Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 [citation needed] 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[citation needed] 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? 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)