Talk:Timeline of jet power

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has 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.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Ramjet#Soviet Union and Russia|GIRD-04 ramjet engine]] The anchor (#Soviet Union and Russia) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled[edit]

Nice article, although someone with a strong british agenda added remarks which would be better left out Stephan Schmidt

Agreed, and that was practically their only addition to my original content. Removing! Maury 13:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't The first American turboprop was the General-Electric T-31?

Scope?[edit]

'jet power' is a very broad term.

Rockets, scramjets and the aeolipile are all jet engines.

If the article is about airbreathing jet engines it should probably say so; if it's only about gas-turbine based jet engines then the ramjet stuff needs to go.

But I think the article is talking about airbreathing jet engines, in which case scramjets need to be mentioned.WolfKeeper 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind, I think all jet propulsion vehicles have to be included.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the definition in dictionary, Coanda 1910 was a jet plane[edit]

Even if Coanda 1910 had used just a ducted fan powered by a piston motor, the overall engine fits the definition of a jet engine. Coanda 1910 used oxigen to burn fuel and produced a backward discharge of gases that pushed the plane forward. This is in the definition of a jet engine.

Coanda 1910 was not a turbojet aircraft but definitely was a jet plane.

"Definition of JET ENGINE

An engine that produces motion as a result of the rearward discharge of a jet of fluid; specifically : an airplane engine that uses atmospheric oxygen to burn fuel and produces a rearward discharge of heated air and exhaust gases" source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jet%20engine

"jet engine

1. An engine that develops thrust by ejecting a jet, especially a jet of gaseous combustion products.

2. An engine that obtains the oxygen needed from the atmosphere, used especially to propel aircraft and distinguished from rocket engines having self-contained fuel-oxidizer systems." Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jet+engine

All of this has been hashed out at the Coandă-1910 talk page where consensus is that the Coandă-1910 as shown to the Paris public is not known to have exhaust routed to help thrust. The aircraft never flew. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coanda 1910 was a jet engine working in the "Cold Thrust" regime, at least[edit]

Cold Thrust - Hot Thrust; Both regimes = jet propulsion

According to this page http://modelingmadness.com/scott/axis/ity/campinipreview.htm Campini Caproni jet plane could fly at 200 km/h using just the compressor, without injecting fuel and igniting the mixture.

"On the cold thrust alone, the Campini Caproni was capable of speeds over 200 kph, however with the addition of the 'afterburner', speeds easily doubled to 400kph."

In case Coanda had not injected and ignited fuel (or exhaust gases from the Clerget engine that turned the compressor) his Coanda 1910 power plant would still have been a jet engine working only in the "cold thrust" regime.

Hobbyists often use cold thrust jet engines (ducted fans powered by piston engines) for their model planes.

At the Coandă-1910 talk page the consensus was that the Coandă-1910 as shown to the Paris public was little more than a ducted fan driven by a piston engine. The aircraft never flew. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coanda 1910 used a turbine not an ordinary ducted propeller[edit]

1) There is no consensus whether Coanda-1910 flew or not, as user Binksternet, try to mislead people. 30 years latter a similar design " was capable of 200 kph on cold thrust and 400 kph with the burners active" ( see http://www.meteorflight.com/wps/meteor.nsf/pages/jet_age-campini_caproni ). In theory Coanda-1910 could have flown using just the cold thrust regime.

2) It looks like user Binksternet is not aware that Coanda-1910 used a kind of turbine that would have produced no thrust (unlike a propeller) if it had rotated in open space (not enclosed in a tube). Amongst other publications, a 1952 English article in "Flight" clearly talks about "Coanda Turbine" (see http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1952/1952%20-%200480.html?search=coanda ) also a 1910 picture (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Coanda_turbo-propulseur_1910.jpg ) shows the turbine used by Coanda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk)

This is an encyclopedia - not Fantasyland. The ideas you propose are only unhistorical but against common sense. "Turbine" is obviously a inaccurate here, even if not deliberately misleading - see any definition of turbine. A turbine "extracts energy from a fluid flow". The Coanda "turbo-propulseur" derives all its energy from the power of the internal combustion engine, so it is very simply not a turbine at all. The equivalent part in the Campini-Caproni is equivalent to the compressor in a tubojet, not a turbine (which incidentally the Campini-Caproni doesn't have either). Apart from the consensus of practically every engineer who's ever looked at the Coanda's system that the thrust it could have generated would have been minimal, and certainly not enough to have enabled the taxiing aircraft to have reached flying speed - why, if the machine had achieved any success at all, did Coanda abandon it? He was a competent designer who went on to design quite a few successful aeroplanes, all with conventional propellers. SO unlikely if the bold idea of the "turbo-propulseur" had been anything but a total failure. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your website is NOT a reliable source - I have seen no other evidence about the Campini-Caproni's being capable of flight - much less a speed of 200 kph - in "cold thrust" since again it is quite obvious that practically all the thrust generated was from the "jet" - not the cold airflow from the piston engined compressor. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally - abusing another editor by accusing him of "intent to deceive" is an extremely serious matter - quite enough to get you banned from Wikipedia - just a friendly warning. Play the topic, not the man. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) Soundofmusicals, please write with a single name. You are one and the same person with user Binksternet and romanianlies.

2) The word utilized to describe the rotary device used by Coanda-1910 is "Turbine" (see the reference I indicated). A modern turbo jet has two turbines at least. The one upstream is called "compressor" the other downstream "turbine". In modern terms, Coanda-1910 used just a "compressor (a turbine rotated in reverse)", I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Campini Caproni N1 jet plane could fly without fuel injection in the rearward stream of air[edit]

According to the book "World's Worst Aircraft" By Jim Winchester, page 41, Campini Caproni N1 did not get too much speed increase from its afterburner. Quote, "Use of the afterburner massively increased the fuel flow, but only added an extra 25mph (40km/h) to the top speed", "MAX SPEED 233mph ( 375km/h )" ( see http://books.google.ca/books?id=TS7RfbQrPu8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false )

This contradicts the assessments of an undocumented Wikipedia user who maintains that Campini-Caproni plane was unable to fly using "cold thrust" since ... it is quite obvious that practically all the thrust generated was from the "jet" - not the cold airflow from the piston engined compressor."(Soundofmusicals)

1917 Source (Motor Jet)[edit]

In the article is the entry "1917: James Stocker Harris patents a "Motor Jet" design on behalf of his brother inlaw Robert Alexander Raveau Bolton".

I've done a bunch of digging and came up with two references for this, one by the author Glyn Jones in his book "The Jet Pioneers" and one by Ian Marr of Airbus in his paper "Identifying the mode and impact of technological substitutions". Conversing via e-mail with Ian Marr, he identifies his source as Glyn Jones' book and was unable to find the referenced patent. Performing numerous patent searches in the British patent database, both myself and getting help from a researcher at the British Library, and searching through the US patent database (just because I could), I can find no patent related to the Motor Jet by either James Stocker Harris nor Robert Alexander Raveau Bolton.

The publisher of "The Jet Pioneers" was unable to provide any information regarding source material for the book and, unfortunately, Glyn Jones (aka W. Glyn Jones) died back in 2014, so he's not particularly helpful in tracking down his source material. Has anyone been able to find the supposed 1917 patent? I realize there are patents in other countries, but with Harris and Bolton being British, I thought that would be the most likely patent system to search.

I can't imagine why this would be the case, but this entry is looking increasingly apocryphal. Nonrepeatedmeme (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When a source is clearly wrong about one fact, the applicable guideline is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which allows us to remove an otherwise reliable source for that fact. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that proving the negative is impossible. The entry has survived numerous edits throughout the years so it seems that some authors have reason to believe it to be true. I'm hoping that the entry is correct and one of the previous editors can point to the actual patent. Unfortunately, as I indicate, the seeming original source is no longer with us to verify the information.

The year 1941 is missing[edit]

There are two 1943s and 1941 is missing. It appears that the 1942 header should be 1941 and the first 1943 should be 1942. Joeyyy Macaroni (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]