Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

RfC: How to present the controversy to the reader

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. No mention of 'jet'.
  • 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."
      • Note that no mention of 'jet' is made here in the year 1952. No discussion of any flight or crash.
  • 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 [email protected]. 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.
    • It also describes the aircraft as being of metal construction. An assertion at odds with nearly all the other sources, which may tend to cast some doubt on the accuracy of this brief bio. And Who wrote this? Some unpaid intern who was cribbing from Wikipedia or some blog in the first place? I just don't see how this anonymous unscourced claim has any reliability whatsoever. Romaniantruths (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC).
      • This is a more clear presentation from Discovey Civilisation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDaUbsWNXvI* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.246 (talk) 06:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
        • That video is nonsense. It shows a modern reconstruction of the 1910 aircraft as described by Coanda in the '50s and '60s, not as it was in 1910. It retells Coanda's '50s and '60s stories without any question of truth. It shows theatrical smoke and fog surrounding the reconstruction for a "mists of time" effect, and a ridiculous sequence of taking off over a concrete runway when no runway was concrete in 1910. It is a puff-piece for gullible television audiences, not a scholarly work. Useless for our purposes. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
          • True, and in addition if you check Wikipedia:reliable source examples, you'll see that youtube isn't considered a reliable source for most uses anyway.Romaniantruths (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
          • how do you know if the plane is not like the one from 1910 and is described by Coanda in 50-60'? How do you know is similar, the one from 1910 with the one from 1950? How do you know what bibliography they use, or what documents? And ofcourse they didnt use fuel as Coandain 1910, it was a short presentation movie in a museum, gee?* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.234 (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
            • How do you know it is? And stop screwing up the page by sticking statements between statements and their replies.Romaniantruths (talk)
              • the plane is one from an Aviation museum, and its an exact replica. There are 2 of such kind, one in France and one in Romania.
  • 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.
    • In an August 28 entry to the discussion section of this blog Holman Discusses having examined British patent #12740 (A) for the first time. He accepts it as a patent for the 1910 Coanda's propulsion system.Romaniantruths (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 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
    • This source is only interesting in light of the following response by Gibbs-Smith. It is not suitable as a reference. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 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, designed by the Rumanian-born and French-domiciled Henri Coanda, which was exhibited at the Paris salon in October of 1910. Until recently it has been accepted as an all-wood sesquiplane, with cantilever wings, powered by a 50-h.p. Clerget engine driving a 'turbo-propulseur' in the form of a large but simple ducted air fan. This fan was fitted right across the machine's nose and the cowling covered the nose and part of the engine: the resulting 'jet' of plain air was to propel the aeroplane.
"Although ingenious—and certainly the first full-size completed aeroplane designed for reaction propulsion—there is general agreement today, as in the past, that the machine could not possibly have flown: a fan-produced jet of air of such a kind would not have nearly sufficient thrust to propel the aircraft. No claims that it flew, or was even tested, were made at the time, although there was favourable comment on its originality. ...[Comments about there being "next to no comment" about the aircraft from 1911 to the mid-1950s... Comments about the sudden appearance of the Coanda story in the mid-1950s... Comments upon the various elements that differ between the 1910 aircraft as reported at the time and the mid-1950s version...]
"Take then the 'flight': it could not both 'certainly' fly, and be destroyed on its first take-off; and, as for this dramatic event happening at Issy, it should be remembered that Issy was the most famous, most used, most observed, and most reported-on 'airfield' in Paris, with strictly defined times for flying allowed by the army, who owned it. Any attempt, let alone a dramatic crash and fire, would not only have made the headlines, but would have been faithfully reported in the next number of L'Aérophile—and everywhere else—as were all 'events' at Issy. No word, till 1956, has ever been said in the aeronautical press of such a happening. Incidentally, the relevant issue of Flight in 1910 states that the machine had already been bought by a Mr. Weymann.
"Now for the description of the aeroplane. Ingenious as the machine undoubtedly was, there are good photographs of it which are available and there is no visible trace of any slots, or of any wires or other gear attached to, or passing anywhere near, the wings that could be associated with slots. There is also no trace of a fuel pipe coming from the wing to the engine, or of one emerging from one of the struts; furthermore, a petrol tank is clearly visible just aft of the engine. The undercarriage was certainly not retractable, as the axles of the wheels are joined by a substantial rod, and a skid is firmly attached both to the rod—to which it is lashed—and to the lower wing.
"But the all-important point, of course, is the question of the ducted fan having fuel injected and ignited in it, and thus making it a 'gas turbine'. Investigation of contemporary records shows this idea to be completely incorrect. The written descriptions of the 'turbo-propulseur' state that it was simply a ducted air fan driven by a petrol engine; and this is confirmed by two sectional diagrams of the fan, with full descriptive text, which appeared in the issue dated December 10th 1910 (pages 900–901) of Flug- und Motor-Technik, the official journal of the Österreichische Flugtechnische Verein, the drawings being taken from a French source. The photographs show the huge fan-cowling placed centrally over the aircraft's nose, and the air was driven back all round and over the aircraft, in the midst of which sat, high up, the pilot. He would not have sat there for long if burning gas was being driven rearwards by the 'blower'. ...[Comments about engine and fan positions.]
"There can be no doubt that the important source quoted in the [November] 1956 article [in Royal Air Force Flying Review] was either indulging in a friendly leg-pull, or was suffering from a faulty memory. However, the 'jet' Coanda was certainly remarkable in its way, and deserves a somewhat modest place amongst the ingenious ideas that were unworkable in practice." – Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith (1960). The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development, pages 220–221. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
    • Searching within this book for the phrase "'jet' of air" reveals this Gibbs-Smith statement: "-there is general agreement today, as in the past, that the machine could not possibly have flown: a fan produced jet of air of such kind would not have nearly sufficient thrust to propel the aircraft. No claims that it flew, or was even tested, were made at the time..."Romaniantruths (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 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=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
    • Bill Gunston may have said this in 1993, but by 1995 he had apparently run into some information that changed his mind. In THE DEVELOPMENT OF JET AND TURBINE ENGINES (1995) he describes the 1910 Coanda as having "a Clerget inline piston engine which, instead of turning a propeller, drove a centrifugal compressor blowing air to the rear. The thrust was said to be 220 Kg (485 Lb) a figure the author disbelieves." I found this on Google booksRomaniantruths (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
      • from what you write it means just Gunston disbelieve the thrust power, thats all. And it will be nice to give a link where a quote can be read, to make an idea, but i dont think its any big difference from what he write on the first time. 79.116.208.246 (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
        • No,that is not what it means from what I wrote. Or from what he wrote. Just what part of the phrase: "blowing air to the rear" don't you understand? And I have already told you where to find it.Romaniantruths (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
      • as i said, provide a link with where you can see what he said, the google books is useless*
        • The google books is where you got most of your references. And I have already told you where it is.Romaniantruths (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
        • just when searching on google books doesnt reveal any quote from where to draw any conclusion. Its just the title and some lines from where you can't see much. Thats why told you to put a link where a clear quote can be seen*
  • The Development of Jet and Turbine Aero Engines, (1995) page 118. Here is where Bill Gunston changes his mind from his earlier book to write the following: "Romanian Henri Coanda built a biplane with a Clerget inline piston engine which, instead of turning a propeller, drove a centrifugal compressor blowing air to the rear. The thrust was said to be 220 kg (485 lb), a figure the author disbelieves. On 10 December 1910 the aircraft thus powered inadvertently became airborne, crashed and burned. Often called 'a turbine aeroplane', this was of no more significance than the Campini aircraft mentioned later, and Coanda wisely decided to switch to a propeller."
    • Gunston appears to accept some parts of Coanda's mid-1950s story, but not others. He accepts that the aircraft flew by accident and crashed, but he does not accept that it incorporated combustion of fuel in the airstream. From his fence-straddling position, Gunston concludes that the engine was not significant to the development of the jet. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 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
    • Phil Croucher is neither a scientist nor an aviation historian. He's a pilot who writes flight manuals. He also plays the accordion and the guitar, and his favourite beer is Rickard's Red. Next time you want to call someone an authority, try checking his resume first.Romaniantruths (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Phil Croucher, even playing a guitar have more knowledge about airpalnes and engines then let say Gibbs (historian who just search old papers for dates), who, from what i said, just make assupmtions about Coanda engine, doesnt know how it was for real and just think what may happen if etc. Phil Croucher have more scientific qualification then him.
        • Unfortunately, "from what you said" is not considered a reliable source by this encyclopedia. Romaniantruths (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • well, is clearly more qualified then Gibbs anyway, regarding engines and flight. 79.116.208.246 (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Gibbs had no technical qualifications, he just note the dates when an aircraft was build or was presented, or take care of public relations*
          • No, Absolutely not. He's a highly respected aviation historian, it even says so in the obituary you quoted a small part of in an attempt to denigrate his qualifications Romaniantruths (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
        • i dont need to denigrate his qualifications, because he doesnt had ones regarding technical ones. So yes, a profesional jets pilot know better then him how a jet engine work
  • 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
    • This is just the Servian letter listed above. Do you actually have ANY evidence that Servian is a scientist or aviation historian? And he seems less than definite about Coanda's claims: "It seems that the first jet flight could well be claimed by...", and "If this is a true account of what happened..." are hardly definite endorsements.Romaniantruths (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Servian is asking a question, not making a statement. He is trying to piece together old and new information, and he knows that he does not know the answer. Servian does not belong in the article. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • 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
    • This general book about the history of technology has exactly 1 scentence about Coanda. How long do you think he took researching that? And he also thinks Traian Vuia was the first to build a self-propelled airplane. This alone clearly marks him as unreliable. Few people are ignorant enough about the history of aviation to be taken in by this claim70.132.1.226 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
      • They researched some 10 years for all book, so i am sure they had a good time for aviation part too. Wheter Vuia was the first to fly an airplane using just the power of its engine is debatable, not wrong. 79.116.208.246 (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Ten years of research does not mean that they looked deeply into Coanda's 1910 aircraft. With a one-sentence entry, I rather think they did not. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, its your opinion, i think they did some serious research, and we dont know how much exactly, or if there other stuff write in the book, and what bibliography have*
        • "We don't know how much exactly." Thanks for admitting that you have no Idea how much research they did. Since you agree with Binksternet on this we need not discuss this book furtherRomaniantruths (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
        • hahaha, you're funny. They clearly said they researched 10 years for the book. I said i dont know how much from that period they searched for aviation part, so dont know if is a year or 3 for ex. But clearly they are very serious scholars*
  • 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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.235 (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Rocket engines ≠ jet engines. Stine's expertise touches only tangentially upon jet technology. On the other hand, Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith was such a supremely skilled historian of early aviation that he was knighted for it. His authority on the subject of 1910 aircraft is unimpeachable. Yes, he is more of an authority than Stine (who does not discuss the Coanda-1910 or its engine in any kind of detail) or Sultan (who apparently never looked into 1910s-era materials). Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
          • So, acording to you, a guy who was rocket scientist (btw, rockets are a kind of jets too, and "reactive engines", where a reactive force drive the engine or the aircraft, are jets too) and wrote lots of books on aviation and astronautics have no idea what is look like and how it works a jet engine, but a guy who had no near technical qualifications and just search for years and days when some planes fly or was presented, have more knowledge? Gosh, whats next, some historian who wrote about numbers of P-51 Mustangs, and how many was lost in battle and at which day, explain to the engineers who build them how the plane was constructed and to pilots how was fliyed, and being more knowledgeable then them? In my opinion Gibbs is not a to reliable sources because:

1-he had no technical qualification 2-he just make assumptions, is nothing "nailed" to say like that -he said that the plane never fly, but how he can prouve that? He wasnt there, and i didnt saw any witnesses he provide -he think that the engine doesnt have gasoline added or orifices for that but he is based for that probably on a patent called by Coanda "Improvements for a propeller" i think, which nobody know if is related with Coanda-1910 and its engine -Gibbs continue (because he is uncertain after all about if it was or it wasnt added gasoline in the exhaust and then ignited, so contradict himself who first said it was not possible) and say that if such combustion was added, that will burn the plane and kill the pilot. But Coanda precisely said that he added protective plates at the exit areas of exhausted gases, to deflect the flames. He didnt used the full power of the engine, since he was just making some engine verifications, and he cut off imediatly the gasoline and the engine, when he saw that the flames instead to be deflected they attached to the plates and curved around them coming toward him and stick close to the plane body. This is how the Coanda effect was discovered too, and Coanda patented several inventions based on this discovery, starting with early 30's. I think some peoples had weird idea that just the "turbo-jet" is a "jet", and is a surprise for them to hear that are several kinds of jets

  1. There is no such thing as a "rocket scientist"; those who build and design rockets are in fact engineers.
  2. Rockets are not "a kind of jet" at all, since they carry their own oxygen source. A jet engine of any type necessarily requires a combustible medium in which to operate. Binksternet is right to question Stine's expertise in the subject.
  3. All propulsion devices are "reactive", per Newton's second law. This is not a meaningful statement. siafu (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • please tell me, you really think that Stine, a rocket scientist/aeronautic engineer, however wish to call him, but a respectable scientist neverthless, in astronautic/aeronautic/rockets, doesnt know what a jet engine was/is etc? Because if so, and i apologize if i offended someone previously, its hard to discuss about reliability of sources.

How Gibbs, with no technological studies is better then him? How Gibbs is better then Walter J. Boyne, former director of the National Air and Space Museum and a retired Air Force colonel and author (presented by SidewinderX below)? How Gibbs who is not sure what he say, first that it never was orifices for gasoline to be added to combustion, then second that if was added gasoline (how if the orifices wasnt there, acording to him?) that might kill the pilot, is more qualified then any of them? How is more qualified then a profesional pilot?

    • and what is your definition of "jet"? I find this in an english language dictionary <<1.

a stream of a liquid, gas, or small solid particles forcefully shooting forth from a nozzle, orifice, etc. >> Is then a rocket a kind of jet, according with this definition?

    • about your response with "reactive engine", its show a little non serious answer from you. Reaction or reactive engine as was mentioned there (at that International Aero and Astronautic symposium) is just another name for jet engine. Look here a reactor engine http://www.rbs.ru/vttv/97/Firms/C073/e-al21f.htm

Its this reactor engine a jet or no, in your qualified opinion?

Stine is not any kind of scientist at all (I feel like this is getting belabored), his notability stems from being a model rocket enthusiast and not a propulsion engineer or historian. Gibbs-Smith, on the other, was a historian of aviation with similar engineering education to Stine, which actually speaks to the question at hand, which is one of historical significance. siafu (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
        • ok, would you want to answer to my previous questions, related with definitions of "jet" and "reactive engine"? But please be serious time and at object, and is not a personal attack or whatever you might, i just state a fact. And is not just about Stine, but about others mentioned above, who are all at least and even more qualified then Gibbs. I just look at their biography, make a comparation 1- Stine (from the same wiki) - Upon his graduation he went to work at White Sands Proving Grounds, first as a civilian scientist and then, from 1955–1957, at the U.S. Naval Ordnance Missile Test Facility as head of the Range Operations Division. After White Sands, Stine was employed at several other aerospace companies, finally ending up at Martin working on the Titan project. He was asked to co-organize the American Astronautical Society 1977 conference on private Space Colonization to re-channel focus away from Space exploration alone, and where he received an award as a Founder of the international space effort. What you think, he know how a jet engine look alike. How about that Director of Air and Space Museum, or some pilots? They know how a jet engine is?

2- and now Gibbs http://www.information-britain.co.uk/famousbrits.php?id=1882- Educated at Harvard. Joined Victoria & Albert Museum and was keeper of the public relations and education department (1947-71). Are you sure Stine and Gibbs had similar engineering education and knowledge about engines? Just look at their jobs, what was their posts, one as civilian scientist then head of an operation division then working for Titan rockets project, and one keeper of the public relations and education dept. at a museum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.231 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

    • Choosing a site with little information on Gibbs-Smith does not prove he had few Qualifications. Especially since the article you refer to has a request at the bottom for more information. If I look around and find a site about people in Rocketry that doesn't list Stine, does that prove that Stine never existed?Romaniantruths (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
      • do you imply that what is write there is incorrect? Do you have more informations about Gibbs? If is so important why are such little info about him? And how a keeper of the public relations and education dept. of a museum is more qualified then a scientist who actualy worked an important part of his life just in the field of aeronautics?
        • Have you noticed that that Stine book lists 1938 as the date for both the Campini and Heinkel jets? Is this his standard of accuracy? That's kind of a bad sign.Romaniantruths (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
        • nice try from you, trying to divert the discussion from Gibbs. Fact is that his obvious i must say, inaccuracies and contradictions regarding Coanda, as well as his low level of knoweldge in technical domains make him less reliable then Sultan, Stine, Walter Boyne, scientists from Astronautic and Aeronautical Associations, Romanian Academy or those german scholars. I find this is a kind of silly anglocentric POV to promote him in the detriment of others, and disregard them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.249 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added to the Gibbs-Smith article from the V&A's "reprint" of the Times obit. It gives more on his work including a visiting professorship at the National Air and Space Museum.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
      • thats nice to see some more info about Gibbs, but the fact he was invited for one year as visiting professorship at the National Air and Space Museum doesnt make him more qualified. Maybe he just help them to improve their public relations and sistem of keeping documents, sistematization of programs, stuff like that. Its not a prouve of his tehcnology knowledge. 79.116.208.246 (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
        • His visit to the US has no bearing on whether he is considered an expert on the history of flying machines. His expertise is unimpeachable—he was knighted for his superior knowledge on the subject of early aircraft. The topic we are discussing is early aircraft; Gibbs-Smith is a surpassingly qualified observer. Binksternet (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
          • man, i dont care he was knighted. I can bring too the opinions of some members of Romanian Academy who said that Coanda-1910 is the first jet plane, and i consider them more qualified then Gibbs. Ofcourse, maybe you dont, but after all we need to keep an equilibrium. Gibbs is contradict himself, first said that: "There was never any idea of injecting fuel" but later that "the pilot sat in the airstream directly aft of the turbine, and that it would have been suicidal to the pilot to attain combustion of the turbine-compressed air". This mean that he had no idea about the plane and the engine, and his only desire was to prouve in any way that wasnt a jet and didnt flyied. First he said that wasnt any idea of injecting fuel (or even that wasnt posible) then he agree that was technicaly possible, but wasnt done because that he belived, it will kill the pilot. Coanda anyway already answered to that saying that protective plates was added to exhaust, and thats how he discovered the "Coanda effect" after all. More then that, i find this about Gibbs http://www.vam.ac.uk/collections/periods_styles/features/history/staff_obituaries/photography/gibbs_smith/index.html
          • Interesting guy, some quotes from there: <<He was responsible for the photographic collections and in 1939 arranged the important Photographic Centenary Exhibition>> <<Returning to the Victoria & Albert Museum, he became Keeper of the Department of Public Relations in 1947, arranging exhibitions and writing on a wide variety of topics from the Bayeux Tapestry to the Great Exhibiton of 1851>> <<His enthusiasm was unbounded for any subject which attracted his interest and he stoutly defended his beliefs in parapsychology, flying saucers and ghosts among more sceptical colleagues.>>
          • Sincerely, i dont think he is such "unimpeachable"* or maybe he saw some of this, who knows http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/4/aerodina-1932.jpg, http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/3/aerodina-1956.jpg, http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/5/aerodina-1961-1965.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.234 (talk • contribs)
            • Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith quotes sources from before 1950s—he examines contemporary 1910s journal articles and he looks at the Coanda patent. Tell me one Romanian expert who does this for the Coanda-1910 aircraft and I will listen to this expert. In fact, I would like to see any expert, from any country, who verifies Coanda's story by referring to sources that come from the 1910s. Regarding the Gibbs-Smith obituary you link to, you did not quote this particularly apt bit: "He became the recognised authority on the early development of flying in Europe and America and in 1962 the Royal Aeronautical Society recognised his work with the award of an Honorary Companionship. His staunch championing of the pre-eminence of the Wright Brothers led to controversy with other writers, but his works set new standards of historical accuracy and insight in a field much cumbered with hearsay and myth." Our subject is the early development of flying in Europe, a field within the man's area of expertise, and highly recognized expertise at that. Regarding your JPG links, these prove nothing about the 1910 engine. Binksternet (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
        • actualy there are others as well. G. Stine was one of the researchers who spend quite a lot studying Coanda inventions and discoveries, he worked with him and he had acces to all Coanda archive and patents. Same for Boyne, the director of Air and Space Museum, who had there many of the Coanda patents and documents. There are as well Romanian scholars and historians of aviations, like this ones who write this book about Coanda and his life, based on documents and archives <<http://modelism.ro/images/coanda.JPG>> <<http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/9413/pictureq0.jpg>>

There is too some links here with documents from Romanian Academy, and those from International Astronautic and Aeronautic Simposiums, some presented by a scientist from American Astronautic and Aeronautic Society

        • Gibbs is no near any of them as technical qualifications, he was just good in his time to search for photos and dates from archives, to see when some plane was build and when was presented first time. He contradict himself about the engine of Coanda-1910, he mention an old article from Flight 1910, where the engine is simply called a turbine with no propeller, and that was buyed by Mr. Weimann. But even if Weimann was a known person, and died in 1975, he didnt bothered to go ask him if its true. Nor Weimann said ever that he actualy took the plane after the Expo, and it wasnt destroiyed*
      • and man, he was good too to tapestry and believed in ghosts and paranormal haha, probably he saw with his "power" projecting himself in the past, what was going on with those planes. Not to say he believe in flying saucers, thats why i put those stuff with Coanda flying saucers, maybe Gibbs was right after all, and he saw some of them flying around, but shhhh, those are clasified projects
  • 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)

-- this source is usefull on Henri Coanda page, because its present some aplications of Coanda effect. Coanda invented more things then just jet aircraft, and those things must be presented too

    • This reference doesn't even call it a jet, it calls it a reactive engine. Romaniantruths (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • see above about "reactive engine", is just another name for "jet engine"
    • No, it isn't. That's like saying mammal is just another word for ungulate.Romaniantruths (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
      • And the link you listed in an attempt to 'prove' your assertion is to an illustration of an engine with an active/reactive turbine stage. This is a different thing entirely.Romaniantruths (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
        • no, not quite. Its a "turbo-reactive engine" who is called a "jet engine" by some. "jet" and "reactive" is pretty similar
          • A Reactive engine is not necessarily a jet engine,Romaniantruths (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
            • And you say this because? What is your definition of a reactive engine vs a jet engine? And how that those peoples called an obvious jet engine a "reactive engine"? If you stay to think at cold a little, you will see that is pretty much similar things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.249 (talk) 11:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

  • US Patent issued to Coanda in 1914 (submitted in 1911) - This is the Patent referenced by a Washington Post article from 1967 about Coanda. (Bernstein, Carl (1967). Grandfather of Jet Plane Still Busy Inventing at 81. Apr 18 1967.) The article quotes Coanda where he discusses his flight in the aircraft, in which he states that he injured his wrist during the crash. -SidewinderX (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Does the patent say anything about the injection or combution of fuel in the duct? No it doesn't, but even if it did we couldn't use this information here according to the discussion on patents below(with which I personally disagree). Other than the patent this seems to be primarily quoting Coanda's claims. I don't think anyone is disputing that he made these claims, just wether he was lying when he did so. Romaniantruths (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The Converging Paths of Whittle and von Ohain - By Walter J. Boyne, former director of the National Air and Space Museum and a retired Air Force colonel and author. He has written more than 400 articles about aviation topics and 40 books. He references the controvesy in the single paragraph about Coanda (copied below) "Romanian inventor Henri Coanda attempted to fly a primitive jet aircraft in 1910, using a four-cylinder internal combustion engine to drive a compressor at 4,000 revolutions per minute. It was equipped with what today might be called an afterburner, producing an estimated 500 pounds of thrust. Countless loyal Coanda fans insist that the airplane flew. Others say it merely crashed." -SidewinderX (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
    • A popular mechanics article by Boyne is listed above. Your book reference has more detail(no, really the article says even less), and is certainly a preferable reference, but let's just be clear that these two sources are the same man's opinion. I realize that the complete lack of titles and author's names in some of the above citations makes it difficult to tell.Romaniantruths (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, i think afterburner means that gasoline was added and ignited. And a short flight followed by a crush can be interpreted as you wish, but if the plane was a at least a little airborne, it doesnt how to crush i think

  • "Jet propulsion in embryo", editorial obituary in New Scientist, 7 December 1972. The 1910 engine is described as "an essay in jet propulsion" but "it never flew." "It is obvious now that it could not have flown but its exhibition in the Paris salon of 1910 gained its designer a good deal of attention." This one is sympathetic but realistic. Binksternet (talk) 09:39, 6 October 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)

--oh boy, so the engine didnt excited the earleir experts because didnt had combustion on airstream (which is just a suposition of some Gibbs and co.), but all those sharp experts who saw that it doesnt have such combustion didnt think to add themselves some combustion there. Cool, but not quite sharp, didnt?

    • 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)
    • If the Weymann from the Flight is the Weymann you say, things can be interesting. He died in 1975 in France, but even if Coanda was there too after WW II, and betwen his afirmation that the aircraft flew and crushed and the death of Weymann was more then 20 years, i never hear that Weymann contested Coanda words, and to say that is not true, or that he tooked the plane after Exposition. More then that, in one of the links provided previously it is said that a model of original Coanda-1910 and his story are presented on Le Bourget Air and Space Museum, i am sure those peoples there would asked Mr. Weymann about it, if the plane was in his posesion, but aparently they go with what Coanda said too. I didnt saw either Gibbs veryfing or mentioning Weymann about the fate of the plane (just that quote from Flight from 1910, where the plane is described as a turbine driven one with no propeller), but make his own assupmtion. Isnt that a bit weird, why Gibbs didnt asked him (there was too some 19 years betwen Gibbs article and death of Mr. Weimann), and first of all, why Mr. Weymann (a highly decorated french pilot and war hero) didnt contradict Coanda if the things was like Gibbs believed it was?
      • Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. man with one red shoe 18:45, 11 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)

---do you see, its like i said, Gibbs and British Institute (and some Flight articles, not even all) vs Americans, Romanians, Germans etc., all scientists, scholars and respected historians of aviation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.235 (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look that way to me; as an aerospace engineer myself, I don't recall ever hearing of this aircraft as the first "jet engine", this honor was universally granted to the CC2 by my professors. siafu (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting though that in CC2 article it's mentioned that " It has also been described as a ducted fan." man with one red shoe 04:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Then they'd both be wrong. The CC2 was a motorjet, neither a "jet engine" in the usual meaning and certainly not a ducted fan (Majority of its thrust came from combustion in the duct, not the compressor). It has some justification to being the first "jet aircraft" (an aircraft flying with thrust gained by combustion in a duct) but the engine wasn't especially novel for the time, except for the fact it made flights. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Some one once told me that you aren't supposed to use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia. Who else calls it a ducted fan?Romaniantruths (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The "ducted fan" description for the Caproni Campini N.1 (CC2) is cited on the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
It is cited to a book, but the citation only leads us to a commercial site selling the book. Are we, or are we not, expected to restrict our discussion to references which are available on the internet?Romaniantruths (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
That's the publisher's website. Personally I have no problem discussing a source any source that I can get my hands on, but the internet ones are the ones most of us can get to. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that the commercial site in question is the publisher's website(Although I'm not exactly sure why this particular tidbit of information is germane). However I was under the impression that for the purposes of this discussion we were expected to restrict the references used to those which can be directly confirmed. Am I mistaken in this? Are we expected to believe any claims made if the claimant says he has a source, and that the source confims his views? A brief review of the references already presented here and the problems with some of them suggest that this could be a most counterproductive endeavour. Romaniantruths (talk) 20:16, 13 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 Wikipedia 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)
I agree with that concern. Interpreting the patent directly is not on. Including that he filed patents on the turbo-propulseur is acceptable, but it would be wrong to assume that what was patented is the self-same thing that was on the front of the 1910 aircraft. We need a source to tell us that, and even if a source says that, it would still be wrong of us to directly interpret the patent, we need a (reliable) source to tell us what it the patent shows. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
John W. Lane clearly connects the patent with aircraft, stating that the described propulsion system was the aircraft's propulsion system. His reading of the patent is a secondary source. We can argue his expertise, but so far none of us know what that is. He sounds quite knowledgeable to me. It is likely the Winter article and the Gibbs-Smith book connect the patent directly with the aircraft but I do not have those sources at hand to prove it. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Break

  • Comment - (Edit conflict) I noticed the edit warring across several related articles and highlighted it at WT:AETF, it seems to have calmed down now. I meant to post some thoughts here a couple of days ago but here goes:

I have a very good book on jet propulsion: Smith, Geoffrey G.Gas Turbines and Jet Propulsion for Aircraft, London S.E.1, Flight Publishing Co.Ltd., 1946. It is only small but very well researched and comprehensive. Several pages are devoted to early attempts and being written much nearer the era of Coanda's invention I would have thought it would have been mentioned but it's not. In fact I looked hard through my many aviation books and can't find any mention of him or his inventions, his name did 'ring a bell' though possibly through the Coanda effect. Two inventors, Lorin and Morize are mentioned though with diagrams of their 'thrust augmentor' devices.

The warring (or discussions, however you like to phrase it) seems to be mainly over whether this is a jet powered aircraft or not. Smith sets out his definition of jet propulsion units into four groups (which still makes complete sense today), they are:

  1. Liquid fuel rocket (many argue that rockets are not jet propulsion)
  2. Continuous thermal duct or athodyd (Leduc projects)
  3. Intermittent impulse duct (V-1 flying bomb type pulse jet)
  4. Continuous turbine-compressor (the Whittle system) (i.e. the majority of the gas turbine engines that we have today)

As Smith doesn't mention it (and he travelled the world in his research) then I would conclude (using just that book admittedly) that the Coanda device was not 'jet propulsion', I'm sure that it would have been featured if it was.

My own gut feeling on the Coanda device (bearing in mind all the conflicting references) and without the benefit of a schematic diagram is that it is (or was) a ducted fan. If we could find a diagram of its workings I think that would help enormously. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

General comment: the absence from a book (no matter how good and complete that book seems) cannot be used as an argument to prove what something was or not. Also, I wonder where CC2 would fit in that list of four groups of jet propulsion. man with one red shoe 15:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I should add that after that grouping division he goes on to say a number of sub-divisions and variations can of course be made to these four main classes. He covers the Campini system in some detail and treats it as a variation of the Whittle system (IC engine driving the compressor instead of a turbine). I'm not here to argue, it's a comment area where thoughts are expressed to help find a solution, I thought it worth noting that he doesn't mention the Coanda device, indeed it would have been nice if he had directly said that it was or was not jet propulsion but for some reason it does not get mentioned at all. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Nimbus, your 1946 book predates Coanda making his claim, the exact date of which I am uncertain, but US and UK magazines begin talking about it in 1955, and Gibbs-Smith noticed it in 1956. Your 1946 author would not have heard the claim. As man with one red shoe says, it is impossible to prove a negative from Coanda's absence in even this apparently well-researched book. However, we can say that Coanda's 1910 engine is not mentioned in it. Binksternet (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment about disputed elements (Finances)

I want to thank Binksternet for organizing the discussion elements so nicely, I have only one comment, I think the "Finances" item should be taken off since it's highly speculative. He might have had the finances, but maybe he wanted to spend the money in a different way. It's not very relevant to the other issues that are important in the article. Post-fact finance situation doesn't bear any information regarding the airplane, whether it flew/crashed, and what type of engine it had, it's only a speculative argument of why he didn't continue to develop it (and it's probably, as often in life, only one element out of many in making a decision -- and most likely again a case of WP:SYNTH. man with one red shoe 15:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The finance issue impeaches the veracity of the various conflicting stories about the plane flying. Coanda's supporters 9or Coanda himself) used this lie to explain away the fact that he never bothered to develope his alledged Idea further. If elements of the story are provably untrue then that definitely indicates Poor research and lack of reliability on the part of the reporting party, or unreliability on Coanda's part if the claim can be directly attributed to him. Romaniantruths (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's in any case another good example of WP:SYNTH. Basically it would be like this: Coanda declares that he doesn't have money to continue the research on this airplane, other source claims that he had money to do something else, therefore it results that Coanda has lied that he didn't have money to develop this airplane. That's a text book example of synthesis. Also, most importantly, there's only one person who knew if he had or not funds and that person is Coanda since this is a highly subjective matter. For example, I can say I don't have funds to buy a motorcycle, but then one year later I buy a car, that doesn't mean that I lied about the funds for the motorcycle, it either means that the money I had were not for that and I had different priorities or it might mean that I got money afterwards or it means that I took a larger loan than I initially intended. Interpreting my declaration as a lie 100 years later on it would be very speculative since that's not possible to prove even immediately after the event with the full information because as I said it's a subjective matter, it's only I who can decide if I have money for something, even if you check my bank account you can't contradict me, same with Coanda and his finances. man with one red shoe 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
      • No, actually it's more like this: Coanda claims years after the fact that his "funds were exhausted" but it is a provable fact that funds were available to him at this time. And Gibbs-Smith is not required to obey the rules for Wikipedia editors. He's a reliable source. You however, are required to not violateWP:Synth by equating his line of reasoning to your own experiences with transportation purchases.

And incidentally, I wouldn't assume you lied about the funds to buy a motorcycle. I'd just assume that you realized the motorcycle's engine was a piece of junk and you decided, quite logically, to look into a more workable form of propulsion. (Not that I'd ever make the leap of suggesting that this is what Coanda did. That would be very wrong.Romaniantruths (talk) 00:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

        • I didn't comment here on what Gibbs-Smith claimed, I commented here about the elements listed by Binksternet and I explained why Coanda's finances shouldn't be discussed here... on Wikipedia, by Wikipedians who follow Wikipedia's rules. Also, Gibbs-Smith might be very well a reliable source in the field of aviation and engines, but I doubt he's a reliable source in the field of personal finance, or more specifically Coanda's finances and priorities. My comment stands I think that's subjective and shouldn't be introduced in this discussion. man with one red shoe 01:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
          • The Finance element is certainly something that is important in that it "impeaches the veracity" of Coanda's 1950s version of the story. Through the services of Gibbs-Smith we see that Coanda has delivered a lie: that he "wished to begin a second aircraft but his funds were exhausted." Gibbs-Smith doesn't overtly connect the Weymann sale as part of Coanda's financing but he says that Coanda's funds were not exhausted since he showed a "brand new" machine the next year. The Finance element shows that Coanda in his old age was capable of telling puffed-up stories unrelated to the 1910 truth. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
            • It still sounds like a speculation to me. If Coanda showed a "brand-new machine" next year there's no telling where he got the funding from (maybe he didn't use his money) and even if it was build from personal funds there's no telling if this "brand-new machine" was not cheaper to build. Impeaching the character of a person on this amount of "proof" is a bit too much for me. Besides I don't think we are here to judge the Coanda's character, we are here to find and discuss what reliable sources say about his machine. His word would not be used a reliable source anyway, I think that as a general rule when somebody claims something we shouldn't take that as the Truth, we are here to see what the reliable sources say about the machine, not what they claim about Coanda's finances or truthfulness or reliability.... plus (again that darn WP:SYNTH he might have been unreliable about reporting the cause and his finances, but that doesn't mean that the plane was not a kind of jet. Plus we are not here in an American movie with jury where the lawyer shows how the witness is unreliable by asking him "have you ever lied?".... so let's get serious and drop this speculative red herring. man with one red shoe 04:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
              • It does not go against WP:synthesis if Gibbs-Smith makes the connection for the reader. When Gibbs-Smith makes a speculation, it carries the weight of a person so expert in the field that he was knighted for it. Gibbs-Smith sees fit to tear apart Coanda's claim element by element. His arguments are all available to us. Binksternet (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
              • As I mentioned it's a speculation made by Gibbs-Smith who is not a reliable source when it comes to character or finances of the people, at most he's a reliable source regarding aircrafts. That being said we can quote him, but that's where we should stop, if we try to corroborate other sources regarding this then it would be WP:SYNTH that's why we should eliminate this element from this discussion, because beside G-S quote (which is a speculation) there's nothing else we could do about this subject. man with one red shoe 14:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
                • "When somebody claims something we shouldn't take that as the truth..." you mean like Coanda's unsubstantiated claim that the 1910 was a jet, and that it flew on Dec 16, or maybe Dec 10, hitting a wall, or a tree, or crashing into the ground resulting in caonda injuring his wrist, or being burned?(choose the version you prefer) And your assertion that we are not allowed to use a reliable source to corroborate other reliable sources is puzzling in the extreme.Romaniantruths (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
                  • Yes, we shouldn't take Coanda's words as true, we can quote him but preferable we should base this article on reported facts. And yes, I meant that we shouldn't put together reliable sources to create a synthesis, that's how I read WP:SYNTH. But as you and Binksternet said the synthesis is made by Gibbs-Smith, my problem with that it's that it's a speculation as it necessarily is when people talk about other people's funds and priorities. man with one red shoe 15:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

But OK, if you think that we need to examine Coanda's finances this is what I've found about his funds from an interview with him:

Americans wondered how I financed the first jet aircraft and then I replied that:

- I supported because I started to write
- Uh, they told me, you are a writer?
... Say
- Not ...

... I wrote my father! So if it weren't for him and my family, which was ruined, of course, I wouldn't have built the first jet

Don't know if that's true or not, but this brings into questions how much Gibbs-Smith knew about Coanda family's financial situation, and the fact that he build another airplane afterwards is not conclusive, wasn't that the Bristol-Coanda monoplane? That was most likely financed by Bristol not from Coanda family funds. In any case as I said the financial part is necessarily a speculation and we should probably left it to rest since we are not going to prove anything. man with one red shoe 16:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

    • the plane Gibbs-Smith mentioned was first shown in October 1911, Coanda was not hired by Bristol until 1911. Listing some sort of reference for the interview you posted would be helpful manwithoneredshoe.Romaniantruths (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Those sentences are taken from an interview, unfortunately it's in Romanian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-k6RWDaNrI But you can have it translated by somebody who knows Romanian. So it's Coanda's word, who knew his personal and family finances and priorities vs. some guy in another country who noticed that he built another airplane shortly after Coanda 1910 (no mention if it was cheaper, if it was already in construction, etc. Plus, Coanda seems to have been a man of many interests, maybe he didn't run out of funds immediately after he built Coanda 1910 maybe he had enough money to finish another project that's a reasonable interpretation, that doesn't mean that he lied that Coanda 1910 brought ruin to his family and didn't have funds to continue the research on that type of engine. I think that Gibbs-Smith speculation shows a bit of bad faith from his part and doesn't paint him as a balanced observer. man with one red shoe 03:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not okay with taking away any mention of Coanda saying he had exhausted his finances. I think it adds to the mess of versions that surround Coanda. We can also say that Coanda's versions of the story do not agree with each other, or we can simply list them one by one, so that the reader can compare them and draw their own conclusion. It is essential to the encyclopedia article that we show Coanda's varying stories to be in conflict with observations made by reliable persons such as Gibbs-Smith and Frank H. Winter. Coanda's statement about his finances is one of those essential elements. If he got money from his father to make another aircraft, why was it not a further revision of the 1910 engine? Why was it a conventional prop plane and not a ducted fan with heat exchangers and perhaps even a combustion chamber this time? Coanda's tone in his story makes it seem that exhausted finances were the only reason he did not follow up on jet technology, when we can plainly see that was not the case. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"If he got money from his father to make another aircraft" No, that's not what he said, he merely said his father financial support for Coanda 1910 was essential and he said that his family got financial ruined because of that. man with one red shoe 04:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
And, what variable stories? You make a claim that he had many stories, what stories? man with one red shoe 04:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The other stories which are clearly described and compared for a few of their vast differences in the Coanda 1910 article that this is the discussion page for. If you want to discuss this article maybe you should read it.Romaniantruths (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
And exactly why do you consider the above quote you added germane? Why does it matter how Coanda financed his 1910 ducted fan? Wether he got the money from his daddy, or won the lottery, or earned it in public restrooms it still has nothing to do with Gibbs-Smith's assertions about his finances after the Paris air-show.Romaniantruths (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Coanda made finances an issue when he said that his funds were exhausted which is why he did not pursue the promising idea of jet engines. After Coanda put the issue in words, Gibbs-Smith gave his considered opinion as rebuttal: that Coanda's finances were not at all the reason why he did not pursue the airstream combustion technology that his 1910 engine almost embodied. Finances are one of the elements that Coanda delivered to the public and that Gibbs-Smith skewered as so much hot air. Of course we will include that part of the debate. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive_2&oldid=423609947"