make it clear.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. That's probably what he meant.Romaniantruths (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I added some more links, and i think scientist from 2 International Astronautic Symposions, peoples from Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, german scholars and romanian aviation historians have an idea about what they talk, and they saw and interpreted corect the plans and the patents and what happened then. I hope as well that the page will not remain so biased against the Coanda, and the opinions above will be taken in consideration, as are one from very serious and reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.217 (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC) There is no indication that any of this rag-bag of links you added examined his plans or patents. This is just a long list of people repeating Coanda's lies from the 1950s. Many of these references only mention his story about flames hugging his aircraft in order to introduce a discussion of the Coanda effect(He didn't even have the plane in his posession at this time). The "people from the Smithsonian" is just a listing for a collection of his materials in the archive. Such listing are labeled by archivists based on the claims therein. They need not be examined for their veracity.Romaniantruths (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, your frustation level is incredible. I added some more links, including a Stine book. If for you 3 links related with Simthsonian Museum, several serious american historians of aviation, including Harry Stine, german scholars (as the ones from University of Technology from Dresden who studied 10 years for his book), other romanian ones, and scientist from International Astronautic symosions (at least twice) are irresponsable and dumb, and dont know about what they talking (even if that is precisely and directly related with their field of expertise and their work), then yes, i dont have too much to talk with you, you live in an alternative world. Coanda brainwashed all, except Gibbs and some writers from the magazines of that era (who probably have no idea anyway whats about with that unusual plane, and dont understand how it work), when aviation and aircraft just start to apear there and there, and nobody was an expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.98 (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Responsible vs. irresponsible

As a reader with no technical qualifications and therefore no axe to grind in this dispute, am I alone in finding the following passage confusing and emotionally loaded?

"No responsible member of the aeronautics and astronautics scientific community who have actually examined his claims thinks the Coanda 1910 was a jet. However most of the aeronautics and astronautics scientific community agree that the Coanda-1910 was the world's first jet aircraft."

The use of the word "responsible" implies that there are others who are "irresponsible". Does the author mean that there are irresponsible "member(s) of the aeronautics and astronautics scientific community who have actually examined his claims", or does he mean that "most of the aeronautics and astronautics scientific community agree that the Coanda-1910 was the world's first jet aircraft" are irresponsible? Can anybody think of a form of words that are emotionally neutral that would clarify this passage? 86.30.179.33 (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's simply awful, I added "weasel words" tags, because that's what they are. man with one red shoe 01:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What exactly does having technical qualifications have to do with "having an axe to grind in this dispute"? And how are we supposed to know you have no technical qualifications? Anyone can claim a lack of technical qualifications. Can you present some proof of your lack of technical qualifications? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Redfoot here constantly claims to have no technical qualifications or an axe to grind, but he actually has a huge axe to grind. He and his many unidentified good buddies with 1 hour editing histories and no usernames (do you know anyone like that?)will resort to any move they can think of to try to maintain the fiction that Coanda invented the jet in 1910. Misrepresenting references, edit warring, tagging edits as vandalism, deleting references, refusing to discuss any references which indicate Coanda's lying nature. making false accusations of sockpuppetry. Using dynamic IPs to hide who they are and what they've done.

Are you another one of redfoot's pals? If not, please tell me what you think of the footnotes from before WWII. None of redfoot's pals will admit to looking at them. If you're not one of his pals, will you? They're all available for free reading on Google books.Warmest regards--Romaniantruths (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Can you present some proof of your lack of technical qualifications? " Why don't you fuck off? I'm tired of discussing with morons. man with one red shoe 04:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ain't we pals no more old buddy?Romaniantruths (talk) 12:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep a lid on personal attacks, people. Mind WP:NPA, please. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how I go about proving that I don't have technical qualifications (proving a negative). What I should have said that I'm not an engineer and that therefore I can make no informed judgments in what seems to me to be a technical issue (emotions and insults aside). I just wanted to ask a civil question about a passage that I didn't understand. Please carry on without me - have a nice war.86.30.179.33 (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: How to present the controversy to the reader

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There are conflicting sources for this aircraft. How should we present them to the reader? Should the facts that are disputed be presented as facts, then countered in a dedicated rebuttal section, or should the controversial claims be presented as disputed from the first, with no attempt to establish facts where sources are in conflict? Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Disputed elements

• Engine: Was it a ducted fan, turbine or motorjet?
  • Combustion: Did it have fuel injected into the airstream?
• Flight: Did the aircraft actually fly, crash and burn, or was it simply exhibited?
• Sale: Was the aircraft not sold whole to Charles Terres Weymann?
• Finances: Did Coanda have enough money to build another aircraft immediately following his 1910 effort?
• Time frame: When did Coanda begin to talk about this aircraft as an early jet?

Much of the arguments specifically about this aircraft have taken place at Talk:Henri Coandă. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources

• http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1952/1952%20-%200111.html – a letter written by J. Billings of Birmingham, England, published in Flight in January 1952, where Billings proposes that the Coanda-1910 has a "ducted fan" rather than being "turbine driven" as described in the same magazine in 1910.
• http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1952/1952%20-%200601.html – a letter in response to the one written by J. Billings of Birmingham; this one by John W. Lane of Great Bookham, Surrey, England, published in March 1952. Lane describes British patent #12,740 approved on 18 January 1912 in which Coanda defines his engine. Lane clearly lays out the flow of air in the engine, noting that hot exhaust gases from the piston engine were diverted through the blades of the "propeller", surrounded by heat exchangers. Lane says there was no fuel injected into a combustion chamber, and no combustion, though the hot exhaust gases were said by Coanda to increase the temperature of the air output of the propulsion system, and thus to increase its thrust. Lane writes, "He only just missed inventing aircraft gas-turbine by not thinking to inject fuel into the discharge air flow from his 'propeller' and burning the mixture in a combustion chamber prior to its ejection." Here's how Lane classifies the engine:
  • "A compressor-impeller arrangement for aircraft reaction-propulsion, driven primarily by a water-cooled reciprocating engine and secondarily on the turbine principle by means of the exhaust gases of the driving reciprocating engine; which compressor-impeller incorporates a plurality of heat-exchanger systems utilizing the worked cooling medium of said reciprocating engine in heat-exchange relationship with the air and exhaust gases prior to their entry into the compressor-impeller."
• http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/coand%C4%83.htm – A biography put forward by Cornel I. Sultan, Ph.D., Virginia Tech Assistant Professor, on the Romanian mailing list hosted at romanians@sep.stanford.edu. Sultan says the aircraft had an "air-reactive engine". He writes that Coanda lacked support for further development but he acknowledges a Coanda aircraft completed in 1911. Sultan says the air compressor fed combustion chambers and that hot exhaust helped produce 220 kgf of thrust. Sultan's earliest sources are 1955–56 magazine articles which talk about Coanda's revelation that his 1910 aircraft was a jet that flew one time. Sultan does not list any sources from the 1910s such as contemporary accounts or patents.
• "Flying Saucer May Yet Take Flight", Wired, 20 December 2003, by Noah Schachtman. Schachtman briefly mentions Coanda: "He's best known as the father of the jet engine." There are no sources listed for this article, and Schachtman is not an authority on aviation engineering. He is a journalist interested in U.S. national security and military weaponry.
• http://www.yourdiscovery.com/flight/pioneers_of_flight/henri_coanda/index.shtml – this is a short biography of Coanda in which he is described as "one of the pioneers of Romanian aviation, and the godfather of the modern jet aircraft". The brief bio does not make any assertion of the Coanda-1910 achieving flight, having fuel injection or combustion—it only states that the aircraft was exhibited.
• http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm – this is a web article written by Mary Bellis who holds two degrees in film and animation from the San Francisco Art Institute. Bellis mentions nothing about Coanda in her article on jet engine history, nor does she mention Coanda in part two, a prequel of sorts, describing earlier developments. Bellis is a self-described fan of inventors in general, but is no authority on aviation engineering.
• "Jet aircraft of the Belle Époque" – This is a blog written by Dr. Brett Holman, a historian living in Melbourne. It describes the aircraft as powered by a thermojet with combustion, and he says that it flew, crashed and burned. Holman gives no sources for his assertions.
• http://www.jstor.org/pss/3105820
• Popular Mechanics March 1911. p. 359. a suction turbine that takes the place of the ordinary aeroplane propeller
• Flight, 29 October 1910. "Turbine-propulsion system". "Turbine-driven aeroplane". "This machine has been purchased by Mr. Weymann."
• Flight, 14 October 1960, letter from Charles Gibbs-Smith saying "The extraordinary claim was not made until 1956", "turbo-propulseur". "There was never any idea of injecting fuel; the machine never flew; it was never destroyed on test; and Flight noted that it was soon sold to a Monsieur Weyman." Regarding finances, Gibbs-Smith says that Coanda soon began working on another very different aeroplane that was ready the next year.
• Flight, September 1960, letter from T. R. Servian of Croyden, Surrey
• The aeroplane: an historical survey of its origins and development, 1960 book by Charles Gibbs-Smith with section entitled "The Coanda Sesquiplane of 1910": "There has recently arisen some controversy about this machine..."
• This article from Flight, 24 June 1955, article by A. R. Weyl entitled "Without Visible Means of Support" mentions Coanda's invention as a "ducted-fan-propelled aeroplane".
• Flight, January 1973: obituary of Coanda in which he is not credited with any jet invention, rather, he is credited with the invention of "a ducted fan aeroplane and the development of fluid dynamics." The 1910 aircraft is called "unsuccessful" though it "set a precedent".
• "Ducted Fan or the World's First Jet Plane? The Coanda claim re-examined", by Frank H. Winter of the Royal Aeronautic Society, 1980.
• The (London) Times 17 October 1910 - The oddest-looking of these hermaphrodites is a biplane invented by Henri Coanda, which has a body like an Antoinette monoplane. The planes are all wood, elaborately curved to fit the air-stream, and supported by stought metal uprights in the centre. The machine is unique in being driven by a turbine, in an enourmous and cumbrous wooden case.'
• The (London) Times 27 November 1972 - His Coanda biplane exhibited at the Paris Airshow in 1910 was equipped with a reaction propulsion unit consisting of a 50hp engine driving a large ducted fan in front of it.

Well, there are more sources to be added, all coming from scientists and aviation historians

• http://books.google.com/books?id=qoRTAAAAMAAJ&q=Coanda+1910+jet&dq=Coanda+1910+jet&hl=en&ei=a0h-TKGMC9DHswaW3OiVCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAzhu Coanda built and flew a jet aircraft

• http://books.google.com/books?id=Pwi2AAAAIAAJ&q=Coanda+1910+jet&dq=Coanda+1910+jet&hl=en&ei=oEV-TKCjOYnLswaS_pSWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBDg8 there is mentioned combustion chambers to form a jet engine

• http://books.google.com/books?id=AovdKRWSqJAC&pg=SA2-PA8&dq=Coanda+1910+jet&hl=en&ei=h0J-TLbwAc6GswbEg7iVCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=Coanda%201910%20jet&f=false - again, is mentioned the injecting of fuel and that the flames bend over them and go toward the fuselage, leading to discovery of Coanda effect

• http://books.google.com/books?id=7ccymjJZxLcC&pg=PA166&dq=Coanda+1910+jet&hl=en&ei=g0F-TIj1M8PFswbGpoiWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Coanda%201910%20jet&f=false - with a general description of the engine and short flight

• http://books.google.com/books?id=qos7AAAAMAAJ&q=Coanda+1910+jet&dq=Coanda+1910+jet&hl=en&ei=nEN-TK_PNdGQswaq4KyVCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCTgU - Flight International from 1960 - a "piston fan jet" and mixing of fuel is mentioned too

• http://books.google.com/books?id=6NIDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA68&dq=Coanda+1910+jet&hl=en&ei=MUR-TPWeE4LKswaj042UCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=Coanda%201910%20jet&f=false -in 1910 Coanda demonstrated a jet engine

• http://books.google.com/books?id=FLc9n0ytMP4C&q=Coanda+1910+first+jet+aircraft&dq=Coanda+1910+first+jet+aircraft&hl=en&ei=bFt9TIzVJMiOjAfij7HSDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAjgK - a mixture of fuel was added and ignited by magnetos (if i sa and understand well)

• http://books.google.com/books?id=Dw0iAQAAIAAJ&q=Coanda+1910+first+jet+aircraft&dq=Coanda+1910+first+jet+aircraft&hl=en&ei=c159TIOJKNG6jAfrpJTTDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCDg8 - Henri Coanda - the first jet in the world. The authors are scholars of University of Technology from Dresden, and studied and make researches work about 10 years to write this book http://www.jstor.org/pss/3105820

• http://books.google.com/books?id=rHwaAAAAIAAJ&q=Coanda+1910+first+jet+aircraft&dq=Coanda+1910+first+jet+aircraft&hl=en&ei=S119TLeEGNjPjAeRj8nSDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBzgo - Harry Stine, probably the most competent researcher in this domain, one of the best american rocket scientists - mention Coanda-1910 as the world first jet, even if he consider the first "pure jet" flight was in Germany in 1938
  • I would not classify G. Harry Stine as the most competent researcher in 1910 ducted fan engines, nor yet as one of the most competent American rocket scientists. He was a good rocket scientist but not a great one—his fame came from introducing boys to rocket technology through model rocketry. The understanding of the development of jet engines is not in his line of work. In the book linked here, Stine does not go into any kind of detail about the Coanda-1910 engine. He only mentions it in passing as an early jet design. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

--How on Earth a rocket scientist doesnt know or understand how a jet engine work? And how Gibbs, just an historian aviation with no near scientific qualification as Stine is better on that? Are you kidding, right? Boy, sometimes your bias is so big than you look plain stupid saying such things. Gosk, a rocket scientist doesnt understand jet engines

• http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/pubs/PAP/PAP-0672.pdf same Stine is quoted - "Stine, G.H., "The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda", Air & Space Smithsonian, Sept. 1989" with "The effect was first observed in 1910 by Henri-Marie Coanda, in connection with exhaust flow from an experimental jet engine (Stine, 1989)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.73 (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This source is useless to us in that it quotes Stine and we already have Stine. It adds nothing. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• http://books.google.com/books?id=9odTAAAAMAAJ&q=Coanda+1910+first+jet+aircraft&dq=Coanda+1910+first+jet+aircraft&hl=en&ei=B159TPDaHMK4jAfQmrTTDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE0Q6AEwCDgy

• http://books.google.com/books?id=CYpTAAAAMAAJ&q=Coanda+1910+first+jet+aircraft&dq=Coanda+1910+first+jet+aircraft&hl=en&ei=I1t9TMnOAtOQjAedztzSDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBg

Lasts are from two diferent Symposiums of the International Academy of Astronautics, related with history of rocketry and astronautics and statements was done by members of International Academy of Astronautics, American Astronautical Society —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.73 (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment: I'm not sure I understand-- are there two conflicting sets of "facts", that are both complete unto themselves, or is there simply nebulous doubt about some of them? siafu (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Both, I guess, but mostly there are two sets of conflicting facts. Coanda presented the world with an interesting version some four decades after the aircraft's appearance in 1910, but I do not have a reference for the first utterance of this version where the aircraft had fuel injected into the airstream which initiated combustion. It took off on its first flight but crashed and burned with Coanda (the pilot) thrown clear of the wreckage. Coanda's version has been accepted at face value by some and scorned by others as a fantasy. His version mentions nothing about Weymann purchasing the aircraft at the Paris Air Salon of 1910 and his version says that he lacked funds to continue investigating the technology.
    • Henri Coandă's version: motorjet with fuel injection and combustion. Aircraft flew, crashed and burned. No mention of sale. Finances too low to continue.
    • Charles Gibbs-Smith version: ducted fan with no fuel injection and no combustion. Aircraft never flew. Sold to Weymann. Finances in good enough shape to exhibit a completely new and different aircraft in 1911. Time frame set as mid-1950s for Coanda version. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm starting a sandbox version at Talk:Coandă-1910/Binksternet. I have a lot of work still to do on the article body, but the infobox and lead section are ready for comments. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The John W. Lane letter to Flight Magazine does have a serious problem: Is it reliable? The letters page is headed with a disclaimer that the editors of flight do not endorse the opinions of the letters printed, and as far as I know no evidence of Lane's ciriculum vitae have as yet been presented here. In addition there seem to be some fundamental problems with his reading of the patent. The patent he refers to is available on the "patents of Henri Coanda" link at the bottom of the Henri Coanda page, and according to the first paragraph of this patent it was given a May 30, 1910 priority date because it was the same patent Coanda applied for on that date in France. I couldn't find the original French patent on this site. Maybe it wasn't granted, or maybe it's just not available for some reason. However Coanda states in this patent that the exhaust is bled into the "turbine" intake for 2 reasons:

1,To reduce back pressure on the exhaust system.

2,To heat the intake air.

If the "turbine" is sucking the exhaust out of the engine it can't very well be powered by the exhaust as well. Either it's doing work on the exhaust, or the exhaust is doing work on it.

The heating of the intake air is a subject which Mr. Lane and the patent are in agreement, but according to both the air is being heated before it is compressed. It is difficult to see how this would increase the thrust as Coanda hoped. The heated air would be less dense at ambient pressure and less dense after compression as well. Wouldn't this decrease the mass of the exhaust gasses? (Of course, in a modern jet engine the heating occurs in a restricted environment where the gas cannot expand, so the pressure, not the density is increased.)Romaniantruths (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's something else that's been bothering me. Early sources describe the plane as having an all-wood body(with the exception of the uprights supporting the wings),but the later jet stories mention plates of metal(or asbestos, or mica) to protect the airframe from flames. Shouldn't these be visible in a clear photo of the plane? Or at least mentioned by journalists who covered the 1910 Paris air-show?Romaniantruths (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - part of the problem is the lack of a continuum of coverage. There are some reports in 1910/1911, and then the whole thing goes quiet until post Second World War. Identification of Weymann at gives a different tack to possibly follow as to what happened to the aircraft after the Paris Salon of 1910. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, the lack of discussion about the aircraft after its exhibition makes it very difficult to trace it. The lack is also damning, in that we do not see Caproni Campini engineers thanking Coanda's research for getting them started. We do not see acknowledgment from any aviation engineers until decades later, and I cannot ascribe that gap to earlier experts being dumbfounded by the advanced concepts shown by Coanda—those earlier experts were pretty sharp fellows. I can only assume that the engine didn't excite interest because it did not have combustion in the airstream, and because it did not propel the aircraft in flight. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Weymann is only identified in Flight magazine by his surname, but at that time in France there could only be one Weymann so well known to Flight readers—Charles Terres Weymann—a famous aviator and businessman who had just won an air race in August 1910, and was seen around France from May to November that year. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think Gibbs and some articles from Flight after WW II (first mention in Flight said that Coanda-1910 was a turbine-driven aircraft with no propeller) are the only ones who doubt the jet kind of engine and aircraft made by Coanda, most of "the rest of the world" (i didnt put now the articles from Romanian Academy, need to search) agree that was a jet engine. Not a turbo-jet as ones made by von Ohain and Withle, but a more rudimentary one, with a kind of propeller instead of turbine, but neverthless a jet.
  As well statements of Gibbs, that the flames from the engine will burn the plane and the pilot show that he didnt know exactly how the engine was, and made just supositions. And Coanda put those deflecting plates on the gases exhaust area precisely to deflect those flames away from the plane body. This is how he discovered the Coanda effect too, when for his surprise he saw that flames are not deflected, but they attached and curved around the deflecting plates, coming toward him. As well, the fact the the aircraft wasnt seen anymore again is a in my opinion a prouve that was destroyied in that short flight. If so, i think that guy Weimann will had them after the exposition, and it will be saw somewhere, sometimes later, at least pieces from it. And i think all those scientist and aviation historians made some researches too when write their books and articles, and will find if something was not as they said, find the plane or so, etc. And ones as Stine are definately very qualified (more then Gibbs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.73 (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• • It is not just Gibbs-Smith who describe the engine as a ducted fan with no combustion but also Frank H. Winter of the Royal Aeronautic Society and the 1952 Flight letter writer John W. Lane. "The rest of the world" (whoever that is) may well be enchanted by Coanda's recollections in his old age, by his delightful story of jumping in the airplane as it was rolling and his reworking of the engine drawings. Those heat shields you describe are not visible in the photographs, so if they exist they are not large enough to protect the pilot from death by heat. Weymann could well have hidden the aircraft away himself, so there is no single answer for why it was not seen later. The only research that some aviation historians have made is to listen to Coanda in his old age—they did not look at earlier patents and popular descriptions, for instance, G. Harry Stine and Cornel I. Sultan do not list any sources from 1910s, only ones from the mid-1950s after Coanda began to tell his new story of the old airplane. I would be much more convinced if Sultan or Stine showed the reader a diagram of the 1910 patent and described the inner working of it. In that case, I would accept their views. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I am only worried that using the engine patent that Coanda filed is a case WP:PRIMARY combined with WP:OR or in case a 3rd party refers to that patent a case of WP:SYNTH. In any case something is fishy from the POV of Misplaced Pages rules when using that patent in this discussion. I think we should use secondary sources that clearly talk about the Coanda 1910 airplane or engine not about the patent that might or might not reflect how the engine worked, in any case we shouldn't use the patent directly in this discussion. man with one red shoe 17:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• Start-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class aviation articles
• Start-Class aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment