Jump to content

Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Coanda 1910, or everything Coanda alledgedly built before WWI?

Just what does the story about Coanda's "secret" aircraft with 3 props pointing in different directions which "flew sucessfully" in 1908 (with 37HP) have to do with the 1910 Coanda? There's an awful lot of superfluous looking stuff (like all the patents he filed after either selling, or destroying the aircraft, which are for things the aircraft never had in the first place)in this article, but this is the thing I find most baffling. To what purpose?Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

This aspect were already discussed. Please check the talk archives. Coanda-1910 was speculated as being a cart at some point. Then basically you, call all those guys, accepting Coanda's cart at an air show, idiots or something like that. The early development was needed to show clearly that Coanda's construction of the airplane and the jet engine was based on some early work on the same subjects of flying machines and jet propulsion. Regarding the work after the destruction of Coanda-1910, is added to make clear that Coanda never abandoned the jet propulsion studies, but he needed to scale down his projects because of shortage of funds or just plain missing of interest from the industry. ( Read the history of Whittle's work to understand that it took him about 15 years to convince the bureaucrats, that his turbojet means something. This is as well demonstrated in all Coanda monographs. ( Read "The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda", "Din nou acasǎ", "Henri Coandă and his technical work during 1906-1918" etc)--Lsorin (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not a reasonable explanation. And your unfounded accusation that I "call all those guys Idiots" clearly indicates that your post is some sort of joke. I will remove the three propeller airplane reference, and the glider building reference, which have no place in this article since they have nothing to do with Coanda's 1910 aircraft.Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
GraemeLeggett, I see you've reverted my edit, but I'm curious as to your reasons. Is it just what you said about it referring to the earlier bit, or do you feel that Coanda's propeller aircraft belongs in this article? I am hard-pressed to see how a plane which from it's description bears no relation to Coanda's later ducted fan work (or the 1910 in particular) should be in this article. I have similar reservations about his glider. These experiments could just as reasonably(not very, in my opinion) be discussed in any other coanda aircraft article, or all of them. Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Heat augmented?

The lede says the propulsion system in the Coanda 1910 was "heat augmented" but the body of the text says it wasn't. Since this statement that the heat augmentation in the patent was "not implemented" is made by Antoniu, a real Coanda booster, why is it contradicted in the lead?Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

the main stream of the Coanda 1910

Clearly the air stream emitted from the duct which contains the centrifugal fan is the main stream of the Coanda 1910. But since Antoniu and his team of experts say that the exhaust gas stream was not routed into the centrifugal fan, the secondary stream of the Coanda 1910 must not have contributed to the thrust produced. This indicates that the Coanda 1910 was not "heat augmented", even though the possibility of heat augmentation was mentioned in the patents. Perhaps it would be better to only mention the possibilty of heat augmentation discussed in the parents, and not assert in the lede that the 1910 Coanda was in fact heat augmented. After all, Gibbs-Smith and Antoniu seem to be in agreement on this, and the only assertions we have to the contrary appear to be based on the unsubstantiated assumption that the 1910 Coanda had all the features mentioned in the patent. Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a point. The heat augmentation was in the engine design patent but some experts have guessed that it was not in the aircraft shown at the Paris exhibition. Antoniu and his team say that the engine as exhibited was built quickly and did not route piston engine exhaust through any ductwork or fan blades. Gibbs-Smith is not a source for this: he says the aircraft's "pure air" jet did not include combustion of fuel in the air stream, but he does not offer his opinion about exhaust gases. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Then I will remove the statement. I will also remove the term complex because without the exhaust or radiator heat, it's really just a fan in a duct. Kind of funny how it's referred to as just about everything BUT a ducted fan in the intro though.Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

thrust figures and Gerard Hartman

The only thrust figures I see in this article are those given by Coanda himself. Have I missed the figures for thrust given by Hartman or have they been left out? They are, as far as I know, the only figures for thrust from an independent source. Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Added Hartmann's thrust figures. Ion G Nemes (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Since the Hartman thrust figures are the only ones we know weren't just copied from Coanda's dubious claims, why not list them alongside the Coanda 'figures' in the specs? Or better yet, just list the independent Hartmann figures. I know from reading the archives that Lsorin regards Hartmann's expertise very highly so we certainly won't be getting any arguement from him.Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad references

Is anyone actually checking the quality of the references on this article? The reference for the assertion that the plane was the first with "thick wings" is worthless for several different reasons. Unless someone has an explaination for this I intend to remove it, and any other references using this same source. Just because the anonymous source is titled "the facts" doesn't make it so.Ion G Nemes (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed information based on "Henri Coanda: the facts", as it does not qualify as a Wikipedia reference. Ion G Nemes (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that PDF has verifiability problems because it has not author listed nor any sources cited. The photographs, though, are pretty good. I restored the bit about Coanda giving some papers to NASM in 1965 as it is important to the reading flow and the sequence of events. Later in the article Winter argues against Coanda's NASM papers, so it's good to tell the reader about them first. Binksternet (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Two Aviation historians?

Is there any evidence that it was only two? There are quite a few books which describe the aircraft as a ducted fan. If we don't have any evidence that none of the authors were actually thinking for themselves, then we're making an unjustified limiting statement. Of course I suppose that this change would mean deciding if most, or many would be more appropriate.Ion G Nemes (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  • nemes, your intervention just make even more worse to an article who is not stable anyway (not sure why the GA sign was added anyway?), as is not any consensus achieved, just 3-4 editors vs other 2-3. As i said, your personal bias toward Coanda will just start a new edit war all over, you just make silly statements, with no conection with reality. In other parts those like you are called "trolls" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.221.36 (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
    • threatening an edit war? Well then I guess I'll just have to let you change this article to whatever you want, especially since I'm so silly a troll. No, on second thought, maybe not.Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom

Now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Henri_Coanda_defamation

Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Case declined, with declining arbitrators recommending lower level remedies. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked [1][2] for lower level methods without reply ( the general "ignorance" phenomenon that cripples WP ). As User:Newyorkbrad proposed the case to be opened again in "two weeks" I will do it, as soon as I have time. --Lsorin (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The same case in two weeks, submitted to the same committee will hardly give you different results. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Taken to ArbCom again.--Lsorin (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I expect the same result as last time; nothing has changed. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The "first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane"

That's Gibbs-Smith's description of the Coandă-1910. As far as I can see from this article (and I haven't done much reading elsewhere), nothing is more negative on the question of what Coandă actually achieved except the lead of this article, which can easily be read to suggest that he did nothing at all, outside of his own imagination.

I understand how we got here - and this is one of the more regrettable effects of applying Rumanian patriotism to the question: it makes for a net negative tone in response to exaggerations - but is it where we want to be? Can we adopt GS, or some equivalent, into the lead? We should certainly go on to assert that there is no contemporary evidence it ever flew, as GS also says; but shouldn't we begin with what the subject did do? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we can give the inventor credit for his known and agreed-upon achievements in the lead sentence. How about this change?
  • Current: 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.
  • Gibbs-Smith credit: The Coandă-1910, designed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă, was the first full-size attempt at a jet aircraft. Built as a sesquiplane, it featured an experimental aircraft engine that was later argued as being the first motorjet engine. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Substantially added. Since the argument is in the next paragraph, I took it out here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Good stuff. I wikilinked jet aircraft. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't be more appropriate to give equal weight to the lead? Right now is the most negative one. What about:
Wouldn't Conada's design be a turbofan or ducted fan design rather than a jet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.160.185 (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
It is clearly a ducted fan. All the sources which aren't fooled by Coanda's lies about fuel being injected into the duct describe it as just that, but all these sources have been removed from the article(How's that for balance?). What's worse is that even that fanatical booster of Coanda's spurious claims, Antoniu, admits that the display object at the 1910 airshow wasn't really a plane at all, but a 'mockup' that was obviously incapable of flight. Incredibly, that admission appears in the article as an argument in favor of Coanda's jet claims. The argument goes like this: We assume he built the world's first jet, so since the display wasn't even airworthy he must have rebuilt it into a jet(even though he never patented these innovations, or even told anyone about them until jets had become commonplace, and even though the only evidence he ever presented was an obviously forged document.)Ion G Nemes (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

reference

In case this is useful:
Antonescu's Eagles against Stalin's Falcons: The Romanian Air Force, 1920-1941
Alexander Statiev
The Journal of Military History
Vol. 66, No. 4 (Oct., 2002), pp. 1085-1113
(article consists of 29 pages)
Published by: Society for Military History
JSTOR 3093265
Quote:

SINCE man's first flight, the Romanian public has shown a keen interest in aviation. Romanian sources maintain that a Romanian was the first to build an aircraft able to take off without the assistance of auxiliary equipment. In March 1906 the Romanian engineer Traian Vuia took off from a field near Paris in an airplane that he had designed; he covered a distance of twelve meters.' Though Romanian propeller aviation was not marked by further impressive developments, Romanians also claim the invention of the jet airplane. In 1910 at the Aeronautic Salon in France, the Romanian engineer Henri Coanda demonstrated an aircraft allegedly powered by a jet engine. Whether this aircraft ever actually flew is not clear, nor is the impact of these events on world air technology. Nevertheless, they took a distinguished place in Romania's national heritage. Aviation enjoyed high prestige in Romanian society.

Article goes on to discuss the Romanian air force and doesn't say any more about Coanda.

128.32.112.233 (talk) 03:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Twelve meters is a hop, not a flight. You can fly a barn door for 12 meters if you push it hard enough. Vuia deserves a very, very small credit but he does not take the place of the Wright brothers, whose first flights did not use any auxiliary equipment. Later, they began to use a catapult-type device for convenience, not necessity.
Regarding Romanian national thought about Coanda, we have quite enough of that. The source you offer does not give us anything new. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
A more important point about Vuia is that he has no witnesses or evidence whatsoever for his wild claim. All reports of this flight are based on his unsubstantiated claims. Even if his fairy tale is taken seriously it includes the admission that it was so windy on the day of his alledged "hop" that after he "landed" his plane was picked up by a gust of wind and slammed into some trees, so the idea that he flew without the aid of the wind is contradicted by his own story. On other occasions when he attempted to fly he was witnessed failing in his attempts by journalists, but later claimed that the flights were sucessful. He's just another pathetic liar like Coanda.Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
And his claimed 'hop' was years after longer, well documented hops made by at least 5 others in powered aircraft.Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Good God Romanianlies/thruts/Nemes and whatever other names and counts you have here. Get a life, get a girlfriend and please spare us of your pathetic problems. Let professional peoples to deal with this problems, and read what they realy said and consider, if you realy are interested in truth, and not in spaming or trolling around —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.202.201 (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Coanda 1910-Antoniu Collection.jpg

Isn't it a free image since its copyright must have expired? It is over 100 years old. Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

That may depend on when it was published. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
There was a discussion about that imeage here. The image fails NFCC because other similar free images are available. However, Lsorin indicated that Dan Antoniu sent an email giving permission. I do not know whether there is an OTRS entry regarding the image... the process probably did not get that far. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

File:IICCR G240 Ceausescu Coanda crop.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:IICCR G240 Ceausescu Coanda crop.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

specifications

This article currently says that the thing had 485 lbs of thrust. This, however, is based solely on Coanda's claims, and anyone reading this article can see just how reliable they are. HOWEVER, Hartman gives 17 KG as a figure(mentioned and footnoted in this article). This should be the figure mentioned in the specs, as it comes from an independent source.Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet new modifications

binksternet, you are requested to revert to oldest agreed articel, and remove your new modifications, as they are just one sided and add just even more unecessary material. I can add a tone of more stuff saying the other way, which will be done in following period. You are warned, as you just stirred again the waters, hoping for a new editing war. Get a life and leave peoples to read balanced sources, not your one sided opinions. You have 3 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.35.208 (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome back to the POV fight between pro-Romanian editors and neutral aviation scholars from UK, USA and elsewhere. You are giving me three days, huh? That's the time it takes to establish a new user name enough to be able to edit an article like this one that is under semi-protection, so I expect to see a brand-new user hitting the article very soon, to make POV reversions. Your IP address is from Brasov, Romania; a location familiar to veteran editors of this page. We have seen many pro-Romanian edits coming from anonymous IP addresses in Brasov including 118.2x, 79.1x, 86.1x, etc. Because the topic is so obscure, I expect that there is only one person in Brasov who cares to fight about it on English Wikipedia. So, greetings old friend, let's have a seat and talk about it.
This is the series of edits that you are complaining about, a series I started on 25 January, two weeks ago. In the new edits, the biggest thing I did was add more information about the guys who are building a powered, full-sized replica. (Notice that the replica is to have a real jet engine, taken from the 1960s-era Aero L-29 Delfín military trainer, not a duplication of Coandă's turbo-propulseur.)
Other changes I made were the following:
  • Decades later, after the practical demonstration of motorjets and turbojets, Coandă asserted that his turbo-propulseur was the first motorjet engine complete with fuel combustion in the air stream.
    • ...changed to:
  • Decades later, after the practical demonstration of motorjets and turbojets, Coandă began to tell various conflicting stories about how his early experiments were precursors to the jet, even that his turbo-propulseur was the first motorjet engine complete with fuel combustion in the air stream.
  • I added the following sentence to the lead section to summarize an important fact in the article body: In 1965, Coandă brought drawings forward to prove his claim of combustion ducting but these were shown to be recently reworked, differing substantially from the originals. Many aviation historians were dismissive, saying that Coandă's turbo-propulseur design involved a weak stream of "plain air", not a powerful jet of air expanding from fuel combustion.
  • In 2010, based on Coandă's 1910 jet experiments, the centennial of the jet aircraft was celebrated in Romania.
    • ...changed to...
  • In 2010, based on the notion that Coandă invented the first jet, the centennial of the jet aircraft was celebrated in Romania.
So my changes to the article were in line with scholarly analysis of the aircraft. Coandă "asserted" that he flew is too strong; Coandă "began to tell conflicting stories" is exactly what Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith and Frank H. Winter have said. The sentence about historians being dismissive is an appropriate addition, adhering the guideline at WP:LEAD. The bit about Romania issuing a coin and a stamp is a correction: the government of Romania issued these because they thought Coandă invented the first jet plane, not because they appreciated the novel engine design of a non-working full-sized model. The government of Romania, in general, thinks that Coandă's airplane flew, and that Coandă was the pilot. This notion is not accepted in the rest of the world. Yet, the coin and stamp bear the words: "Centenarul avionului cu reacţie – Coandă 1910", which translate in English to "Centenary [of the] jet aircraft – Coandă-1910". Romania thinks the first jet aircraft was the Coandă-1910 introduced 100 years ago, but the rest of the world thinks the first jet aircraft was the Heinkel He 178 prototype, first flown in 1939. The centennial of the jet will be celebrated in 2039 by the rest of the world.
I intend to continue improving the readability and flow of this article in an effort to bring it to Featured Article status. I think that it must have less assertion of Romanian POV and more of a mainstream voice. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
"but the rest of the world thinks the first jet aircraft was the Heinkel He 178 prototype". WRONG! Heinkel He 178 was a turbojet. There are many types of jet engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
no, binksternet is right(in THIS instance). There are many types of jet, and Coanda invented NONE of them.

canovetti

How could this be the first attempt at a "jet propulsion system"(I put this in quotes because it's obviously crap anyway, but this is not germane to my point)if Canovetti attempted to show a similar plane the year before? The only opinion we have on this by a reliable source is that Coanda cannot be credited with this. And incidentally, Brasov Boy, truth is spelled with an 'H'. Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Winter did not find that Canovetti preceded Coanda in making a turbo-propulseur, he just found that Canovetti patented it perhaps in 1909 but certainly with further patents in 1910. Here's the page from Winter's article: [3] It says the following:

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. It was known that the Italian engineer Camille Canovetti had been working along these lines earlier and eventually also built a full-sized turbine propulseur. His machine is depicted in L'Aerophile for 15th December 1911. In this source, Canovetti himself gives some credit to Coanda but also says:

'We had abandoned our experiments and attempted to show our machine at the Aviation Exposition in Milan in 1909; we took out some patents and in 1910 some further patents. The appearance of the Coanda turbine at the Salon of Aviation in Paris in 1910 called general attention to these questions.'

So much for Coanda's priorities. Canovetti, incidentally, says nothing of any flights of Coanda's machine.

—Frank H. Winter (December 1980). "Ducted Fan or the World's First Jet Plane? The Coanda claim re-examined". The Aeronautical Journal (Royal Aeronautical Society) 84: 414.

So it appears that Canovetti is not sufficiently established as coming before Coanda, except perhaps in his self-reported patents which I have not found online. Binksternet (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, well aware that this article you quoted was written in the form of statements followed by refutations(in fact you expended considerable effort, and rightly so, pointing this out when earlier attempts were made to mis-interprit this document). The quote you have here presented is another case of the same thing. Winter points out after his statement that, "Even here Coanda's priority may be questioned." Is questionable priority the standard for statements of fact here at Wikipedia? And in addition, I must point out that he says, "even here"; meaning here as well as elsewhere in this article. elsewhere in this article you have already accepted his refutations, so why not this one? Do you have some independent reason for accepting his other refutations, but not this one? Besides, the question isn't wether Canovetti can be proven to have priority, it's wether Coanda can be proven to have priority. It is entirely posible that in some cases priority cannot be definitely assigned for an invention. As to your concern over his patents, wether an invention is patented or not, it's still an invention, and Canovetti had been publishing reports of his propulseur since 1906(See Mechanical Engineering, Volume 34 page 289)which makes it entirely possible that his work was already known of by the aeronautical engineers Coanda was studying under at this time. Ion G Nemes (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2012

I will change the lead as per my last comment. I assume that now you will suddenly take an interest in this article after refusing to discuss it for all these months. If so, please explain how you feel Coanda's "questionable priority"(described as such in a peer reviewed journal article YOU supplied) is not questionable, or where it says in wikipedia's rules the an assertion which is questionable is somehow to be taken as factIon G Nemes (talk)

Again "many historians" = Gibbs Smith

When you say many historians you really have to quote at lest 8-10 persons of various nationalities not Gibbs Smith two times and then an unsigned article.

"Many aviation historians were dismissive, saying that Coandă's turbo-propulseur design involved a weak stream of "plain air", not a powerful jet of air expanding from fuel combustion.[1][2][3]" [1]=Gibbs Smith, [2]=Gibbs Smith (Flight), [3]=Article not signed (Flight) that repeats the same idea of Gibbs Smith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.51.88 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

google books has 6 more sources saying the same thing which are all from different people who went to the 1910 airshow and heard the explanation Coanda gave at the time(as opposed to the lies he made up after some talented inventors developed jet engines) If you want them in the article, go ahead and add them. they have been several times only to have them deleted by angry, abusive Romanians. They can be found easily because they are part of the VERY short list of coanda hits on that site before WWI. They are also in older versions of this article. They appear and are removed repeatedly, as you can see if you bother to look. The pertinent dates can be found easily by checking the archives for the talk page. (check the first archive)Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Definition of JET ENGINE

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

"jet engine

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

2. An engine that obtains the oxygen needed from the atmosphere, used especially to propel aircraft and distinguished from rocket engines having self-contained fuel-oxidizer systems." Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jet+engine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

A propeller produces a jet of fluid which produces rearward thrust as well. Espacially a flat paddle propeller like the kind A V Roe used in his first flights. should we credit him with the first jet? And it is clear from the many, many contemporary accounts of the 1910 airshow that Coanda was saying it propelled the aircraft partly from air blown out the back, and partly from suction at the front. Much like the way an airfoil type propeller works. There is also no evidence whatsoever that Coanda's engine EVER produced motion. Except his lies and forgeries which were exposed as such decades ago. And whatever you want to call that thing he built, it was not the first of it's kind. Canovetti had already built such a prototype, and had been publishing his work along those lines for years; even back when Coanda was still in school (very possibly reading about canovetti in the school library)
and frankly, the definition you are using really sucks! It would mean that a man pissing off the stern of a boat is also a jet engine! As would be a man ejaculating out of an open aircraft cockpit. Ion G Nemes (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"Coanda was saying it propelled the aircraft partly from air blown out the back, and partly from suction at the front. Much like the way an airfoil type propeller works."(Ion G Nemes)?!

I do not believe Coanda could have said such an idiocy. It is quite clear you do not know how an ordinary propeller works. Also you are not aware Coanda used a kind of turbine that would have produced no thrust (unlike a propeller) if it had rotated in open space (not enclosed in a tube).

Regarding Canovetti, he developed a much different engine, one where hot gases turned an ordinary propeller. There was no backward jet, envisioned to push the airship forward:

"After contact with Treviso, Canovetti completely abandons civil engineering to pursue his true passion: the study of aerodynamics. At the beginning of the twentieth century comes to conceive an engine for airships able to combine maximum lightness, ease of operation and the absence of vibrations: it is an internal combustion engine gazolina ( petrol light very volatile) devoid of transmission shaft, used only as generator of hot gases under pressure and that is, as a volumetric compressor. Canovetti makes efficient jet of gases through the exhaust pipe using them to move a turbine that transmits energy to a large rotary propeller propulsion: turboprop engine is the first in Italy and perhaps the world. The device earned him, in November 1909 , the silver medal at the first exhibition of Italian Aviation of Milan and, after the patent of 1910 , the prize Wilde in France in 1912 ." (automatic translation from Italian, see http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosimo_Canovetti )

Even if Coanda was somehow inspired by Canovetti's engine, his design was quite different.

  • ". Coanda 1910 used oxigen to burn fuel and produced a backward discharge of gases "
Agreed, that would make it a motorjet, much as Caproni's 30 years later, which we would broadly regard as a jet engine. Now, any evidence that he did such a thing? Any evidence that it flew? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Or to put it another way, that the Coanda 1910 was a jet-powered aircraft is a disputed fact and so it takes reliable sources stating it to be so rather than an editor's comparison of its described design and function with a definition. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What is a jet aircraft?

Dictionary definitions often fail when we consider issues wider than those considered by the compiler. Squids, rockets and ducted fans all push a stream of working fluid backwards in order to obtain thrust, so some dictionaries would allow them all as "jets". Yet only squids are actually accepted as "jet-propelled".

A rocket carries its working fluid (or ingredients) onboard, while a jet draws it in from its surroundings. A ducted fan must be driven by some external power source - jet-propelled if you like, but not jet-powered - while a turboprop is jet-powered but not jet-propelled: join the fan from the one direct to the powerplant from the other and you have a true jet engine.

Coanda's device sits uncomfortably in a gray area. We might think of the compressor and its airflow as a kind of "air fan" whose blades are made of air and whose task is to draw in the main working fluid (through the Coanda effect) and expel it backwards: at best a compound device, but not a jet. Or we might think of it as more akin to a ramjet, drawing in the working fluid before accelerating it backwards in one continual flow. It's kind of a jet-but-not-a-jet.

Wikipedia values verifiability above truth. Can I offer this elegant expression of the dilemma from a secondary source: Angelucci, E. and Matricardi, P.; Sampson Low guides - World aircraft - Origins-World War 1, Sampson Low (1977), Page 75:

"The Coanda was the first 'jet' plane in history, a forerunner of modern aviation."

The dilemma is eloquently expressed in those quote marks around the word 'jet'.

Can I also suggest that explaining the dilemma would be a lot more constructive than pushing either PoV?

One other thing, Angelucci and Matricardi are quite clear that the plane did not fly: "The chief reason it never got off the ground was the weak thrust supplied by the blower".

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

An aircraft that does not fly is not an aircraft, thus not a jet aircraft. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
LOL, thanks for cheering me up. I have several books on early and experimental types that mostly never flew, more on proposals that were never even built. All these sources are happy to describe their subject matter as "aircraft". Wikipedia values verifiability above truth - I find this saves so much stress over trying to figure out what The Truth ought to be. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Fan in a duct and other tweaks

I edited the lead to describe Coanda's powerplant as the "turbo-propulseur," in which a conventional piston engine drove a centrifugal blower which fed air into the surrounding duct. Andy Dingley reverted with an edit comment to the effect that I did not describe the fan as being "in" the duct. But I did describe the duct as "surrounding" the fan. Isn't that the same thing? I was also trying to replace some technically dubious words like "compressor", which is not really what it is doing, and to avoid describing the same arrangement twice over in different ways. So, is my edit really worse than the current version (the "turbo-propulseur," a centrifugal compressor propulsion system with a multi-bladed rotary fan situated in a duct and driven by a conventional piston engine.)? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

'Compressor' is not quite right, I think. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Compressor isn't great, but the crucial aspect here is that the "fan" (whatever we call it) is inside the duct, thus operates with an increased Reynolds number and thus improved efficiency. If Coanda invented anything novel with his 1910 aircraft, this is it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not really a compressor at all, of course - although if the Coanda HAD been a jet in the Caproni Campini N.1 sense that would have been its role. Might just omitting the word "compressor", or somehow working in "compressor-like", or even something like "functioning (rather) like the compressor of a turbojet". The important thing is to get right away from the idea that it was a turbine! Sorry for bring rude to our Romanian friend, by the way (NOT to him, but to the people already here who have shown such admirable restraint)- I realise that while my rudeness was justifiable in a way it is not going to make him think the least whit more logically, and in fact is likely to be counterproductive. Wouldn't have done it if a wasn't a grumpy old man who was (is) very tired, and in no mood to suffer fools. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Angelucci and Matricardi use the term "blower" (see previous topic) which I think is more appropriate than "compressor". I described the duct as "surrounding" the blower. What puzzles me is why this might not be equivalent to the blower lying "in" the duct - can someone explain this thinking to me? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
"fed into" also implies that the duct follows the blower. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Aren't "surrounding" and "following" mutually exclusive though? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The inlet was a round opening with the spinning blade unit at center. The air was pushed out radially into a ring-shaped duct. A molecule of air going through the thing would have made two (curving) right angle turns, the first radially away from the centerline, the second returning to previous flow direction but now traveling alongside the fuselage, within the duct housing. The fan was not really in the duct, as far as I can tell. In that sense, the turbo-propulseur fed the duct. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about it, maybe this form of words is even better; "the "turbo-propulseur," in which a conventional piston engine drove a centrifugal blower which induced airflow through the surrounding duct." The key principle Coanda sought to take advantage of was that the high-speed jet of air from the blower would entrain a greater mass of low-speed air entering at the front and draw the whole bulk backwards through the duct, accelerating it backwards and so generating thrust. Most of the airflow through the duct would not have passed through the blower at all. The Rockwell XFV-12 experimented with a similar concept in which engine exhaust gases were blown out beneath open slots in the wings, in the hope that this would entrain sufficient of the surrounding air through the slots to magnify the thrust and generate lift. Neither design lived up to the promise of small-scale lab tests. Opinions on this latest wording? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I never got that "entrain" concept from my reading of the sources. Can you point to a passage which shows entrainment? Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The current pages for the Rockwell XFV-12 and Lockheed XV-4 Hummingbird (another unsuccessful attempt) refer to thrust "augmentation" but don't explain how it works. This from the Flight Global archive[[4] ; "The tailless XFV-12A obtains lift for vertical flight through four sets of three augmentor flaps, one in each wing and canard (see drawing below). Engine exhaust is ducted to each surface, then pushed downward through a slot nozzle formed by each set of augmentor flaps. The three airflows "hypermix," creating a low-pressure area which draws in large masses of additional airflow from above the lifting surface." That last "draws in" is what is meant by "entrains". Coanda didn't use "hypermixing" (whatever that means) to confine and channel the airflow, rather he used a duct, but the principle is the same. Sadly I can't find a reference to the operation of his specific design, but: a) I recall reading about it well enough, and b) the effect is of course closely related to the effect that bears his name, the only difference being that the Coanda effect sees moving air clinging to a surface while his turbopropulseur sees it clinging to (entraining) more air. Both effects rely on Bernoulli's principle, which describes the local pressure drop associated with a moving stream of fluid. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I understand the basic concept but I doubt that there was a significant fluid pathway into the duct that did not also go through the spinning blades. I would not assume that the 1910 airplane used the Coanda effect. My gut feeling is that Coanda discovered the effect much later, but he is on record as saying that he discovered the Coanda effect by watching the behavior of flames exiting the duct. Note that there is no evidence that ignition of a fuel/air mixture was contemplated in his turbo-propulseur engine patent, as it was described as suitable for use in air (for aircraft or ground vehicles) or water (for boats or pumps). If in fact he discovered the Coanda effect by watching his 1910 airplane in action (which I seriously doubt) then it stands to reason he did not purposely include the effect in his engine design. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
You are right. I finally found a drawing of it on this web page. Coanda's design is pretty much a typical late Victorian turbo-pump/blower being used to pull itself along in the working fluid. No sign of any additional airflow - never trust my memory. BTW, it shows the engine exhaust pipe running forwards into the duct and exiting into the outflow from the turbo blower, which is probably the source of the flames he saw. I'll rethink that edit again, we still need to get rid of "compressor". — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting drawing, with the exhaust pipe exiting fairly crudely within the duct. I wonder who drew it... Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Google Translate reckons it is annotated in Romanian (e.g. rendering "compressor centrifugal cu 15 roti elicoidale din lemn rotindu-se cu 4000 rot/min" as "Centrifugal Compressor with 15 helical wooden wheels spinning with 4000 r / min"), although the website is written in Russian. The Russian text may not be quite right, as it seems to treat the rear part of the duct as a combustion chamber (though Google Translate is vague on this point) - either way, I see no sign of that in the drawing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
How about this for the lead; the "turbo-propulseur", having a multi-bladed centrifugal blower driven by a conventional piston engine and exhausting into a duct?
I like it. I put it in. Binksternet (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The new modifications

I see that the article suffered a lot of changes, with lot of POV of few persons made little by little in time. I understand that there is few butthurted Saxons, fanboys of Whittle and who try to write a very biased article (very different then what exist on other languages articles, much more balanced) to show their point of view. One of them as Nemes (also know under many other different names before) seem to made a purpose of his life to lurk around for years and twist as much as possible anything about Coanda everywhere his name is mentioned, it looks like one of those obssesed people who live just for such things. This required a specialzed help. So its not a wonder that most of the article is based on the info's from Gibbs-Smith, a wacko person, a half nut specialist in Bayeux Tapestry and with no studies and knowledge of engines and engineering but who strongly believed in spiritism, poltergeist, ghosts and flying saucers. As it looks now the article is a mess, way too bushy and full of biased POV since the first paragraphs. It needs a rewriting (I dont have much time now but maybe I will do it myself at some point) and an elimination from the sources of the wacko Gibbs-Smith or other "specialists" with a degree in journalism and who had little to no idea about internal details of an engine. Only reliable and unbiased sources will remain, of the real specialists, like Boyne, Stine and others. POV will be eliminated and will be quoted just those real specialists. There is no need for "internet warriors" or "keyboard specialists" to splash all over the article their POV about how that engines was or not and to let the ones who saw all the documentation and was qualified to understand it. I know wikipedia is unreliable and pretty low in many cases, but such laughable and biased article just sink its credibility even more (and I feel pitty for those who believe all is write here)

Above unsigned text comes from 188.24.138.226, which is in Romania. Murray Langton (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It's Mr Brasov, regular troll of these pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I've left a few polite comments regarding politeness on his talk page. Murray Langton (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Patents and Connected Assessments

Hi!: if you enter the ESPACENET patent database, and conduct an: 'Advanced search', with the name: 'Coanda', or: 'Henri Coanda' as 'Applicant' or 'Inventor', you'll retrieve up to 283 different patents, it all of open and free download. This would be the best way to have an opinion of the singularity and ingenuity of this inventor, that patented things so different as propellers, ramjets, syringes for medical use, and flying discs. If you then enter in a search engie the name of the device or object, plus the acronyms: 'NACA', or: 'NASA', you'll be able finding the technical assessments of some inventions, in actual experiments with the concepts, that give additional information about its value. Salut †--Jgrosay (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Cold Thrust - Hot Thrust; Both regimes = jet propulsion

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

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

In case Coanda had not injected fuel his Coanda 1910 engine would still have been a jet working only in the "cold thrust" regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.160.23 (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That isn't a reliable source. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence from unimpeachable sources; are there any? WP:FRINGE might apply here too. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Another source ( see http://www.meteorflight.com/wps/meteor.nsf/pages/jet_age-campini_caproni ) says the same thing, "Campini Caproni ... was capable of 200 kph on cold thrust and 400 kph with the burners active, had resources been available it would have been capable of much greater speed and altitude if a higher performance supercharged engine had been fitted". So, there is no doubt Campini Caproni plane could fly, and actually flew, just using the "cold thrust regime" (Coanda 1910 ducted turbine principle).
Again - this is not fantasyland, simple as that. And sign your drivel - or are you ashamed of it yourself? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Meteorflight.com is not a reliable source. Please provide proof of the Coanda claims from a reliable source, thanks. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ducted fans = Cold thrust motorjets = jet engines - "early motorjets were created with a total absence of the combustion section. In these jets, the only heat addition to propulsion was caused by the friction of fast moving molecules of air bumping together during their rapid transit and also latent heat was input by exhaust trickling from the compression engine itself. Cold thrust motorjets similar to this are still common today: they're called ducted fans. They compress air within a tubular housing and they thereby create actual jet propulsion. This has led some people to call all engines of this class "pressurejets" and that is indeed a perfectly good term. As stated best by Larry Cotrill, a jet engine at minimum must possess "...a fluid flow accelerated in a particular direction by a nozzle..." Builders of light kitplanes often employ a pressure jet (i.e. ducted fan) rather than the plain old unshrouded propeller for forward thrust. Despite lack of combustion, these little pressure-pushed airplanes are, in fact, jets.", (Source: http://www.angelfire.com/art/jetengine/). I am seeing that the Wiki page of Coanda 1910 tries to explain that this plane was not powered by a jet engine or cold thrust motorjet but by a ducted fan which can not be considered a jet engine. No matter how you reword the description of the Coanda 1910 engine you finally find it was a jet engine. 74.56.1.38 (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Angelfire is no more a reliable source than a turned-sentient router that is posting to WP under its own IP. We need to differentiate between jet engines (as commonly known, i.e. with compression, fuel and combustion) and ducted fans, as the Coanda 1910. We might call them jet propulsion, but they aren't jet engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Coanda 1910 follows exactly the definition of a jet engine. I am seeing now that other people quoted different sources and you Andy Dingley labeled all of them as unreliable just because they do not fit your agenda. Wikipedia ask people to back their affirmation with citations. As long as multiple sources were found and all tell the same thing that a ducked fan is a jet engine or a cold thrust motor-jet, you Andy Dingley have to come with evidence that demonstrates a ducked fan is not a jet engine but something else totally different.74.56.1.38 (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Now I know, I have identified Andy Dingley. He is a known eccentric and Wikipedia vandal specialized in spreading lies over the net: "Mr. Dingley ... is committing antisocial crimes by lying to the British public and perverting history. Wikipedia is a mainstream source that is often used to reference things, the perversion of articles under Dingley’s regime will have resulted in people being misinformed and lied to." Source: http://dailybalenews.com/2014/12/16/notorious-marxist-wikipedia-article-perverter-andy-dingley-exposed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.1.38 (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive_11&oldid=1025376376"