This is an archive of past discussions about Coandă-1910. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The reference text quotes an unnamed person who spoke at the 24th Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Dresden, Germany, 1990. He or she was presented by the IP editor to our readers as speaking the mind of the symposium as a whole, but undoubtedly there were symposium participants who thought differently than the speaker. If the person speaking can be properly attributed, the quote may stand, depending on how influential the person was. Binksternet (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, the speaker at the Symposium delivered an error in his or her speech: the Coanda-1910 aircraft was not shown at the Paris Automobile Salon, its engine design was shown mounted in a snow and ice sled. Significant mistake. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
well, if you find any references that it was actualy someone there who contradict the statement about the Coanda, feel free to post it. I didnt find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.16.84 (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
No, the remarks must be attributed to whoever said them, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. If you did not find anyone who spoke against Coanda, you must have found the name of the person who spoke for him. Who was it? Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
the author is JD Hunley, his name is right above there. I dont have time now to search for the other symposium, from Budapest, there was another person saying pretty much the same. Page is show too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.16.84 (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure the speaker saying these words at the symposium was J.D. Hunley. Of course I see his name as the book author, but he may have been reporting on another person's speech. The cited book is over 300 pages long, much longer than one person's speech to a symposium. As represented by this chart, Hunley was simply the editor of the proceedings, with 14 papers delivered in Dresden in 1990. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
i saw as well that you deleted some remarks about Gibbs and Winter, regarding their technical qualifications. If you think something was not correct with those, please explain? I saw nothing in their biography who show some level of engineering and technical qualifications, but if you have something to prouve the otherwise, please show us. But until then leave there this lines, since are correct, and the reader must know all about the subject and the ones who studied, so make an idea who is more reliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.16.84 (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Your remarks about Winter and Gibbs-Smith were designed to reduce their prominence as aviation historians, but this line of reduction goes against the high regard for these men. Your comments were petty and trivial, and pushed your point of view. They are non-neutral, uncited, and must be removed. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
My remarks present the truth. As i said, if you have any info about their engineering or technical qualifications, please share with us. If not, stop delete those statements, because it say just the reality
Your attack on Gibbs-Smith is unwarranted—he was awarded knighthood for his aviation history expertise. That action acknowledged his mastery of the subject, in the manner of an honorary doctorate degree. An IP editor with no cited reference cannot attack him with innuendo. Your attack on Winter violates WP:BLP and was removed immediately, in keeping with Wikipedia policies. Not a wise move on your part... To take Winter down a peg, you will have to find an expert talking about the Coanda-1910 who publishes his opinion that Winter was not qualified to publish his opinion. Good luck on that. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
First jet RfC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Should this article include a sentence stating plainly that the Coandă-1910 was "the first jet-propelled aircraft"?
Many expert sources have weighed in on this subject, some naming this aircraft as first, others naming this aircraft but with reservations and yet others naming other aircraft as the first. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes
Yes the aircraft was considered successful, as it demonstrated that jet propulsion principles can be applied from airplanes. The jet-propulsion was know at the time and it was applied on different non-aviation related experiments ( jet propelled boats, rocket propelled air plane models etc). But Coanda-1910 has the merit of demonstrating successfully for the first time that a light and self contained jet engine can be build and applied to an airplane.--Lsorin (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes the aircraft was no doubt the first jet aircraft. Fact that some peoples have a limited knowledge and consider "jet=turbojet" and dont know about motorjet, ramjet, scramjet, even rocket doesnt mean we shouldnt mention them. My proposal is to say it was "the aircraft used an experimental jet engine, and was considered the first jet aircraft". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.164.138 (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
well, i can search for medical sources where peoples seeing ghosts arround, beleiveing in parapsichology and enter with the power of their mind in other realms are considered mentaly derranged. Especialy when they took that very serious and defend this belefis with all their powers, as Gibbs did it. The source (if you dont already erased, as its your habit with what you dont like) is on his page here on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.164.138 (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Such a search by you would be synthesis and original research. We could not use it for this article. Gibbs-Smith was not knighted for his investigation into the spirit world. He was knighted for his aviation history expertise, and rightly so. Binksternet (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Despite the fact you are a fanatic fan of Gibbs, it is no other reason to comply about it. If medical sources state that peoples with similar condition as Gibbs (seeing ghosts, hearing voices, feeling ze other world all over around it) are at least a bit mentaly deranged, than this must be stated as well the fact he is not qualified in technical domains, so in consequence he cant understand well the principles of a jet engine as Coanda made. We need to present the reliability of sources, and since Gibbs is a less reliable one, we need to state that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.28 (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
No
No, the aircraft cannot be considered first because it was not successful. It was the first full-scale model of a jet aircraft, the first experimental full-sized jet-propelled aircraft, the first attempt at a full-sized jet-propelled aircraft, but it was not the first because it did not succeed. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
No, not as such a simple statement since it is clouded by differences of (professional) opinion as to the nature of the turbo-propulseur and whether or not it got anywhere. "attempt at" would be a qualifier would use in describing it.
No, without incontrovertible proof that the turbo-propulseur actually propelled the aircraft in flight it can not be said to be the first jet-propelled aircraft by definition, and if the statement is to remain it needs to be qualified to reflect the differences in expert opinion. Perhaps "... argued as being the first full-sized jet-propelled aircraft"; there's certainly no doubt about that! ;-) --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
No The term is far too easily confused with jet propulsion by a gas turbine. For this reason I don't even support its use on the Caproni. Certainly not a "jet engine", nor a motorjet either. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
No but a qualified statment that is was a failed experimental jet engine may be ok although the term piston fan jet-powered biplane has been used - interesting quote He only just missed inventing the aircraft gas-turbine by not thinking to inject a fuel into the discharge airflow from his "propeller" also note Coanda says he lifted the machine off the ground, but at too high an angle; the wing heeled over and he could not control the aircraft. He injected more fuel into the turbine, but this set the aircraft on fire; he cut off the fuel, the biplane stalled, and Coanda was thrown clear of the machine as it fell to the ground. does not give the impression of a succesfull project. MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussion
A number of sources have said a number of things about the aircraft, and some have said that other aircraft were the first jets: Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
"the first pure jet aircraft flight was made in Germany in 1938"
Frank H. Winter: "If it never flew, Coanda did at least build, so far as we know the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine. But even here Coanda's priority may be questioned..."
Dan Antoniu: "the first jet-propelled machine in the world, irrespective of whether is was tested or not"
Gérard Harmann: "le premier aéroplane propulsé par réaction"
Walter Boyne: "Henri Coanda attempted to fly a primitive jet aircraft in 1910"
The references listed above are not listed in their correct order, to reflect all Coanda's scholars statements by their importance, weight and chronologic order:
Antoniu -
Coanda No.1 1910 was the first jet-propelled machine is the world, irrespective of whether is was tested or not, it had the merit of influencing the subsequent aeronautical technologies and preceded the machines of thirties and forties.
— Dan Antoniu, 2010 Henri Coanda and his technical work during 1906-1918.
Boyne -
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.
— Walter J. Boyne, 2006 -The Converging Paths of Whittle and von Ohain, A Concise History of Jet Propulsion
Stine -
Photographs and drawings of the 1910 airplane clearly show a centrifugal compressor (top) driven by a piston engine, so Coanda's turbopropulseur had elements of a true jet. The critical stage — injection of fuel into the compressed air — is not documented.
— G. Harry Stine , 1989 - The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda
Hartmann -
L’ingénieur roumain Henri Coanda (1885-1972) demeure célèbre pour avoir conçu en 1908, réalisé et expérimenté en 1910 chez Clément-Bayard le premier aéroplane propulsé par réaction. ... Cette expérience a le mérite de démontrer que le procédé fonctionne parfaitement.
— Gérard Harmann, 2007 - Clément-Bayard, sans peur et sans reproche
Stine -
Although there were several jet-propelled aircraft in existence at an early time — the 1910 Coanda Jet and the 1938 Caproni-Campini NI — the first pure- jet aircraft flight was made in Germany in 1938 by the Heinkel He- 178 at 435 mph.
If it never flew, Coanda did at least build, so far as we know the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine. But even here Coanda's priority may be questioned. ... was his jet-propelled ice sled.
— Frank H. Winter, 1980 Ducted fan or the world's first jet plane? The Coanda claim re-examined
Gibbs-Smith -
Another unsuccessful, but prophetic, machine was the Coanda biplane (strictly speaking a sesquiplane) exhibited at the Paris Salon in October. It was of all-wood construction, with fully cantilevered wings— which, however, did not look very robust — and an Antoinette-like fuselage with obliquely cruciform tail-unit; it was equipped with a reaction propulsion unit consisting of a 5o-hp 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 the propulsive 'jet'. Although inevitably earth-bound, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane.
...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 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.
In 1910, the first jet airplane was flown near Paris. ...
— G._Harry_Stine, 1967 The prowling mind of Henri Coanda
Antinou's statement that Coanda's aircraft "merit of influencing the subsequent aeronautical technologies" - is the source more specific as to which technologies? (I'm assuming that none of Griffiths, Ohain, Whittle or Campini acknowledge Coanda in their early (non-secret) work.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Antoniu's statement is contained in the Conclusion section at the end of the first part of the whole book which is more or less only dedicated to the description of Coanda-1910. Of course that can be interpreted as not referring, to the "turbo-propulsuer" and the influence it had in the development of the jet engine=turbojet, but I think Antoniu did had no need to repeat the statements he made already on the "turbo-propulseur" description on page:
"The project that he arrived by departing from this above-mentioned concept represents a propulsion assembly for aeroplanes, with a jet effect, comprising a radial compressor powered by a internal combustion engine by means of a rotation multiplier with ration of 1:4, an assembly that formed a 'motofan', the ancestor of the current turbofan. The invention was given the name 'propeller' in the patent application and in the documentation in was given the name 'turbo-propeller'. ('Turbo' was a term that described a rotor turning at high speeds of rotation)."
Than why would Antoniu place "the merit of influencing the subsequent aeronautical technologies and preceded the machines of thirties and forties" exactly in the period of first implementations of turbojet? Just for fun?
Keep in mind as well the the whole book goes until 1916, with very detailed description of constructions of other Coanda's firsts ( like the first military monoplane of England, next one introduced only in the 1937 or the first strategic bomber ). But Antoniu put this statement in the Coanda-1910 conclusion, not at the end of the book!--Lsorin (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
And still about your "no" comment GraemeLeggett read the current introduction. Is just a plain rebuttal of Coanda! Everything is presenting just the position of the liars Gibbs-Smith and Winter.
just constructed
argued engine
argued flying
So me a single entry in the introduction which presents the mainstream assessments of Coanda-1910? I know that Binksternet will completely ignore in his staunch position. So I do still hope than I will find some neutral editors and administators which will follow relevant resources as per Wikipedia [rules] and the WP:NPOV, without trying to present the ultimate and authoritative truth of Winter and Gibbs-Smith.
And another question about your question GraemeLeggett, are you trying as well like Binksternet to demonstrate with his personal synthesis, that Coanda-1910 was not influential at all in the history of jet propulsion? If so, why you don't propose this article for deletion? It make no sense to have articles with all kind of crappy carts with fans build for fun by some idiots and liars.--Lsorin (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I was asking two questions in a way. Firstly for a clarification as to whether Antoniu was specific about the influence the Coanda-1910 had on aircraft (of the "thirties and forties") that followed ( I haven't got access to the text to read for myself) since examples are always more powerful than generalities. Secondly, in a more roundabout way, I was asking if the names most people associate with jet engines had ever mentioned the Coanda-1910 engine but not expecting that they had (because if they had I'd have expected it to have been mentioned already. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
it is clear by now that everybody agree that Coanda-1910 was the first jet/reaction aircraft. Only controversies (and i propose to change "rebuttals" with "controversies" since is not actualy any real rebbutals) is if it flyed or not. Most peoples , and the most qualified, agree it fly , yes, not a controled fly, more like an accidental one as Coanda himself and Boyne said too, but the plane took off and get airborne, which obviously mean it fly thru the air. As well i propose that mentally derranged Gibbs to be eliminated from sources, since he held not qualifications whatsoever regarding jet engines or technical ones regarding planes, his work was tendentious, with many ommited stuff, limited knowledge, errors etc. And ofcourse, he was crazy (meaning he had psychiatric problems) and saw ghosts everywhere around and even talk with them and work mostly as keeper of Public Relations. Winter was no better (regarding technical qualifications, he is a journalist with a degree in history and write mostly about rocket history) and the fact someone like Boyne (his director at NASM) have no ideea about his work regarding Coanda show us how important was he related with the subject. No offense for Mr. Winter. Only reliable sources must be Antoniu, Stine, Boyne, Hartmann, in this order. They studied all the sources, have technical knowledge to understand them and was unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.164.138 (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Who said that in a speech? Do you have a name for the speaker? This person spoke for himself, not for the Symposium. Whoever it is, he made a significant error in telling the audience that the Coanda-1910 aircraft was shown at the Paris Automobile Salon. Coanda's snow sled was shown, not the aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Motorjet?
Current understanding of the term motorjet includes the concept that it was injected with fuel to create combustion in the air stream.
With conflicting opinions from aviation experts, we cannot say that Coandă's 1910 construction included any such combustion, so the aircraft cannot be said to be a motorjet, without some kind of explanation or modifier. Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't need to list again the history of Coanda. There is already your personal biased version in Wikipedia. But anyway we all know that Coanda declared in the beginning 50's (and arguably 1944) that the engine was basically a "motorjet" as per current definition ( Coanda never used the term motorjet ), but later argued by Gibbs-Smith and Winter which used the term "true jet" telling us nothing about what exact type of jet engine he had in mind! The definition you just presented makes no sense: "similar to an afterburner for a piston engine driving a propeller". Canovetti had a "flamethrower" like that definition described in his patent from 1914.--Lsorin (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
The point is that the engine Coanda made for exhibit was not a motorjet (no combustion in the air stream), and the supposed improvements he made in November–December 1910 are argued by expert sources, and not well enough documented to count as a motorjet. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
it is clear by now that everybody agree that Coanda-1910 was the first jet/reaction aircraft. Only controversies (and i propose to change "rebuttals" with "controversies" since is not actualy any real rebbutals) is if it flyed or not. Most peoples , and the most qualified, agree it fly , yes, not a controled fly, more like an accidental one as Coanda himself and Boyne said too, but the plane took off and get airborne, which obviously mean it fly thru the air. As well i propose that mentally derranged Gibbs to be eliminated from sources, since he held not qualifications whatsoever regarding jet engines or technical ones regarding planes, his work was tendentious, with many ommited stuff, limited knowledge, errors etc. And ofcourse, he was crazy (meaning he had psychiatric problems) and saw ghosts everywhere around and even talk with them and work mostly as keeper of Public Relations. Winter was no better (regarding technical qualifications, he is a journalist with a degree in history and write mostly about rocket history) and the fact someone like Boyne (his director at NASM) have no ideea about his work regarding Coanda show us how important was he related with the subject. No offense for Mr. Winter. Only reliable sources must be Antoniu, Stine, Boyne, Hartmann, in this order. They studied all the sources, have technical knowledge to understand them and was unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.164.138 (talk • contribs)
Binksternet i understand you start to delete even posts on "Talk page", if you disagree with them. I didnt know that this is your personal domain where you can do whatever you wish. Maybe is better to put a tag somehwere, so we know that in fact some editors are more equal then others, and regardless the sources presented their own bias need to prevail.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.36 (talk • contribs)
I deleted a post that appeared twice, appeared to be a copy/paste error. I left the second instance of it and responded to it. Your interpretation of my reasoning, that I disagreed with it, had nothing at all to do with my deletion of the duplicate talk entry. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
and about Gibbs, how you call a person who "see things"/ghosts, "hear weird stuffs", "feel unhuman presences materialized in thin air" (without others to be "able" to such "performances")? And not just that, but stauntly defending this to anyone disagree with him? Do we see a kind of similar pattern (thus hopefully not at that level), with some Gibbs fans who act in similar manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.36 (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Gibbs-Smith's interest in the supernatural has no bearing on his expertise in aviation history. No amount of you referring to ghosts will diminish his highly respected position as a foremost aviation historian of his day. Binksternet (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thats will be the readers to decide, we just need to present the facts are they was. And another fact, yes, maybe he was a respected aviation historian, in UK, but in the same time is clear that he lack technical knowledge and competence, and ofcourse he was mentaly deranged. This, beside the errors, changing of mind from 1960 to 1970, sloppy documentation on Coanda etc. make him not a very good source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.28 (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Wishful thinking! If you do not consider Gibbs-Smith a reliable source, bring the complaint to WP:RS/N and see what they say. I will bet that they confirm his expertise on early aviation history. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
i think that was already done, and almost no one bothered to answer, meaning that Gibbs is not at all an important or know name. And still dont get how is "offensive" or "wrong" to say about someone (in our case the crazy Gibbs) who doesnt have any engineer or technical qualifications, that, well, doesnt have any engineer or technical qualifications (same for Winter)? It is the truth so hard to handle for some? Is it a kind of convention on english wikipedia to not say the real stuff about some peoples idolized by peoples who happen to be older editors here? Just say so, so others to know the limitations of this "encyclopedia" and dont bother to read or write here. Oh, wait, Wikipedia is already considered an unreliable source, even by Wikipedia itself. I wonder why, and if actions as Binksternet didnt play a big role here indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.42 (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Farnborough 2010
I removed a bit about the Coandă-1910 being "payed homage" at the recent Farnborough Airshow. The only thing that happened there is that the company S & C Thermofluids Ltd brought a small silvery model, desktop size, to show at the airshow. I found no mention of this activity in any of the reportage surrounding the airshow, so I can only conclude that the showing of the model was not notable. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
So if in your biased mind it was not notable that means the you have the right to remove it? This is again synthesis. Show us an article or any reliable source which said, that the the payed homage at Farnbrough Airshow was not notable.--Lsorin (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Do not engage in personal attack with the phrase "your biased mind".
It is my opinion that the Farnborough appearance of a small silvery model is not a notable occurrence to be mentioned in this article about the experimental 1910 aircraft. Did any major news media discuss the model? No. The onus of proof is upon the person who wants to insert this bit, not upon the person who wants to remove it. Find a mainstream secondary source report about the model being exhibited at 2010 Farnborough and you will have something worthwhile. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Weather in December 1910
Winter brings our attention to the 31 December issue of Flight which says that a spell of inclement weather was experienced at Issy during which no operations were carried out. The bad weather lifted on the 19th when a flurry of activity picked up. This bad weather is said by Winter to have encompassed the notional test flight dates, 10 or 16 December, depending on the source.
I just removed a new weather-related paragraph that was based on research performed by Cyril Dupont, a weather historian who lives in France. The reference, Dupont's analysis, is given a brief mention online at jet100.com, a website which is not reliable as a Wikipedia reference for opinion or analysis. Here at the Coandă-1910 article we draw a few files from jet100.com in order to obtain PDFs of the 1910 Coanda sales brochure, a 1910 magazine article and a patent document, but I cannot put jet100.com into the reliable sources category because its own sources of information are not verifiable, and there are no authors listed to give proper attribution to analysis and opinion.
If Cyril Dupont published an analysis of the weather at Issy-les-Moulineaux during December 1910, I would like to see it. If he can show precipitation readings taken at Issy which prove that no rain fell during the day on 16 December 1910 then he has an excellent argument. Simple high or low pressure maps do not prove whether flying was possible at Issy.
In the end, speculation about the weather is just another one of the inconclusive non-concrete pieces of evidence that frustrate both Coanda fans and Coanda disbelievers. Much more concrete is the report from Flight that no air activity was undertaken at Issy until 19 December. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
And as you just stated in the end speculation about the weather is just another one of the inconclusive non-concrete pieces of evidence that frustrate both Coanda fans and Coanda disbelievers. as per WP:NPOV rules both sides must be listed or the whole paragraph must be deleted.--Lsorin (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the Dupont bit is not verifiable, not reliable. If we found his research published in a reliable source with attribution, we could use it to tell the story of modern researchers trying to counter what was written at "Doings at Issy" from 31 December 1910 Flight. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
There's a couple of points I've not felt easy with since I first read this article:
Maybe it's just me but ... heat-augmented centrifugal compressor propulsion system with rotary fan blades ... doesn't conjure up a true picture of the design; would substituting ... with a multi-bladed rotary fan ... be better?
Regarding the reference to Houart in the 'Later claims' section – One chapter of the book describes how a group of French dragoons (mounted light cavalrymen supposedly including the author, but most likely not) ... – the way in which it is written makes the comments "supposedly" and "but most likely not" seem like POV on the part of the contributing editor, in which case perhaps it should be re-written along the lines of a more neutral and simpler ... a group of French dragoons (including the author) ...? – which is probably what Houart wrote anyway, or made clear that they are the opinions of either Stine or Winter (the two reference points).--TransientVoyager (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
"Heat-augmented" is a novel part of the ducted fan scheme, as far as I know. The exhaust gases of the piston engine were routed into the air duct.
Houart's style of writing places him implicitly in the middle of the dragoons, but he does not say explicitly that he was one of them. Winter and Stine note the implied vantage point and they say that he was unlikely to have been a dragoon. Winter goes further by noting that the airfield was shut down by bad weather during the supposed test flight, so the dragoons and the rest of the story are fanciful. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Binksternet, but I think I might not have made my first comment clear – I have no problem with the heat augmented part; rather I was suggesting that 'multi-bladed rotary fan' is a better description of the fan component than 'rotary fan blades', and looking for feedback before making any changes.
On Houart, I can now properly understand what the statement is trying to say in the light of your explanation. In consequence I think a little rewording would make it clearer. --TransientVoyager (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
You wanted to control the article but you were unable to bring a consensus together. I wanted not to control the article but to make sure it followed WP:NPOV; other editors here, for the most part, agreed. A consensus was formed by editors who disagreed with you. I have no article ownership issues but I can understand why you are frustrated. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I never wanted control of this biased article written by you Binksternet. Do you remember that I proposed it for deletion? How would I want control over a deleted article :=)). The internal working of you brain really amazes me sometimes. The consensus build up was always ignored and only by you!--Lsorin (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Article deletion was never seriously considered by anyone here. Each you proposed it I figured it was part of the drama of wanting to control the content, a final solution of deleting it if control could not be achieved. The article was never going to get deleted, however, with the amount of focus on the topic from Romanian researchers and the Romanian government, the amount of notability achieved in secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
To make you more competent in Coanda-1910 please check the mainstream and the relevant sources. Some are listed in the archive of the talk page of this article: [1]
And for the you next edit please read again the note: Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need any help getting started with editing, see the Wikipedia:new contributors' help page.--Lsorin (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
There's no reliable source that proves the damn thing even flew, so to state in the first sentence that it was the first jet aircraft is simply not the NPOV. The introduction does embrace the controversy by (in my opinion probably too much if anything) discussing the claims by Coanda.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity!20:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
there are more reliable sources saying it was a jet and even that it flew, then one contradicting this, just search the tens and tens of books and articles posted here in various archives (this if you are not a clone or someone as Romanianthruts for ex. and already saw them). The only ones contradicting are mostly Gibbs, a nut, mentally derranged person with no technical or engineering qualifications whatsoever, and who worked mostly as keeper of Public Relations, and Winter, as well with no technical or engineering qualifications whatsoever, and who's writing and researchings about the subject was so bad and little known that Walter Boyne, his director at NSAM didnt even know that he write something about the subject. And Boyne, who agree that Coanda 1910 was a jet aircraft equiped with an afterburner and that take off the ground, have mostly the same materials at disposition as Winter, just that Boyne was a former Air Force colonel and jet pilot and a more prolific author with solid knowledge of technical stuff, when Winter was a journalist with a degree in history who write more about rocket history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.19.10 (talk • contribs) 16:38, December 17, 2010
It is pretty clear that just some biased older editors try to take advantage of their position and impose their own point of view, prouving once again why wikipedia is such a worse and unreliable "encyclopedia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.19.10 (talk • contribs) 16:38, December 17, 2010
just out of curiosity, what personal atacks you refer to? There wasnt any persons named there. And most part, and most important, is about the content of the article and reliable sources, from what i saw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.248.203 (talk • contribs) 20:57, December 17, 2010
its amusing to see how much the truth hurts someones here. And how low can come. Instead or deleting some real facts presented (so desperately to do so even on a simple talk page, gosh), wouldnt be better to combat them with your variant of those facts? I know, there is nothing wrong in what was write above, about Gibbs or Winter, so is hard to combat any other way except deleting, prouving once again why no one should trust "wikipedia". Well, at least english one. Nice to see anyway that former "Romanianlies", then "truth", the one who started the mess on Coanda pages, is back under the name "Incompetence" (at least this time chose the right name) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.243.157 (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
New Frank Winter article
On 6 December Frank H. Winter published a new article in Air & Space magazine, viewable here:
Winter's new article appears to be a brief summary of his 1980 work, so I wonder if we should mention it, or use it as a source. He does not address any new opinions or analysis, and especially does not rebut the recent Antoniu conclusions. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion. The new article establishes the fact that Winter has not changed his mind about the aircraft, and it is much more accessible to online readers than the 1980 article. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I see in this edit by TransientVoyager, the note about the mistaken use of the word "monoplane" by Flight magazine has been commented out. Here's the note under discussion:
The article in Flight magazine is accompanied by a photograph of the Coandă-1910 underneath which is the following caption: Side view of the Coanda aeroplane, upon turbine propulsion system and without propellers ... This machine has been purchased by Mr. Weymann. The aircraft is mistakenly referred to as a 'monoplane' within the article's text, but the photo with the caption underneath is definitely the Coandă-1910.
This note was placed on 5 November by anonymous IP 217.42.186.134 from Cowdenbeath, Fife, UK, apparently in answer to talk page complaints by Lsorin that the Flight magazine should be thrown out as inaccurate, that its mention of Weymann should be thrown out just the same as its mention of "monoplane". Consensus by other editors was that the Weymann bit appeared to be as good as the other reporting quality, while the word "monoplane" appeared to be a typo or oversight. The Weymann part of the article was substantiated by both Gibbs-Smith in 1960 and Winter in 1980. If editor consensus holds to this conclusion, the note is not needed in the article. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually that note was added by me for the reasons that you mention, but in hindsight I feel that the monoplane 'error' is too minor to discredit the source or to warrant an explanation, so I've no objections to removing it. As for the IP bit – I left the pc on standby for a while, got logged out without realising it and apparently moved to Cowdenbeath in the process! The marvels of modern technology eh! BTW, how do you find out where an editor or IP contributes from? --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll make a note of that. Quite a coincidence – hmmm, makes you wonder ...! I notice they've been quiet for a while, but that might change shortly. :-( --TransientVoyager (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Winter email
Because I was curious, I wrote to Frank H. Winter yesterday with the question, "Do you have any new observations about the case, evidence picked up since 1980?" He responded in this manner:
"In answer to your question I can tell you the following:
"Two or three months ago, when I realized that the centenary of Coanda's alleged jet plane flight was soon approaching, I made a dedicated trip to the Library of Congress to see if, indeed, anything new had been uncovered.
"I found several works on Coanda, but practically all of them were in Romanian. Nonetheless, I checked out as many of these books as I could and although I have never studied Romanian, it is a Romance language and there were enough recognizable words in what I found that clearly showed to me that the Romanian works I looked at definitely supported Coanda's claim that he made the 'flight'. On the other hand, these works did not seem to be scholarly and appeared to simply accept Coanda's claim without question and at face value.
"At home, I also made an Internet search on Coanda on my computer but similarly found repetitions of the same uncritical Coanda claim of his having made the 'world's first jet plane flight'. I did, however, learn that the international airport at Bucharest is named after him.
"I also re-read my own 1980 article in which, as you know, I carefully examined all the available evidence on the case. In the conclusion of my article, I left it up to the reader to decide the merits of the Coanda claim but it was pretty clear that there is no evidence to show that he actually made the flight. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that his Turbo-Propulseur was even capable of flight nor any to show that it was a true jet plane, with fuel injection.
"Lastly, I recently had the occasion to visit the National Air and Space Museum's Udvar-Hazy Center and happened to see on exhibit the Hiller Flying Platform of the 1950s that used ducted fans to achieve flight. It was most interesting to me to find that the Hiller Flying Platform used three 44 hp piston engines but barely hovered, and that this aircraft was essentially unsuccessful. You may recall that the Coanda Turbo-Propulseur used only one 50 hp engine. I therefore now believe that the Coanda machine was not only not a true jet plane but was most likely woefully underpowered and probably just 'sat there', or barely moved when it was tried or if it was tried.
"I therefore conclude that although I probably would write my article a little differently in terms of style if I were to re-do it today, and would add a bit more, I still maintain the same finding that based upon all the available evidence, the Coanda Turbo-Propulseur never flew.
"If, however, some other researcher presents some compelling evidence—and fully documents it—that it was a true jet plane and did fly, I would certainly accept this." (personal email from Frank H. Winter, 2 December 2010)
Just thought I'd post that here in case it is of interest. I think it settles the question of whether Winter's 1980 article was negative or open-ended with regard to Coanda's supposed flight in December 1910. And it settles the question of where Winter stands today, whether his position changed over time. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Even though we have just gotten rid of the list of books that do not mention Coanda at all (they were seen as "adding bias to the 'non-importance' side of the story", Winter emailed me today with two more books he found at NASM that he said should have included Coanda but did not: Jules Duhem, Histoire des Origines du vol a Réaction (Nouvelles Éditions Latines: Paris, 1959) and Edward W. Constant, II, The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution (The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore and London, 1981). Apparently, this line of evidence of absence still means something to Winter 30 years after he first wrote about some other books which are glaringly silent on Coanda. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
It's frustrating I know and I would completely agree that mention of this machine is missing from virtually all modern 'non-coffee table' aviation references (and I haven't found it in 'coffee table' books either. I don't think there is a guideline on it but I think it is fair to say that we can't say a German Shepherd is not a cat because it does not appear in cat references!! We can't say that a London bus is red either by using a photograph, a bizarre situation caused by strange Wikipedia guidelines IMHO. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)01:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Good one! We cannot say the Coanda-1910 is not important because it does not appear in standard texts but we can quote published sources commenting on this condition. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe we here at English Wikipedia have the best version of the story of the Coandă-1910 available anywhere, as we have spent a lot of time and energy arguing the facts to achieve the most neutral representation. I have nominated this article for GA status. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Can someone quickly check the B class checklist first so that it does meet those requirements. Else I see the first question of an assessment being "Why isn't it B class?" GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Any editor can assess any article, thankfully MILHIST and WPAviation use a checklist to make it easier. Bias is only an issue if you get it wrong. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Now that's what I call progress. Compared to a couple of months ago this is a much more complete article, and you only have to look at the talk page archives to realise just how much effort and patience has gone into it making it so. Good luck to all those that help in the push! :-)--TransientVoyager (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I was asked by Binksternet if I would like to review this article for GA. To be honest I took it off my watchlist a while ago but I can see that great improvements have been made and have now re-added it, well done to all. Instead of starting a formal review I have pasted the GAN criteria in below and added my comments in italics after having read through the article fairly thoroughly. I may well have missed things and also reviewed nearer to WP:WIAFA requirements in other areas but if the article was improved to comply with them now then there is no reason why it could not go all the way up to Featured Article status. Here goes then:
Quite well written, some words missing in places and the odd typo ('airlane'?). I think the lead is a good summary. A mixture of US/Commonwealth spellings is in use, should be one or the other per WP:ENGVAR (direct quotes excepted). Examples are dampener/damper, aluminium, airplane, and centreline. The date format is consistent throughout in the Commonwealth form. It's difficult to tell what form of English was used when an IP originally created this article in March 2003, from their other contributions they appeared to use Commonwealth spellings. The clearly US spellings seem to have been added this year. The word 'plane' is not generally used in aircraft articles, the choices are the internationally neutral 'aircraft' or 'airplane/aeroplane' for aircraft with a strong national tie (was debated at length at WT:AIR some years ago). A run through with a spellchecker set on one language or the other should fix this. Words to watch; I spotted a few 'somes' as in 'some observers' or 'some historians', should be changed if possible to be more specific. The Paris museum mentioned in the 'Memorials' section could be linked directly to the French Air and Space Museum.Picky stuff but the units could be tidied, the conversion template is partially in use, some units are spelled out in full throughout where they can be abbreviated after the first use and some have half completed metric conversions or are unusually hyphenated. There is a line on power-to-weight ratio, I don't think the term is linked and the ratio appears to be backwards (weight first, power second). If it is like this in the source then fine but it would be useful the other way round to compare with other engine specification sections where the figures are given conventionally.
I can find only one unusually hyphenated unit, '50-hp', and that's in a Gibbs-Smith quote in the Rebuttals section. I don't know if that's the original form so I'm wary of changing it, but if it is it needs to be accompanied by a sic. Additionally, the units mentioned without conversions are also within quotes; should their equivalents be noted?
I wonder if the '50 hp' that appears twice in quotes (without conversion) really needs secondary units, having already been converted twice earlier? No sweat doing it; just seems unnecessary in these particular instances.
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
Probably the biggest difficulty with this article, I think both sides of the history of this aircraft have been well recorded and referenced here. The sources appear to be reliable ones without looking at each one in depth. Earlier on the talk page I noted that this machine did not appear in my own references and I was told that its absence from references could not be used to indicate its contested lack of importance. There is a fair list in a footnote of books that it does not appear in, I feel that the footnote should be removed as it appears to be adding bias to the 'non-importance' side of the story. Original research; not much that I can see, there is one line where it says roughly '...from photographs it looked something like this' and the source that the photo appears in is apparently used as a cite. I asked the question directly at WT:RS some time ago whether photographs could be used as a citable reference, the answer was a resounding 'no', I don't necessarily agree with that. Any footnotes with claims or statements should also be cited per WP:VERIFY, the Handley Page slots entry is one that comes to mind (not that I doubt the fact personally). One footnote also refers to a photograph.
Antoniu and his team are cited for the statements based on photographic evidence. Considering that much of their conclusions regarding construction (and possibly more) are thus based, does that mean Antoniu cannot be regarded as RS, or just any photo-related findings of theirs? --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
We do not know what other evidence they used in addition to photographic. Also, our reliable sources are allowed to give their opinions about photographs even though we Wikipedians are not. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Glad to hear that Binksternet (Merry Christmas to you and all others here BTW), I was hoping the situation might be something like that otherwise I could see a lot of extra work removing the relevant parts. I hope that addresses Nimbus' concerns too. --TransientVoyager (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
At 79 kb the article appears to be a touch overlength but I can't really see where any material could be removed or split to another article apart from the 'Related development' section perhaps. The high level of detail is necessary to explain the patents, designer's claims and the counter-claims fully.
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Considering that this was (is?) apparently the main problem with the article I think that it is quite neutral now (excepting the footnote that I mentioned above) with both sides of the history being fairly recorded, leaving the reader to decide, which is how it should be. Well done.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
[4]The article could not really be considered stable at the moment noting that recent edits are constructive improvements and that the edit warring seems to have died down. I note very recent entries on the talk page where editors do not seem to be happy with certain things. Has the RfC been closed (or can it be closed?) and can the edit protection be removed? Anyone starting a GAN review would be bound to place the review on hold by the guideline advice.
At WP:WIAGA, vandalism reversions are specifically exempted from the stability criteria, so User:Dana boomer says at WT:GAN that he thinks an article can be promoted to GA even if it is under semi-protection from vandalism. Alternatively, the article can be unprotected and we can just revert the expected IP-hopping 'vandal' edits which always go against consensus. Regarding recent edits, I believe they are good faith improvements rather than large-scale constructive changes that are making it unstable, such as moving sections around, or adding new sections. I think what we have now is a stable skeleton with some good faith changes to the musculature. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
The article is quite well illustrated which is important to show the technicalities. From experience of image reviews at WP:FAC I would be slightly worried that some of the licensing templates have not been completed correctly. The non-free images are useful and justified I think but the source details seem a bit strange. One gives the source as a book with ISBN, another from the same book does not give the ISBN (it's not apparent that the source is a book). The non-free images state that permission has been given (but not where this is recorded) and I believe that permission is not required for non-free images anyway, they are generally used without permission. I'm not an image reviewer but I know an editor who is very versed in image licensing and could contact her for clarification if desired.
^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage, is not required for good articles.
^This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
^Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.
I hope that helps, some of these points could be fixed quite easily. To summarise I think the article would fail GAN at the moment mainly due to the lack of stability, I believe that it is recommended that articles are stable before they are reviewed as it is difficult for reviewers to assess something that is constantly changing. Cheers and Merry Christmas. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)15:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comprehensive pre-review Nimbus. I hope no-one thinks I'm speaking out of turn here or stealing Binksternet's thunder, but I felt I needed to show gratitude personally since it was my suggestion that got you into this "mess" (Lol) and sincerely hope you can forgive me! ;-) Merry Christmas to you too. --TransientVoyager (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the fantastic pre-review, a very welcome equivalent to peer review. I've addressed some points:
The word "Airlanes" is part of a defunct publication title that gets its name from lanes in the air for airliners.
I just changed four instances of plane to aircraft, leaving the direct quotes alone.
I'm not expert at sorting US vs UK engvar but I acknowledge a lot of the direct quotes are US style—wouldn't they stay that way because they are quoted? As well, the name Coandă often appears Coanda (its Romanian A-breve swapped for the easier 'a') in French and English sources that we are quoting.
I have closed the RfC on the talk page.
I fear the results of page unprotection as there have been numerous edit warring POV entries from Romanian IP-hopping editors. Plenty of Featured Articles are under semi-protection, such as 7 World Trade Center, Malcolm X and Microsoft. I don't know if any articles have ever attained GA or FA status under semi-protection.
No worries guys and glad that I could help. I put 'quotes excepted' in the ENGVAR bit, quotes always get copied directly. It's a European article so no particular form of English applies to it apart from that it should follow the creator's lead. The editors active here should agree whether to use US or Commonwealth and then copy edit the words that don't fit the chosen variety. Interesting that 'Airlanes' is not a typo, I bet someone will change it in the future though!! I just noticed that there is no 'see also' section, not compulsory and the article has plenty of wikilinks, don't know if there are related articles that have not been mentioned in the text.
Quite. I did note the difficulty of determining the original form of English above, from this diff in another related article [2] it is apparent that he/she was not from the West side of the Atlantic as they give a translation for tap to faucet in parentheses. It's not important which form is used but what is important for consistency is that the same form is used throughout. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)21:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the form of English, I was the one who put the British English template at the top of the page, but I did so without having any compelling evidence that one or the other version should be used. I did so only to settle the article down into one of the two camps, and I chose UK for topic-relevant reasons. The UK did more reporting on (and criticizing of) the aircraft than the US. The Aero was a London rag, and Aircraft in America copied its report. Flight was a UK weekly. Coanda went to England to work for Bristol. Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith and Frank H. Winter were both born in England. It seemed a better fit somehow. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Overall, taking into consideration the apparent original form of English used and the fact that the subject itself is non U.S., my feeling is that we should use Commonwealth English. Any comments? --TransientVoyager (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry folks, didn't spot any language tag or Binksternet's comment when I added my own. --TransientVoyager (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Did the language tag get removed at some stage then? I don't see it at the top of this page. Might be easier to move to Commonwealth because of all the formatted dates. The long quote from Coanda looked strange as he did not appear to spend much time in the States (if any?), perhaps it was the reporter's style?! Glad to see that the image licensing is being looked at in depth, some of them did not look right at all. Cheers Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)21:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a hidden maintenance tag, no one can see it. Normal practise is to add it visibly on an article talk page. Lord knows what the purpose of the tag you used is?!! It's sorted now anyway but it does explain my confusion as to the missing tag. Did you get an answer on the stability problem? I don't see why a protected article can not progress myself. I happened to look through the other language wiki articles on this aircraft and found it interesting that the Romanian one in particular is very short (non-importance?) but the lead appears to say that it was the world's first jet aircraft (no surprises there). Other language articles led to particularly nasty forums with much the same behaviour as is going on here. I would not name names but a disgruntled, contemporary Romanian inventor is using the same style that is being used here. As a community all we can do is push on and follow the WP guidelines, which I think are being necessarily followed to the letter. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)01:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
One million francs
I wonder if we should tell the reader what the modern value of one million francs is. This webpage puts it as 3,608,760 Euros with a 1910–2009 inflation and conversion factor. Throughout the year of 2009, the Euro exchanged with the US dollar at rates between 1.27847 USD and 1.49145 USD, so 3,608,760 Euros might be said to be worth between US$4.61M and US$5.38M, roughly five million of today's US dollars spent on developing and building the Coanda-1910. Similarly, in July 2009 the Euro was equivalent to 0.8562 British Pounds, so 3.6 million Euros was about 3.1 million British Pounds. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Sensible idea – it adds perpective to Coandă's personal investment in the project. I wouldn't be too precise though, an 'about' figure of today's equivalents would be suitable as the 'one million francs' quoted is unlikely to be exact. --TransientVoyager (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
that's in term of inflation as opposed to say buying power or gdp or average wages. measuringworth.com has an interesting treatment of the subject and as an experiment 10 thousand pounds (it doesn't have Francs) delivers a series of modern day numbers that vary over a factor of ten depending on how you choose to "value" it. I think you need to find a contemporary expression of the value of 1 million Francs if you want to give a comparison or a reliable source for a modern equivalent. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
If there's a range of a factor of ten in the possible conversions, we are better off leaving it as is, with the impression of a lot of money being spent but no (potentially very wrong) specifics supplied. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
References section
I think some work is required to tidy up the references section:
There are lots of citations unnecessarily including publisher, ISBN etc., when all that's needed is author, date, and page number/s where the source details are already noted in full in Bibliography; and likewise there are page numbers given within the Bibliography entries. I could work my way through the repetition a bit at a time if that's OK.
A number of citations are accompanied by an exerpt from the source being cited – this is useful for those who have no access to the source, but we don't have them for all other cites to written sources so for consistency should they remain?
We usually like to include ISBN's since the wiki software turns them to clickable links that lead to a Special page that searches for the book at various libraries, bookstores, etc. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 22:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm out of blocking, I supposes for very short time, because the intervals starts to be longer in longer until my account, I hope will be completely removed by the "Gods" of Wikipedia.
So first of all thanks Nimbus for convincing Binksternet that WP:SYN does not belong to a GA. I did try that several times, just being ignored in the end, by all editors including Binksternet.
So I would be really grateful if you take over this Consensus build up, as for sure what I write here will be ignored by editors and admins and I will get for sure blocked again, time for Andy and Binksternet to celebrate ;).
The consensus is about the introduction of the article. We did never reached consensus on the introduction of the article, so I propose this again for the third time (at least) with more information for everybody to understand the status. The current introduction is not referenced against the basic rule "stick to the sources".
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources from the WP:V
Exceptional claims require high-quality sources.[6] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them. I refer here to Gibbs-Smith and Frank H. Winter articles which are dubious as high-quality sources as it was already demonstrated ( e.g. Gibbs-Smith said twice that the second version of Coanda's plane was not having the tank in the wing against a lot of sources against it, Frank H. Winter missing a lot of relevant sources and and using non-technical terms like "true jet" in all his references to Coanda-1910 ) As well on regarding the same sources in the WP:IRS can somebody demonstrate that Winter's and Gibbs stuff comply with this rule? Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.
Now to comply with the first rule, I will list below the sources according to the WP:IRS, we have in their order of relevance (please change it in case that something is misplaced):
Sources according to WP:IRS (please change it in case that something is misplaced)
Sandachi, George-Paul, 2010 , several "Cer Senin" magazines
Walter J. Boyne, 2006 -The Converging Paths of Whittle and von Ohain, A Concise History of Jet Propulsion
G. Harry Stine , 1989 - The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda
Gérard Harmann , 2007 - Clément-Bayard, sans peur et sans reproche
Frank H. Winter , 1980 Ducted fan or the world's first jet plane? The Coanda claim re-examined
As per WP:IRS if the secondary sources are conflicting or they give biased positions ( as an example Antoniu vs Gibbs-Smith ) the primary sources can be used.
Primary Sources
1) articles written by Coanda himself in 50s and 60s is several magazines
2) articles,leaflets, books from very close to the event ( newspapers like "Le Temps", "Le Figaro", books Bases et methodes d'etudes aerotechniques - Leon Ventou-Duclaux )
3) persons Victor Hoart "L'Histoire de l'aviation recontée à mon fils."
4) several museums around the world in Romania, England, France, USA, Germany.
5) patents
Tertiary sources
Several major encyclopedias: Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, World Encyclopedia, American Encyclopedia etc
Special events: coins, stamps, exhibitions
Institutions bearing his name with special emphasis on the first jet-propelled aircraft
From the above I hope that we can build the consensus regarding the view of the majority plus the weight of the minority for the introduction. I hope that each editor can propose an introduction reflecting the above. So I will start (the entries might change if the above is not correct of is not within consensus):
Introduction proposals (the entries might change if the above is not correct of is not within consensus)
Lsorin:
Coanda-1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft. According to his inventor, was destroyed after a non-controlled take-off during tests at Issy-les-Moulineaux in Paris. Two aviation historians countered that the plane was ever tested and that fuel was burned in the air stream making it a hot motorjet
Thanks for not reading and then commenting. I assume that at least you've read the introduction to the Coanda-1910. Could you please tell us at least, what are the sources that introduction is based on as per [3] --Lsorin (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Your welcome I have read the lead, but please note the lead does not need any sources as it is a summary of the contents. So the question that should be asked does the lead reflect the contents. MilborneOne (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The current intro isn't just "acceptable", it's a paragon of well-written neutrality on a contentious topic. It even manages to include the claims you defend so firmly, despite the fact that some editors, on as much evidence as the pro-jet lobby, would rather strike Coanda's claims outright. Do not mess with it, unless you really are going to improve it (a hard task) and your change is of absolute neutrality. Your return from a block is not carte blanche to resume your past heavy bias in this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I hope that you celebrated the Sweet Victory of me being blocked. I don't mind to be blocked again. But coming back to the introduction, were do you find that paragon. I can see just an introduction based on speculations on evidence of absence made by Gibbs-Smith, in an assessment based on wrong sources. Winter's speculations cannot even be used as, he is not having a clear statement on either side. As well please change order or add other best sources above according to your understanding and according to WP rules. At least the previous proposal to participate in consensus between just two of us was ignored. Then, again, I'm accused of not participating to consensus build-up. Could you please explain me, how this Wikipedia works, except bias?--Lsorin (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments from Binksternet. This proposal is a very long-winded way for one editor to express the thought: "I do not like how article consensus has taken shape and I want everybody to start over". It was made clear at Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive_10#First_jet_RfC that the consensus was strongly against Lsorin's wish to put "the first jet-propelled aircraft" in the lead paragraph, and now he is back again with it. He wants everybody to re-argue the sources, with Frank Winter's scholarly article from The Aeronautical Journal of December 1980, published in London by The Royal Aeronautical Society, somehow reduced to the level of a simple magazine piece like the throwaway sidebar summary by Boyne. At the same time, Lsorin has symposium papers which have no title and no author specified, papers presented by their authors without necessarily undergoing peer-review, perhaps not ever cited in subsequent scholarly works, listed above Antoniu, Gibbs-Smith and Winter. This does not stand up under WP:IRS—there needs to be an author and title for the symposium papers, and it would be best to see that the work has been cited by others. If scholarly cites are examined, Dr. John D. Anderson, Curator for Aerodynamics at NASM, cites Gibbs-Smith quite a lot, calling him "the respected aviation historian" and "the dean of historians of aeronautics" in his book The airplane, a history of its technology published by AIAA. (The book says not one word about Coanda.) Winter and Gibbs-Smith are cited in the Library of Congress"Science Reference Guides" compiled by Tom D. Crouch. (In 2004, Crouch wrote about the Coanda-1910, making an error of two years, "As early as 1912, the Rumanian Henri M. Coanda had constructed an aircraft powered by a piston engine driving a turbine, or ducted fan, housed in a nacelle. The aircraft refused to leave the ground, but the basic idea refused to die.") Anyway, here is the wording I think is best suited for the first two sentences, for Lsorin's consensus build-up #3. Happy New Year to all... Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The Coandă-1910, designed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă, was an early sesquiplane aircraft which featured an experimental aircraft engine that was later argued as being the first motorjet engine. Coandă used the term "turbo-propulseur" to describe this propulsion design, a complex heat-augmented centrifugal compressor propulsion system with a multi-bladed rotary fan driven by a conventional piston engine.
We already discussed that the RFC. That was a pure poll against WP policies, not a consensus. There is not a single reliable sourcenot containing the words "first","jet-propelled","aircraft".
Frank Winter's scholarly article? Why is it scholarly? According to [[4]] Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars. By whom was 1980 Winter's article vetted? And please read it again he does not give a verdict on the Coanda-1910 case because there is not a single reliable source to demonstrate that the plane was not tested and did not fly. He was not able to extract conclusion from evidence of absence ( you found this for us Binskternet, so if you believe it use it ). As a conclusion in just an article in a magazine at same level like Boyne's article.
The symposium papers are academic papers endorsed by historians and aviation experts. Please demonstrate that they are not academic and I will remove them from the list and I will add your comments in the list under the links. I consider that a way to reach consensus. I join this work to find the authors and the titles.
About John D. Anderson endorsing of Gibbs-Smith this is not relevant in Coanda-1910 subject as his is not addresing Gibbs-Smith scholarship work regarding to Coanda. Antoniu does it. The evidence of absence cannot be used to sustain your position, as I though that Nimbus already convinced you. Same stands for Tom D. Crouch entries of Winter and Gibbs-Smith, though it can be used as a tertiary source as it is using the term "ducted fan" speculated by Gibbs-Smith and Winter.
Comment on your current introduction proposal. If I read that introduction with a clear mind I see this problems: It does not present the information according to the Due and undue weight ( take a look again the sources listed above, the monographs, scholarly work, primary sources). The arguing is not the main issue of Coanda-1910 as I read it in this introduction. Those are speculations made by two aviation historians using the evidence of absence. Academic work, monographs and primary sources describe the engine as a motorjet. Again in your form of introduction all that work is minimized and put equal to speculations.--Lsorin (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The RfC at Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive_10#First_jet_RfC confirmed a consensus that was already laid down, one that you participated in building but were unable to swing your way. The only ones who think the Coanda-1910 is absolutely the first jet-propelled aircraft are you and the edit-warring IP editor from Braşov, Romania. Nothing in that RfC was against Wikipedia guidelines. It stands now as the basis for the current lead paragraph, the one which is neutral and accurate, satisfying no single POV editor at the same time as satisfying our encyclopedic requirement for neutrality.
Winter's article appeared in the scholarly journal The Aeronautical Journal whose reputation is built on publishing good information. We can assume the Winter article was vetted by the magazine's editors. Before it was submitted, it was reviewed by Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith whose NASM office (more like cubbyhole) was right next to Frank Winter's in the old Smithsonian red brick Arts and Industries Building. The Symposium papers are ones you don't have a specific author for, nor a specific title, and in my experience with professional symposia, papers are often given which are not peer-reviewed and which immediately drop from sight.
You are confusing the difference between what Wikipedia editors can do and what our reliable sources can do. In our reliable sources, people can be non-neutral and people can use the evidence of absence to demonstrate a point. At the Amelia Earhart article, the evidence of absence puts the crash-and-sink theory as the most plausible one. Here, the evidence of absence was used by Winter and Gibbs-Smith to show that there was no Coanda flight or test crash at Issy in December 1910. Antoniu et al are faced with the same basic lack of positive evidence—they do not have a photograph or research notes from Coanda absolutely confirming the December flight. Naturally, Antoniu is then forced to examine static exhibition photographs to try and speculate what the aircraft was like. Antoniu has no hard evidence to disprove Gibbs-Smith or Winter, to show that the flight was made in December. The evidence of absence line of argument stands unanswered. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
That RFC was against WP policies. Please demonstrate the opposite. There was no consensus, there was no discussions or agreements, it was just pure voting. Of course everybody against that "consensus" is in edit-warning that's how WP works; I just learned that.
Regarding Winter's and his working together with Gibbs-Smith, your statement is really serious because it put the whole think even more clear into the right light! It is the pure Red Flag light! That basically means that two biased historians were vetting each, other supporting their "against the mainstream" opinion: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons.
I completely agree with you that none of the secondary sources, that we found can be state clearly one side or another and all the secondary sources are mostly based on assumptions or speculations. Then can we agree that secondary sources cannot be used the find the right NPOV? If we all agree on this, can we go back according to the WP:NOR to the tertiary or even the primary sources. We can add more details and sources ( at least I have access to primary sources like for instance Le Temps, Le Figaro etc. or we can restart the discussion on the patents or we can find more tertiary sources on both sides. ) At least I not aware on any encyclopedia which will state the Coanda-1910 did not fly and was not the first jet-propelled aircraft.
As a conclusion, can we agree that secondary source cannot be used? I will state that above, to make it clear for the new editors.--Lsorin (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Am I really "grasping at straws"? Cocktail straws? I suppose is exactly the opposite, as using the tertiary sources and primary ones will kill all the bias. Anyway if you have still have problems with that, could you please give us a source supporting your above statement, that Winter and Gibbs-Smith were colleagues? This will make it the case very interesting for the WP:REDFLAG, at least on the secondary sources!--Lsorin (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I would de-emphasize or qualify Stine's POV a bit. I read a fair amount of his stuff as a teenager and he was an engaging writer, capable of making spaceflight and technology into exciting topics for wide audiences, but he was not an academic and he held some fringy viewpoints at times. Among other things, he was a proponent of the ridiculous Dean Drive. We have a biography of him (G. Harry Stine) which doesn't go into this but probably should. IMHO it's best to think of him as a fairly decent science fiction author and as an inspiring popularizer of science, plus as the founder of model rocketry, but not as really a careful historian or highly expert scientist in his own right. He was involved with the Vanguard project on the operations side rather than as a designer or anything like that. I don't know if he had any postgraduate education in any technical subjects.
Re the ANI stuff: Lsorin, consensus is not voting, and if you can make a good case that something is documented by WP:RS then it can generally stay in the article (maybe with less emphasis than you'd like). However, as I like to say, this is not "botpedia" and the place is not run by mechanical application of "rules". Subjective judgment is involved, which is a perfectly good thing as long as editors are knowledgeable and non-tendentious. WP:Cluocracy is a theory worth taking to heart even though it's marked as "humor". Developing consensus is mostly a matter of convincing people that your ideas actually make sense, rather than trying to beat them up with policy. So IMO the best thing you can do is try to be less hostile, avoid wikilawyering, and instead develop better skills at persuasion and diplomacy. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
the consensus is hard to be achieved because few older english speaking editors stick like a glue to waaay to much overrated Gibbs and Winter views, despite all the contrary evidences, and when is necessary they fall to subterfuges as obtain to be banned anyone who disagree with them. It is pretty clear that Gibbs was biased and tried to keep Withlle as first who made a jet. More then that, Gibbs was mentally deranged, and didnt had any technical studies or qualifications, working mostly as keeper of Public Relations, and dealing with many things in his career, including Bayeux Tapestry or World Expositions. Winter was a former journalist who took a degree in history, and deal and write about history of rocketry. Again, he didnt held any technical or engineering qualifications. Stine was obviously way more qualified in this fields compared to them. This is the reason why the article cant achieve any higher status, and is not or will not be stable before a real consensus based on logic and real facts will not be achived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.207.226 (talk) 08:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem with "despite all the contrary [to Gibbs] evidences" is that there is no such evidence. There is a lot of commentary by sources who can't be discarded out of hand, but who still contradict each other. In the absence of clarity from secondary sources, we must examine the primary sources. There is no good evidence to support either the jet claims or the flight claims: there are photographs on static display, but why none of the first flight? You presumably claim it's a motorjet, but none of Coanda's several patents describe such a machine. If you make such claims, it's incumbent on you to supply evidence to support them, not just to denigrate other commentators on the grounds of an interest in the Bayeaux Tapestry! Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok Andy. Do you agree with the primary sources that I listed above? I can provide as well link for each of them if needed.--Lsorin (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Coanda, where he describes the aircraft as being propelled by his patent turbo-propulseur, and where in those patents he describes a turbo-propulseur that is a ducted fan, without fuel combustion in the duct. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Great. So I understand from you that you agree with ( I added numbers above for shortening the discussions) 1) and 5). What is wrong with 2) 3) 4)? We can add as well more if needed. Regarding 5) it is true that the patent(s) describes the turbine part. There is not a single word about the "duct" or even the reciprocal engine connection or placement ( behind, under, above, inside to cowling or anything like that). He talks about the "diffusers" used to change the direction of the "fluid" to produce reactive propulsion ( FR416541A page 4 48-56 ) so that the fluid which is drawn in by the rotor is subject therein to such a change of direction that it gives rise to an axial reaction which is directed parallel to the axis of the rotation of the said propeller and which propels the movable body on which the said propeller is mounted. He does not say a word in the patent of how this "diffusers" are placed on the airplane cowling. So you cannot make the assumption that it was just a duct. Later in 1960 Coanda made a drawing showing the internals of the cowling, which was never put in the patent. That picture is on page 29 of this magazine (the same picture larger in the henrycoanda.pdf page 15, from this web page) . So he described the plane being propelled by the thing drawn in this picture.--Lsorin (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It is a simple logical fallacy to assume that because source #5 is accepted, then other sources that are quite different are also accepted. Please do not waste our time with childish claims like that.
I do not support #1, because I consider Coanda's 1950s claims to be highly dubious. They are the "extraordinary claims that require extraordinary proof" that we are so specifically warned against. No such proof is forthcoming.
As to #5, then although I consider the patents to be a good proof of ideas he had definitely had by this time, even if they don't necessarily reflect what he had actually built. However your irrelevant digression here doesn't change the fact that there's no mention in them of combustion in the duct. The radio control website has a drawing of fuel supply and combustion, but this is a modern drawing, citing no robust evidence to support such a claim. Invention by hindsight doesn't count. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Than to get out of my "childhood", can we try another exercise. Let's then assume that source #1 shall not be considered as it is dubious and Coanda plainly lied and the same, for source #5. The we can have a look on sources #3,#4,#5 and scrap out the ones which are based on the source #5. Is this ok with you?--Lsorin (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to participate in improving this article by joining this consensus build up 67.122.209.190 and welcome back 79.116.207.226. I really suggest you both to create some account, as this particular article was put by the admins under semi-protection (Note: This page has been semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it. If you need any help getting started with editing, see the Wikipedia:new contributors' help page. ) This means that whatever admin biased or not can decide whatever he/she wants about your edits without being held responsible for anything.
My opinion regarding the entries from both IP addresses. Trying to de-emphasize any historian, does not really help. We tried that already. For instance Gibbs-Smith was a ghost believer and we already questioned the technical skill of a rocketry scientist like Winter which uses terms like "true jet", which do not exist in any decent engineering written source. As well we questioned already his skills as a psychologist in his analysis in the 1980 article. Personally I don't believe that a historian is even allowed to do that. The business of a historian is to put a on paper the stuff he found in the dirt without, any kind of personal biased analysis driven by politics, xenophobia or other things. So as a conclusion, I hope that we can all admit that whatever historian presenting this subject, shall be treated equally from the background ( knighted or not) point of view and we shall stick strictly to the content of their assessments, the correctness, and the objectiveness or subjectiveness regarding Coanda-1910.
Regarding the rules and their usage, I'm still very puzzled by their usage, especially by the admins. My last blocking was based on a rule which was not ever written on the page I was directed too by the admin in question. So when the rules are used and how? I did try consensus several times, if you looked in this talk page and mine, just to be proposed for blocking by the exact users which are not participating in that consensus. Now I started to have some hope as Binksternet for instance is commenting to this new proposal. Regrading my approach on the subject, I agree personally that my engineering background forces me to think a stricter sense and much rougher and hostile than normal, but I hope that we can all agree that this subject is a pure engineering and scientific in its nature, which at least must be a bit more precise then poetical speculations like "true jet". What is a "false jet" then? Should we ask Winter?
And regarding this particular section of the discussion could you please list your proposal for the introduction according to the listed sources? Thanks.--Lsorin (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
As we keep repeating and you keep ignoring the introduction as is is a reasonable overview of the article, no reason to change it. If you have a problem with something in the body of the article then please let us know with a simple clear statement on each point you dont like, preferable one at a time. Whatever your point of view people will stop reading walls of text and editors quoting this rule and that. If you can make a clear and reasoned point one at a time then others can look and assess any issue you raise. I am sure if you keep writing walls of text it will be just seen as being disruptive. So one point at a time with a simple one or two sentence argument I am sure will help us work together. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Dont do obscure questions, read what I said this a chance to let us known what is wrong with the article. Straight simple, what you dont like - why you dont like, no wall of words just a few sentences, one subject at a time. Your choice to continue to be disruptive or work with the other editors. MilborneOne (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
When I start reading the article with a clean mind I'm stuck to the introduction. Why? A good Encyclopedia presents good definitions on one topic, keeping in mind that the reader must learn from the leading section why the subject is notable. Now what I understood by reading with an empty mind the leading section is that Coanda-1910 is infamous for its controversies and is celebrated for that, 5 days in the European Parliament. Is this the mainstream? What is that one topic the article should start, the mainstream or Gibbs-Smith rebuttal?
Could you please explain me as well, what do you see disruptive in trying to follow Jimbo's statements addressed to the editors using his tool?--Lsorin (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The introduction is based, indeed, mostly on the controversed (to not say unreliable) Gibbs statements. A more apropiate introduction, in my opinion (based on much more reliable and neutral Boyne) may be like this: <<The Coandă-1910, designed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă, was an early sesquiplane aircraft which featured an experimental jet aircraft engine that was later argued as being the first motorjet engine. It was a more rudimentary jet, using a four-cylinder internal combustion engine to drive a compressor at 4,000 revolutions per minute and it was equipped with what today might be called an afterburner, producing an estimated 500 pounds [230 kg] of thrust.>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.210.36 (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
With a lot of work the editors have tweaked and honed the lead to be a reasonable reflection of the article contents which User:Andy Dingley sums up well further up the page. Editors have given views and worked to create the current text, including a request for comment. To keep repeating the same points over and over is clearly disruptive. Any editor that is not happy needs to take this to another forum as part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Nothing new is being raised so it is clear that any more discussion is not needed and this discussion can be closed, thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. The lede should summarise the article. If you do not think the lede summarises the article please indicate specifically where you think the problem is. If you don't think that other editors are giving your views appropriate consideration you should seek a different means to resolve outside this talkpage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
No I cannot anymore understand you MilborneOne. According to WP the editors shall participate in consensus build up trough communication! Right? Do you consider that refusal of answering of one single question ("What is the mainstream about Coanda-1910?" discussion? Just closing the discussion because there was one poll closed, on a very clear English driven bias is part of the collaboration for reaching consensus?--Lsorin (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
(I took this discussion out of the previous section) I hope that is OK with you MilborneOne. If not, please be free to revert my this edit and the previous one.)--Lsorin (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Please dont move around other users comments (which can be seen as disruptive). This discussion is closed. Your are welcome to try another forum. MilborneOne (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Image rights
Coandă replica.jpg
This image was uploaded by Lsorin and placed in the public domain, however, the image author is written as Andrei Mihaila. How can we know that Mihaila gave the image to the public? Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Andrei Mihaila is a friend of mine from Bucharest. He did send me the picture and ask me to put it Public Domain. I can send you his e-mail if you want to contact him directly. If you still cannot my WP:AGF as lately happens all the time you can remove it.--Lsorin (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
We dont need to AGF for images we have process that is detailed in the notice on the image page, it gives an email where you can send you evidence of permission. MilborneOne (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
E-mail sent. Anyway I'm amazed how careful are the admins with some rules of WP and the other are just for fun and for (l)users (Boyne's thoughts) like me to spend time in the internet to make a better WP which does not work anyway.--Lsorin (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Dont think it needs permission as it is being used with a non-free rationale although the non-free historic probably needs changing as it is a modern drawing. MilborneOne (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I have change it from non-free historic to non-free for us in article, could still be challenged as it is probably replaceable by somebody with the relevant drawing skills. MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I keep looking at this drawing wondering how the step-up gearing is arranged within the very slim gearbox – I would have expected the input shaft from the Clerget to enter the lower portion as there doesn't appear to be enough room for anything more than the simple arrangement of one large cog driving a smaller one mounted on the compressor shaft; and if epicyclic gearing is employed, the lower portion of the gearbox casing would seem to be unnecessary. Could two sets of chains be involved instead perhaps? --TransientVoyager (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The problem is it appears to be a modern interpretation not a 1910 drawing so really is original research - without the original contempory drawing it is all speculation. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
In a similar fashion, Frank H. Winter's and Gibbs-Smith assertions of a "Ducted fan", are speculations. The patents they used in in their accounts, does not describe the placing of the "turbo-propulseur" in any kind of "simple" or "complex" duct. As a conclusion: Antoniu's "speculation" can be removed, but I will as per WP:NPOV that Gibbs-Smith and Winter's references to "simple ducted fan" be removed as speculations.--Lsorin (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This image was uploaded by Lsorin as non-free fair use. Under "Other information", permission for use is said to be granted by Dan Antoniu as it was taken from his 2010 book. This image was probably published in 1910 or 1911, and is therefore out of copyright due to age. Binksternet (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Doesnt need permission for non-free but I doubt Antoniu is the copyright holder, if it was published in 1910 it is probably in the public domain, perhaps check Flight. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
In the book the picture has under the text "(Dan Antoniu collection)". I asked by e-mail Dan Antoniu what pictures can be used in Wikipedia, his answer was very clear: any of the 3D graphics and pictures from Dan Antoniu Collection. You can contact him personally as it looks like my WP:AGF cannot be assumed.--Lsorin (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Although we can assume good faith it is highly unlikely that Dan Antoniu hold the rights to the image, it says on the image page Coandă No. 1 Machine of 1910 presented in the salon program so it is probably copyright of the salon organising committee, and given the age probably public domain. Just nice to see the image in context in the programme particularly the description so we can be clear about the provenance. MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
As an experienced photographer I would note that all three images have very obviously been captured from a book, strangely only the first image has camera metadata (the f-number is completely wrong for the the lighting conditions and exposure length and the grain would not appear in a genuine photo from a digital camera). It's a shame because this article does need good reliable images, it's a wonder that there are any original images considering it all happened 100 years ago. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)01:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
We (aircraft project) have not managed to get Flight images on to Commons so far, so well done! The magazine editor does want to do this but the process has stalled. This non-free image File:ASCougar.JPG and many like it that I have uploaded have never had their licensing questioned, should you need to fall back to this way of doing things. Nimbus(Cumulus nimbus floats by)02:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The third image appeared in a 1975 book called Form, function, and design, on page 49. The link here gets the reader to an assertion by the author that Coanda discovered the Coanda effect not by watching the Coanda-1910 hot gases, but "as a result of his direct observation of fish in their element". I-i-interesting. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Back from vacation
Happy New Year everyone! Now that I back from vacation I suppose we can try to build up the consensus again. It looks like the previous discussion was closed by MilborneOne with a very "non-obscure" explanation because my question "What is the mainstream of Coadna-1910?" is to obscure.
As per WP:CONS I have done the edit so that we can continue the discussion here to get to consensus.
When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary.
So my questions:
What is the mainstream about Coanda-1910?
Andy can we continue the discussion about the primary and secondary sources?
MilborneOne what are the forums this discussion should the taken to if the above was unreadable for you?
The only pictures I came across of the plane from behind are the ones from "La Vie au Grand Air". Does anybody have a clue about the copyright? Is there any chance to know if the negatives ( of glass plates ) are still available anywhere? With good enough software, it might be possible to have a look inside the cowling. This is the page with magazine containing those pictures.--Lsorin (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
While the original may prove to be out of copyright, I suggest asking at the approriate forum on wikipedia since the situation is made more complex as it would be a case of using someoneelse's copy of the original. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
You don't need software to see the truth. It is absolutely clear in that photo that the cowling is open all around the fuselage. That means that this photo was taken before Coanda finished assembling his revolutionary new jet. Or maybe that he partially dis-assembled it to hide this valuable millitary secret from prying eyes. Or maybe that all those stories about ring-shaped combustion chambers and twin jet nozzles that he started telling in the 50's were just a pathetic attempt to get the credit for the inventions of others. Ion G Nemes (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Andy's revert(s)
What's is your problem Andy? I don't understand what has the Binskternet blocking do with my edits? Now that you said I noticed that. So please revert your edit in WP:AGF. Otherwise I need to add this to the WP:ANI in a pure display of WP:WAR from your side, together with some other displays of your "good faith" with WP:PA against my edits, without any kind of discussion: [5], [6], [7] etc. --Lsorin (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Please, take it to ANI. You're quiet for days, then as soon as Binksternet is blocked you're back with the usual claim of "first jet", against all previous tentative consensusstalemate. This was so utterly predictable, after yesterday's block, that I looked straight for it this morning and there you were. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry man but you are really ridiculous with this claim. I just returned from my winter vacation and BTW, why do I need to share my personal holiday plans with you? I'm sorry for the blocking of Binskternet and I hope that he got blocked for good reasons, not invented ones. So coming back to the topic, are I you willing to do your revert in good faith or I'll take it to ANI?--Lsorin (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Please take it to ANI, and just like last time, it'll be pointed out that you do not have support (from either editors or good enough sources) for the excessive claims that you repeatedly make.
I notice that some of your edit was housekeeping and more linkage. I don't have any problem with those, it's that predictable change to the lead that's the real issue here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do have issues with some of the additions that were made. Specifically 1) Stines collection listed from the external link does not give any additional information to the reader about the topic of this article 2) the linking to ruddervators seems questionable in terms of your edit summary "priority" (as in "prior art"?) - does L'Aeronautique specifically link the Coanda 1910 to the T-tail (only two surfaces working in conjunction) 3) the other locations celebrating the "centenniel" is not really a reflection by the article text which mentions only the nationwide activities of Romania and a exhibition at the EU parliament. The first seems superfluous to this article though is probably relevant to Coandas own article, the second requires clarification/qualification, and for the third the extent if the centenniel celebrations needs to be clarified before the lede changes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
1) I added the link to Smithsonian to avoid undue weight according to the WP:ELPOV. Winter's article is from a magazine of published by the same institution. So you either remove the Winter's link to the article all together of you add back the link to Coanda's archive according to WP:ELPOV.
2) The translation from French for you:
Dans le domaine des recherches et expériences, l'ingénieur Herbemont s'est attaché à l'élude d'un empennage en V, évolution logique de l'empennage classique puisqu'il remplace les éléments composants à actions verticales et horizontales par leurs résultantes. Un empennage de ce type avait été proposé il ya deux ou trois ans par l'ingénieur polonais Rudlicki. Antérieurement, en 191 1, Coanda avait présenté au Concours militaire de Reims un empennage en X. - In the field of research and experimentation, engineer Herbemont focused on the study of a V-tail, a logical evolution of the classic empennage as it replaces the classic elements composing the vertical and horizontal actions by their resultant. A tail of this kind had been proposed two or three years ago by the Polish engineer Rudlicki. Previously, in 1911, Coanda presented at the Reims military contest a X tail. And additionally Coanda has a patent in 1912 or something like that, on a canard plane with pure V-tail not X (it is described in Anotoniu's monograph). I will find it for you.--Lsorin (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
3) EU parliament does not belong to Romania. And there are several other smaller events around the world which celebrated the Centenial without any implications from Romania. ( see for instance [8], [9] ) Your WP:BIAS against the mainstream is unbelievable.--Lsorin (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, ruddervators. Did the Coanda-1910 have these, or did it have a 45º cruciform tail which was hinged as a unit? (and there's another can of worms waiting if anyone fancies claiming that some Lebaudy airships used a similar controllable unit) If so, are these strictly ruddervators? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok. There here it is:
Bristol-Coanda canard 1912 Faithful to his beliefs that a new design had to be based on new and advanced concepts, Henri Coanda completed in 1912 a very interesting project that included many innovation in the field. This was a monoplane provided with a wing place in tandem with the main wing (canard), a solution used generally today on all transport aircraft. Based on the type of cockpit, this could be build in two versions: two-seat or single-seat trainer. To reduce the looses and improve aerodynamics, he placed the engine inside the fuselage and the propeller behind the wing, but in front of the empennage placed in a "V" with a 90-degree openeing. The forward wing gave stability to the machine by increasing the lift generated by the main wing at low speeds, a fact proven by tests in the wind tunnel in the laboratories of his friend Eiffel. ....
In 1913, when the model was sent to Gustave Eiffel, Coanda gave up the cross-shaped empennage, using instead two planes placed at 90 degrees from each other, a modification also illustrated in the drawing. The drawing and diagram of measurements was published in the periodical atlas published by Gustave Eiffel: Nouvelles recherches sur la résistance de l'air et l'aviation (faites au laboratoriee d'Auteuil) [New Research Realting to Air Resistance and Aviation (Carried Out in the Auteuil Labs)], Paris, 1914. Page 124-125 from Antoniu's monograph. The is a picture with the aircraft with the "V" tail and the angles and measurements taken from the pages 115-117 in Eiffel's book entitled "Modele au 1/40 du monoplan Bristol".
As it seems that Andy your start to be quite violent and your emotions about your friend Binsksternt is clouding mentally your technical expertise, as you started to mix up airplanes with Lebaudy blimps, I will put back the expert tag.--Lsorin (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
First an apology to Lsorin. I reverted a bunch of your edits this morning and should have been a bit more picky with them. The ruddervators are relevant and deserve description - I'm rather surprised it hasn't come up earlier. Particularly looking at the Bristol-Coanda image, it's clear that it's of relevance. As to Lebaudy though, if you have anything useful to add about the airships, then please do so. There's some suggestion that one or more of them may have had its cruciform tail moved wholesale for control. Any light that can be shown, etc...
Andy you don't need to apologize. What I want is that my edits to be treated in good faith as I'm just trying to improve this article, by giving the most complete and correct view according to history, on this particular subject. And BTW this is the picture from Gustave Eiffel's book that I was taking about File:Coanda-1912.jpg.[1]( Sorry for the quality :( If you find it relevant I can try to get a better scanning. As well I don't know anything about the copyrights. )--Lsorin (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
As well thanks for inviting me to join the work on other articles like airships. Sadly I'm not a "professional" Wikipedia editor and I already promised that once Coanda is correctly presented in Wikipedia, I will stop working on this project ( I mean Wikipedia), as I become disgusted by its WP:BIAS bias and its "Gods". I noticed that you have the same feelings Andy especially regarding the "Gods" of Wikipedia.--Lsorin (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Returning briefly to the external link to the Coanda collection External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided No. 13 "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article" and in this case the content is not directly related to the 1910 and doesn't add to understanding of the topic. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
That's funny! Frank Winter emailed me about one aspect of his upcoming article and I recommended he remove it entirely as it was not relevant to airplanes but to experimental hovercraft. So if "Wikipedia" gets a credit it is in the role of article slimming! LOL. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Lsorin's usual change (yet again)
Once again, we see an edit by Lsorin and we see the problematic and rejected, "The Coandă-1910, designed by Henri Coandă, was the first jet-propelled aircraft. " appearing as the first sentence. I've reverted it, and will raise it in the usual locations, in the hope of obtaining a block on this editor.
Lsorin's other additions, particularly the recent addition re ruddervators are welcomed, but not if the cost is to be this persistent edit warring over a claim that so obviously fails consensus. Why can you not accept that this just isn't going to happen, and free up the time of other editors for more useful tasks? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
So can you simply answer the damn question: What is the mainstream about Coanda-1910? You are just trying always to avoid consensus build-up and we are all stuck in this stalemate which violates all main bloody rules on WP and especially the ones of JIMBO on the scientific and historical related subjects! Please read it again! And once again the "happy" bias team is back (Andy+Binskternet). --Lsorin (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I added the expert tag back. It is clear from the latest discussion that (see Bzuk), at least some independent expert in Wikipedia ( hopefully Jimbo himself, as this is in the end is his invention ) opinion is needed, which is as well is according to WP:3O.--Lsorin (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the point of the tag in this instance. It states "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject." – this is clearly impossible to achieve since on WP there are no experts on the subject of the Coandă-1910, including Bzuk; only editors who might possess expertise in thier own personal fields of interest. All any of us can do is quote reliable sources which in this case sadly happen to be conflicting; and which, due to the lack of incontrovertible evidence other than contemporary photographs and patent applications, are themselves based to a degree on (educated) opinion and circumstantial evidence. Until the full-size working replica at Craiova has been built and tested we will never be able to state whether or not the Coandă-1910 and the turbo-propulseur were workable designs, and even then we won't be able to say categorically that any test flights actually took place. Consequently I can see no possible resolution to many of the issues that are constantly debated on this page, and the personal comments as well as accusations of xenophobia and conflict of interest aimed at editors and admins alike do nothing to improve the article, but rather only serve to dissuade other knowledgeable and respected editors from contributing to the article or topics of discussion, or from responding to any requests for third/expert opinion IMHO. --TransientVoyager (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
i saw, without to be surprised anyway, that an english admin from english WP close a discussion where less reliable opinions of an english scholar is criticized. The so called old consensus is in fact the opinion of 4-5 editors, english native speakers, who adered to unreliable Gibbs opinion and his attepmt to keep Whittle as the first who made a jet. On the base of quantity (4-5 editors vs 2-3 who was more close to the real facts) and in total disregard of quality and even quantity of sources. In a word, "pathetic", and no wonder not just that articles in other languages are quite diferent, this one wil never be stable and that wikipedia is still very low regarded in terms as reliability —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.199.104 (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Transient voyager, do you seriously believe that the "full scale replica" will prove anything? We've seen this same story again and again in aviation history: The "restored" Langley Aerodrome that "proved" that Langley built the first aeroplane capable of sustained flight, and more recently the "Full-scale replica" of Whitehead's monoplane which "proved" that he was first. The main problem is that it's virtually impossible to establish that it really is a replica and not an improved version made by someone with an axe to grind. If it does fly, it will prove nothing. Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You're absolutley right Ion G Nemes; if the replica isn't identical in every respect to the original it will prove nothing, and even if it is an "identical twin" it could only demonstrate whether or not the design was workable, not that a flight actually took place. Do you have any better suggestions to determine whether the airframe was capable of flight or how effective the turbo-propulseur was? I'll answer that for you – No! But in any case, you've missed the main point of my comment entirely which was my expression of growing frustration at the tedious regular personal attacks and comments, and at the constant arguments that plague this topic; ones for which lack of real evidence means there is no solution, so why spend so much time tilting at windmills when, IMHO, both sides of the story are given equal bias in the article?! --TransientVoyager (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't commenting on the main point of your post, TransientVoyager, I was commenting on the possibility that the test will prove anything. I am unaware as to how you could come to the conclusion that I "missed the main point of your post entirely" when I made no comment whatsoever on the main point of your post. In future I would appreciate it if you would not make assumptions about my comprehension of the main points of your posts when I have made no comment about them whatsoever. As to your statement, "why spend so much time tilting at windmills", I might suggest that you spend as much, or as little, as you wish. Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
^Cite error: The named reference CoandaMonograph2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Resolved
Done My preference as well. Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACoand%C4%83_replica.jpg_replica.jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=405091808&oldid=405087734){kind=link}
