Jump to content

Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Footnotes

I've separated the citations from the explanatory/informative footnotes, and added one to cover the 'monoplane' mentions in Flight.--TransientVoyager (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent resolution for the debate! Finally I've got a grip of Dan Antoniu's book! Excellent work; the most complete ( about 100 pages from the book ) and neutral approach on Coanda-1910. Very new material and absolutely amazing new detailed pictures of Coanda-1910 and its engine reproduced from private collections. Reference to Weymann's intentions for trials of Coanda-1910 appear in a Bucharest journal from 1910. I will come with details little by little. Anyway as a conclusion many thing about Coanda-1910 are wrong in the current article and we need to correct them little by little. For instance regarding the plane, the specialists working for this book analyzed that several construction flaws are present with the plane presented at the exhibition and those would have had to be correct for any kind of trials. I will come with details as well. 1960's Gibbs-Smith and Winter accounts are used as well as references but in a very neutral manner. (I will make references to that as well) Anyway overall the authors are doubtful about Coanda-1910 was capable of flying but the engine was definitely the first engine built for air reactive propulsion being the first ever hybrid jet engine build, according to the definitions of 1910! The definition of jet engine is changed with the inventions of late 30's and the equal mark between jet engine = turbojet is written in stone. This written in stone definitions are used as well by Winter ( I will come later with details on that account as well, which thanks to Binksternet I managed to get a look at ) causing all this debate in Wikipedia what was Winter's account about ( I will come back with details ). Anyway I will get in touch with Mr. Antoniu to see if is possible to use captions of his book for our discussions here.--Lsorin (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
You do not need to contact any author to quote a few sentences from their book here on Wikipedia. Of course, you are free to contact the author anyway. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like an interesting book. That link has a cover image that suggests there is an English language version. Might you know the ISBN for that? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Especially the pictures are amazing because they answer a lot of questions which were doubtful. But most of them are from private collections like for instance Contess Timina Caproni-Guasti; Michel Marani; Michel Coviaux; Paul Sandachi; John Battersby. It is possible to scan some and present them here? That would be my question Binksternet. The book is so fresh ( published 1 October ) that is not yet available in Amazon or some other web service. The ISBN is ISBN 978-973-7729-60-6 and is available in English and Romanian. I contacted directly Dan Antoniu to get it, at danantoniu01(at)yahoo.com . The price is 100 RON equivalent which is about 25 EURO.--Lsorin (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
One entry from the foreword:
The text may cause come controversies due to the manner in which we approached the subject. We wish to mention that we only relied of confirmed official sources. For the "Coanda No. 1/ 1910" machine is particular, we sought to provide credible information, comments by specialist of the time as well as come of our contemporaries who researched the subject and reached the same final conclusions as us. Our research relating to the "Coanda Propeller" confirmed the fact that majority of those who commented or wrote in relation to this invention did not study or understood the description of this invention. The inventor describes very clearly the method of operation and the phenomena that is based on. However, it is also true that knowledge of hydraulics is necessary for better understanding of this propulsion device.--Lsorin (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Still on the 'monoplane' issue as per WP:NPOV:Prefer non-judgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone., I changed the footnote a bit.--Lsorin (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Dan Antoniu's book. I managed to get in touch with the author and his reply is that we have the permission to used the pictures from "Dan Antoniu Collection" and the drawings, but sadly, not the pictures from the other collections.--Lsorin (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Patents used as cites

I do not think patents can be used to support concepts in the article. They are primary sources, not the preferred secondary sources.

The text added by Lsorin says that "later additions" were made to "existing patents", with only patent documents to support this assertion. Winter wrote that all the Coanda engine patent applications from 1910 to 1911 were practically identical, differing only in language and legalese. The article text also says "This work is reflected by additions to the powerplant related patents on 3rd of Decemeber", this assertion supported only by a French patent document.

A secondary source, an expert voice, must be brought in to counter Winter saying the patents are effectively the same patent. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

But the patent records themselves remain good for noting the dates they were published etc? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the patent URLs are fantastic for saying that they exist, and when. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, patents that are not about the Coanda-1910 slipped into the references supporting the phrase "with later additions to the existing patents", a baffling phrase which confuses the reader. ::*"Perfectionnements aux appareils d'aviation et plus particulierement au aéroplanes a centres distincts, French patent 441.144".
This patent #441144 is for an unbuilt aircraft design incorporating two 7-cylinder rotary engines which are connected by a bevel gear to a drive shaft, the shaft driving an unspecified object (could be a propeller, could be a ducted fan or rotary compressor, but not stated explicitly). The point of this patent appears to be that the two engines mounted back-to-back cancel out their torque effects to solve the problem of an aircraft pulling strongly to one side. The patent is related to the 1911 military contest aircraft Coanda made out of two Gnome engines driving a propeller. It is not about the Coanda-1910. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I removed some text supported only by patent cites, requiring original research to make the connection from text to patent. I removed:
  • "It is not clear if the compressor had provision for the introduction or combustion of fuel or not, as it was not stated in the earlier patent."
  • "This work is reflected by additions to the powerplant related patents on 3rd of Decemeber"
I also removed some patents that did not relate to the 1910 aircraft, ones that were about the twin rotary engines driving a propeller (or whatever). Binksternet (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved French patent 441.144 and the addition to the next section as per previous discussion with GraemeLeggett for better time sequencing. As well the patents and the relations to the Coanda-1910 are analyzed in by Dan Antoniu and Co. in their book [1]. The {{expert}} tag can be now removed from the top of the article if you agree.--Lsorin (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

failed consensus tag

The {{no consensus}} tag applied is one for policy proposal within wikipedia and is not for use in articles, so I removed it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I did not know that is not allowed to add that to the article. Is this Template:Synthesis OK to be added before that Modern assessment section?--Lsorin (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Also: section headings do not get tags such as the 'clarify' one you added to "Modern assessment". The meaning of 'modern' is taken from context, taken from the examples given. Basically, any source that came after Coanda died can be considered modern. Binksternet (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
OK I changed the title to reflect your understanding.--Lsorin (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:HEAD, "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article". Please do not put Coandă-1910 into any section headings. Binksternet (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the mistake!--Lsorin (talk) 07:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Cite book

At Template:Cite book it says that the title of the book must be present. We had a bunch of Coanda Monograph cites without titles, making their quotes unreadable except in the edit window. I changed the references to a different format so that the book page number and the relevant quote is shown. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the cites corrections and the English language clean-up Binskternet. I will follow that rule when I'll add other entries.--Lsorin (talk) 07:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Martin Caidin 1956

Stemming from this clarification note, I am removing Sultan as a source. Sultan's sources are listed on his webpage, and can be examined themselves. Instead, I am removing the clarification note and putting Martin Caidin as the source for Coanda's claim to have leading edge slots, upper wing fuel tank and retractable landing gear. The story appeared in May 1956 Flying, titled "The Coanda Story", mostly about Coanda's notional aerodyne lenticular (flying saucer) design, but including some interesting tidbits about the 1910 machine. Caidin must be treated with care by editors; as a writer he was known at times to add more excitement to his writing, inventing facts on the fly. However, he directly interviewed Coanda, and I notice that his Coanda quotes are consistent with other things that Coanda said in the 1950s. GIF images of the magazine story have been published here, and I have seen the old magazine at my local university library, confirming the GIF images as true representations. Note that Coanda hints that he did absolutely no turbo-propulseur work in WWII for the Germans, he hints that the Germans stopped him from studying, which is exactly opposite of the truth. Coanda also says that "in 1910, the wind tunnel was unknown"; not true. Small wind tunnels existed—Eiffel had one—but they were inconvenient to Coanda. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Modern assessment

Regarding the title of the section: What is modern in the "Modern assessment"? Is it Jet age? If so please reflect that in the title. What was wrong with my proposal of the section title: Coandă-1910 airplane assessment in aviation history?--Lsorin (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Article title words should not be put into section headers, if possible. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I went with your next idea, Lsorin, putting Coandă's death as the section heading, but I do not think it is ideal. The subject matter of the section is about assessments of the aircraft after Coanda's death, modern assessments. The first sentence of that section can be written in answer to your question "what is 'modern'" in the heading:
  • Following Coandă's death in 1972, reference books about aviation history represented the Coandă-1910 in various ways, though many did not mention the machine or the inventor at all.
That sets the time frame of the section as everything from 1972 on. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I tend to agree with the proposal of having the introduction to the section as you proposed. Then I'm wondering what is happening to the previous assessments in the history books. To ones before the jet age, during the jet age when Coanda made the claims?
Second, what is happening to the references not touching Coanda subjects at all and your personal synthesis? I listed it to WP:RSN but I fell will be very soon buried to archive without any resolution.--Lsorin (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Coanda

It appears to me that the WP:SYNTHESIS complaint revolves around my version of the article in which I tell the reader that Henri Coanda is not mentioned at all in many modern reference books on early flight and early jets. I believe this information is critical to reader understanding of how Coanda treated by authors and historians. If we only tell the reader about sources which mention Coanda, we leave out the greater part, the hidden part in which Coanda is completely absent.

I do not consider this line to be synthesis or original research on my part. Frank H. Winter works this same angle on page 414 of The Aeronautical Journal published in December 1980. Winter writes that neither Coanda nor his jet design are mentioned in Jane's All the World's Aircraft for 1910 and subsequent annual issues until 1916 when he appears in connection to his job as chief designer for "Bristol aeroplanes". Winter continues the line of reasoning by noting that Coanda was completely absent from Rynin's "nine volume encyclopedic Interplanetary Flight", a compilation of reaction propulsion research. I feel that a continuation of this line is a useful method of telling the reader things that Winter could not know in 1980: that Coanda does not magically appear as the inventor of the jet engine after his 1950s and 1960s assertions become known. Coanda's story was not universally believed, and the article should tell the reader this fact. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK to say that Coanda-1910 was no mentioned in modern reference books, but I'm not OK to state that Coanda is not mentioned the modern specialized press as the the first jet to fly. This is the garbage part. The real aviation historians list Coanda-1910 as the first jet-propelled aircraft. You made the list yourself. Which one of those are the real aviation historians?
Binsksternet as you have already seen the sources and there is no hidden part of Coanda. I don't really understand where did you came up with that? Could you explain yourself?
So are you trying to state that your personal synthesis is valid until 1980's Winter article? Coanda-1910 was listed in the Jane's encyclopedia of aviation in the same year 1980. Maybe Winter did not wanted to be aware of it or he just missed it. About Rynin ( Why do I feel I repeat myself? You don't understand my English Binsksternet? Or what? ) he missed Coanda all together in his 9 volumes. Coanda was doing test with rocket propelled models in Charlottenburg and Bucharest. Rynin listed others, testing with models propelled by rockets but for some reason, he missed all the accounts about Coanda. Aviation historians are making mistakes as well ( check the mess Gibbs was making all the time, correcting himself later and even Winter which missed or just ignored very important facts about Coanda-1910 and his constructor, because of language barriers and technical ignorance ).

About Winter's belief in 1980 is OK to list his question in the rebuttals section, but is not universal as you are trying to list it now.--Lsorin (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a significant difference between Whittle/Ohain and Coanda: Every single history of the aircraft jet engine mentions Whittle and Ohain if it mentions any inventor at all. The same cannot be said for Coanda—he is absent from many jet histories. That is the point the reader should know. I do not want the reader to come away from this article thinking that Coanda had an important role in early jet engine development because he did not. The influence of Coanda was muted because he did not follow up on the air jet design and push it until it was successful, or until it became a fire-breather. Jet engine inventors did not base their work on Coanda's earlier experiments. The man and his 1910 machine were not an important part of aviation development. They are instead a curiosity, a fine engineering mind bumping up against impossible metallurgy demands that his design required. Later the story became an interesting tale of lying and puffery almost completely obscuring the early genius. We are not here to leave the reader with the feeling that Coanda was a foundational figure in jet engine development. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"Every single history of the aircraft jet engine" which does not ignore Coanda for a reason or another, lists Coanda-1910 as the first jet-propelled aircraft. As well all those books list Whittle/Von Ohain as the inventors of the first practical jet engines the turbojet. The other books are about the history of Gas turbines or other categories of jet engines. And please read the title of this article again: Coanda-1910! It is about that airplane and his inventor. What has the books not mentioning it, have to do with this article? Could you please answer this question? Of course Coanda had a very important role in the development of jet engine. Your biased statement is ridiculous. Henri Coanda is the inventor of the first (air-breathing reactive) jet engine and his construction was the first to apply the main principles of the later practical jet engines the turbojets and turbofans, even that you personally, do not believe it! This is what Antoniu did state in his book. Are you a better specialist than Antoniu? Please list here, the aviation history books that you personally, did write except your biased synthesis in Wikipedia? Does that make you an aviation historian or what? Is this kind of terms fire-breather the ones littering your personal books? I don't think a reader of Coanda-1910 article is interested in those kind of connections, but rather information as presented in the mainstream aviation history books. "Jet engine inventors did not base their work on Coanda's earlier experiments." Are you joking me? Coanda was the inventor of the jet engine. So are you teaching the readers that Coanda did no based his work on, his own earlier experiments? Of course it is clear today, that it would have been impossible for Coanda to build a turbojet! But this article is not about the turbojets. Why are you continuously mixing them up in this tendentious fashion? As well Coanda might have been able to reach some better results he he would have had the funding to do so! Antoniu explains clearly in his book, that Coanda changed from aluminium to a different metal alloy on the second version of his "turbo-propulseur", the one applied to the sled. The same happened to Whittle and Von Ohain. Griffith's description talks about the high-speed, high-temperature turbines, the airfoils and the metal alloys needed to build the blades of such turbines. The limitation in metallurgy were already know (you as an expert in French language like Winter and teaching us all the "right" French) at the time much earlier that Griffith or Whittle's studies: [2] Turbines, compresseurs et dynamos à très grandes vitesses.
La métallurgie est parvenue à produire des aciers au nickel, dont la limite d'élasticité est supérieure à 160 kg par millimètre carré, auxquels on peut imposer, en toute sécurité, une contrainte de 40 kg par millimètre carré. As Hartmann said, Coanda might have had to turn the turbine at 7000 rpm, but at least the principle was proven successful. I'm sure that Griffith was aware of H. Dunod and E. Pinat work. As well when Whittle tested his first turbojet, by mistake it reached 8000 rpm. It was shutdown immediately because of the high risks of explosion. Von Ohain personally said as well that he was purely lucky to get Heinkel interested in his idea and help with the funding for this S engine. Whittle nor Coanda were so lucky!
The lies are all around Coanda's rebuttals. That is were the lies are. And your mind is rejecting the fact that, does are the lies, not Coanda's statements. Give me even one single link on the web (except your entries) which writes "black on white" that Coanda was a liar? Of course Coanda was the first ever to spend his personal money to prove that Lorin and other believing in jet propulsion were right, even that in the end it proven to be a financial catastrophe for Coanda. This is the fact, that you personally, are unable to comprehend, shown by several aviation historians.--Lsorin (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In 1960 Gibbs-Smith also discusses how Coanda and his machine are not mentioned in aviation literature. He writes about how the aircraft was discussed in 1910 and 1911, then "apart from that, there was next to no comment over the years until 1956. Incidentally, the 'jet' Coanda is not even mentioned in any history of flying that I know of." With his "next to no comment" determination, and his letter to the editor of Flight saying "disinterred from obscurity", Gibbs-Smith dismisses the Coanda-1910, saying it was unimportant to aviation history, an assertion in direct conflict with Antoniu's conclusion that the Coanda design had a bearing on later turbojet development. This shows that both Winter and Gibbs-Smith attempt to prove a negative by showing that the Coanda-1910 was wholly or largely absent from aviation literature up until each author's own analysis. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Since Winter and Gibbs-Smith both opened up lines of inquiry revolving around showing evidence of absence of Coanda in major aviation literature, I have added to the list of books which do not have any mention of Coanda. There are far too many, so I am only including the ones which address aviation in 1910 or early jet engine development. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Stine's "Rises and Falls"

In 1989's "The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda", Stine writes a couple of differently worded descriptions of the Coanda-1910 powerplant, telling the reader that it did not have fuel injected in the air stream:

  • "The critical stage — injection of fuel into the compressed air — is not documented."
  • "...engine fail to indicate the presence of the spray nozzles for fuel — the critical element necessary to qualify the primitive engine as a jet."

Both sentences say much the same thing. Do editors here have a preference? Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Once again you are misleading the readers! The complete Stine's phrases with their context:
which is completly different from the biased "copy" of Winter's
So they don't say "the same thing". You can put Winter's biased version in the rebuttals, but leave Stine's account complete and intact. The second one is about was Gibbs-Smith stated, not Stine! The first one is Stine's statement.

--Lsorin (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are saying—didn't Stine write both of those passages? Are they not from the same Smithsonian Air & Space magazine article? Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes! They are from the same article and right now in the article you put Stine described the 1910–1911 patent applications as having no fuel injection indicated; "the critical element necessary to qualify the primitive engine as a jet." The quote from Stine is according to what Gibbs-Smith did asses in his rebuttal! Stine's own statement is "Coanda's turbopropulseur had elements of a true jet. The critical stage... is not documented.". I updated the article according to this.--Lsorin (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Changing books without Coanda to books with Coanda

In this series of edits, Lsorin changed the story of Coanda from an emphasis on "many [reference books] do not mention the machine or the inventor at all" to "Many are listing Coandă-1910 as the first jet aircraft". This is false, and I reverted the changes. Only a few mention Coanda, and those few include poor examples such as non-notable authors. For instance, the author Frederic P. Miller wrote a coffee table book called Jet Aircraft, but he is not an aviation author. He writes pretty books about pop culture such as cars, films, comic art, roller coasters, etc.

I think it is worthwhile to list each good instance of Coanda appearing in an important book, especially since such books are few, making the strategy practical. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Incredible. Have you ever read the WP:AGF regarding my edits? Now I have explain every comma I add to this article. Let's start with the whole section.
  • What is the meaning of the whole section? Every entry in a Wikipedia shall be supported by published references. Is there any kind of such analysis done by an expert in Coanda 1910 subject? Right now the whole section is try to show your personal biased view, with your strategy to show that Coanda-1910 does not belong to any aviation history book. I already proposed to delete the whole article is this is what you want to demonstrate. See the consensus build up proposal again! You never tried to participate to that.--Lsorin (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • About the footnote, several comments: "The aviation history books not mentioning Henri Coandă or the Coandă-1910 are too numerous to list, but some examples include" What is the meaning of this list? If Binsternet is knighted tomorrow by Her Majesty the Queen, for the scholarship work he did do on Coanda-1910 in Wikipedia and this news in presented in "Binsksternet news" daily journal do I need to list the other millions of journals around the world which don't have an entry about this? The article is about Coanda-1910. Why do we list the numerous references having not a single entry on Coanda-1910? Then regarding the weasel wording too numerous. You did not find Coanda in your three history books that you have in your personal library and that is already too numerous? Or are you a librarian at Library of Congress and you found too many millions of history books not mentioning Coanda-1910 to use the this weasel words? This needs to be supported by a citation is you still want to keep it.--Lsorin (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Your argument works against your solution as much as it works against mine. You changed the section to list books which mention Coanda in exactly the manner that you say you do not like. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The arrangement a was trying to make to this senseless section, was in order of a normal article written about anything in Wikipedia! First you introduce the most relevant reference to the subject and the closest to the subject and then the not relevant ones. My edits were according to Wikipedia policies. Did you ever read the WP:MOS or WP:CITE. I really start wondering, what did you received all the Wikipedia "stars" for?--Lsorin (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • All I am trying to do is help the reader understand that the experts continue to disagree about Coanda being the first jet aircraft engine inventor. There was never a big change where Coanda bumped Whittle and Von Ohain from their place. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes As I said above you are leading the reader to your personal understanding is a way which does not even follow Wikpiedia rules of presenting your personal synthesis on a controversial subject, using references which don't have a single word about Coanda-1910 or even Henri Coanda.--Lsorin (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
And once again! I don't exactly know what history books are you reading! I never said that Coanda bumped Whittle and Von Ohain from their place! They are recognized as the genial inventors of the turbojet the first practical and one of the most common jet (air reaction) engines on the planet. The problem is that you don't want to understand is that Coanda build the first jet (air reaction) engine for an airplane, 30 years before regardless that it did work or not!--Lsorin (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Antoniu gives us the conclusion that Coanda's jet design influenced later jet engine designs, that it was an important step. The point I am making, following in the steps of Winter and Gibbs-Smith, is to show that Coanda is not mentioned at all in early books about jet engine development. Authors cite Lorin (1912) and other contemporaries, but not Coanda from 1910 or 1911. It is only after Coanda began tooting his horn in the 1950s that he showed up in some histories. Antoniu's blind spot is that, if Coanda were important in jet engine development, any author citing Lorin would have cited Coanda, too. Any complete jet history before the 1950s, following Antoniu's theory, should have said Whittle and von Ohain were influenced by Coanda and Campini and Lorin etc. but they do not mention Coanda. Winter and Gibbs-Smith are saying this, but in fewer words. They wrote their pieces before Antoniu's so of course they do not feel the need to go on in greater length. No mention of Coanda in the major literature, done deal. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
What is major literature for you? I already said: "I don't exactly know what history books are you reading!" With your typical biased and personal synthesis, there is a entry now: "Popular and academic books on jet aircraft development such as Gas Turbines and Jet Propulsion for Aircraft, published in 1946" by Smith, Geoffrey G. That is that book to give the plural "books"? Do you have two copies at home? And then from the title that guy talks about the "Gas Turbines" development. First of all Coanda did not invent the gas-turbine, which was already working in 1903. Why Geoffrey missed Elling? Because he was to far north, like Coanda to far east? And by the way what happened to Coanda patent from the internal combustion engine Called by Coanda "turbine a explosions"? And axial-flow turbojet patent of Maxime Guillaume? Where the Tsu-11? He mentioned the Baka and the common rocket engine version, but what was relevant for his "gas turbine" book was completely missed? Where is Gustav Eichelberg work? And the Hungarians Albert Fonó and György Jendrassik (maybe they were lost because Hungary is so close to Romania)?
As a conclusion: give me a break with this "done deal" attitude!--Lsorin (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Smith in 1946 discusses Lorin and Caproni, so he should have included Coanda. Eichelberg does appear in the book. I'm not going to defend Smith; I'm just showing that the man included some worthy examples of early development but chose not to include Coanda. This line of inquiry was opened by Gibbs-Smith and followed up by Winter; the providing evidence of absence. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis and Expert tags

After days of no discussion, I am removing the synthesis and expert needed tags from the top of the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I already proposed to remove the expert tag only. The synthesis tag cannot be removed as the discussion is still open and was never closed. I suppose Amatulicr some other admin can take a stand on this issue. If not I will add the synthesis tag back, until you stop ignoring my comments Binksternet.--Lsorin (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Once a discussion at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard has scrolled off the page and into archives, it is closed. I'm not ignoring your comments at Talk:Coandă-1910#Modern assessment, I just have not yet framed a reply. Binksternet (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
So, could you please add the tag back, as the discussion is yet closed ( your own reply "...I just have not yet framed a reply.")?--Lsorin (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the connection between the discussion about a section heading and the synthesis tag. I thought the synthesis discussion was started at the reliable sources noticeboard, not here. Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I put the {{synthesis}} tag back, until you formulate your reply here or in the reliable sources noticeboard.--Lsorin (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am removing the synthesis hatnote per instructions found at Template:SYN, which instructs us to place the tag for 24 hours or at most only a few days, to give editors of possibly synthetic text to provide support for their text. I have given my reasoning for listing books without Coanda, per similar lines of reasoning undertaken by Gibbs-Smith and Winter, to follow their lead in telling the reader that Coanda was not listed in a number of important aviation history books. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Describing Houart

I used the word imaginative to describe the writing in Houart's book, per Winter. Winter does not use the word itself, but his description of Houart's book leaves no doubt that he thinks the author was making up a lot of the book's content. For instance, Winter pokes fun at Houart's "powers of observation" and his ability to cite "exact and lengthy dialogue" 47 years after the fact. He notes that the dialogue is simplistic, probably intended for children, and that all of the characters in the dialogue have the same personality as the author. Winter wonders how Houart can switch from recounting exact dialogue in the midst of dragoons at Issy to recounting Coanda's exact words "spoken for himself alone". In short, Houart's account of the test flight and crash is a fanciful composition, not a strict telling of fact. It is imaginative. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Stating the whole section with the word imaginative make the whole Houart story null. The whole book is about the history of aviation. Of course he make the dialog very simple and imaginative for his son ( by the way Winter's translation of the title is completely wrong as he is using the plural children, could be so that Winter does not know French that is why he missed so many French sources? ), but that main facts are not imaginative, like to try to pose now to any reader of this Wiki article. So come up with different phrasing or I will put the {{clarify}} tag back.--Lsorin (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The English translation of the French word fils includes four or five possibilities: son, sons, male child, descendant and offspring. 'Offspring' is much the same as children, so Winter is not wrong.
My intention of the word imaginative in the article is to reflect Winter's appreciation of the book as a fanciful fiction written for children. Your assertion that Houart's basic facts are not imaginative is not based on any expert source. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Man, you are incredible! You are trying not only to change the definition of jet engine, but now you are trying to change the French language! In the title mon fils the adjective mon is the singular form which forces the translation of mon fils to the singular my son. The correct French plural is mes enfants or mes fils.
Ok. If Houart is not an expert why do you list it? We can removed then. I have a lot of other sources not written by experts. Can I we add those then?--Lsorin (talk) 21:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
We list Houart because his version of events became part of Coanda's story, and the changing story was one that Winter thought required a rebuttal. The fact that the story changes over time makes Coanda a liar; a critical point in this article. Houart puts the fuel tank in the upper wing, and Coanda subsequently agrees with this, telling Stine this same falsehood in 1962. If Winter thought Houart was important enough to rebut, who are we to say he is not important? Binksternet (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
In French mon fils can mean "my son", "my sons", "my descendants" or my offspring". The plural version is included. Winter is not at all wrong in his translation to "my children", and it is not worthy of any kind of mention in the article. Your edit should be reverted, the one where you say "who wrongly translates the book's title as 'The History of Aviation as told to my children'." All we need to do is say that Houart's book is titled L'Histoire de l'aviation recontée à mon fils and that it appeared to be aimed at children from its writing style. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
What story did change over time to make Coanda a liar? Could you please list those critical points here? I agree that Winter is misleading his readers to interpret Houart writing as a complete fantasy, in his psychoanalytic rebuttal and that is why I moved the whole story to the rebuttal section now. Even so I wonder why his book would be endorsed in the preface by Gabriel Voisin, just because it is full of lies? This point was never listed by Winter!
Regarding the translation, Stine is clearly translating the title to The History of Aviation as Told to My Son. You are not a native speaker of French nor me so I added the {{expert}} tag back to the article until some native French editor can clarify this matter for both of us.--Lsorin (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
We do not need to translate the title of the book—it has no bearing on the Coanda-1910. It is irrelevant. I am removing the translation and I am removing the expert tag. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the word "imaginative" ad the {{expert}} tag has been removed. This is Binsksternet synthesis of what Winter describes about Houart. Is not clear from any were, that Winter is an expert in psychoanalysis, that he is using in interpreting Houart's story. As well the book is endorsed by Gabriel Voisin fact not described by Winter.--Lsorin (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Does Voisin voice an opinion about Houart's powers of observation, how Houart can hear both the dragoons in great conversational detail and Coanda's talking to himself? No, Winter is the one who analyzes Houart and determines that it is a fanciful story. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, if Winter is doing the psychoanalysis, for rebuttal purposes, than move that whole section together with your personal synthesis to the rebuttals section. Voisin preface is and endorsement of the "aviation history" facts presented at kids level of understanding, eventually with fictive details, but definitely not imaginative facts, as your are trying to express with your synthesis. Another solution is to remove completely the whole Houart's story, as Stine stated "However, his history adds nothing to Coanda's description;"--Lsorin (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
For our purposes, and Winter's too, Houart adds confirmation that Coanda said his aircraft had a high wing fuel tank when it did not. Houart adds no new historical information but reinforces existing information. Otherwise, Winter would not have spent a whole page of his magazine article ridiculing Houart's chapter on the 1910 machine. Binksternet (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Who can tell today is Coanda's statements about the fuel tanks are true or not? Let's use the "imagination", like you concluded about Winter's statements of Houart. Maybe was a device of imagination that the fuel tanks described by Houart. And using now our "imagination" like Winter used his for the rebuttal. If Coanda indeed, added in the shop the afterburners, even directed through whatever tubes or mica plates away from the asbestos protected sensitive areas of the fuselage (maybe the tank described in the exhibition leaflet) and the gas tank as present in the pictures, was anyway very close to the very hot exhaust gases of the combustion engines with no exhaust pipes attached it might, then in order not to blow up himself and the plane even when starting just the Clerget, he really moved the tank in the high wing? Nobody in this forum can confirm this. So you cannot say "Coanda said his aircraft had a high wing fuel tank when it did not". The is no way to confirm that! That why Stine choose not to comment. I will check Antoniu as well. So if you still believe that what Winter made fun of Houart's statement as a form of rebuttal then move it to the rebuttal section, with a full copy-paste of Winter's account if you like it so much.--Lsorin (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I still believe Houart reinforces what Coanda was saying in the 1950s. There's no need to move him to a different section. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Then Houart account is not anymore so "imaginative" as you wanted to state with your synthesis, right?--Lsorin (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Its dialog is imaginative. Its point of view is impossible and fanciful, being in two places at once. I have conducted no synthesis. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a psychoanalyst to understand if the dialog imaginative or not. But I tend to agree that it is imaginative. But what about the fuel tank in the wing? Is that imaginative as well in Houart's brain? Or is just a "copy-paste" of Coanda's statements making that detail not longer imaginative? This doubts make basically any detailed analysis irrelevant!--Lsorin (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
As I promissed had a quick look at Antoniu's statements regarding the fuel tank. He does not comment absolutely nothing about the fuel tanks in the wings. But on page 77 he included Gibbs account from 1960 "it had no retractable undercarriage, no wing-slots, no wing tank".
  • About the retractable undercarriage:
On page 88 Antoniu commented about additional patent FR15849 to the main patent FR441144: "Major changes were made to the landing gear: he fitted them with dampers and retraction mechanisms,...." and next the relevant parts are translated from the French patent (page 2 section 65) "La fig. 3 représente le dispositif élastique qui sert d'amortisseur aux roues et permet de les effacer à l'intérieur des patins d'aterrisage."
  • About the wing-slots:
On page 87 Antoniu just translated the French patent (page 6 section 30)entry but without any further comments:
"A établir les surfaces sustentatrices au moyen de nervures rigides, qui sont montées de façon à pouvoir respectivement osciller autor de la poutre transversal, et sont prolongées part de lames flexibles terminant l'aile à sa partie arrière et se recouvrant; les nervures oscillantes étant enrobées dans une enveloppe en placage, se prolongeant à l'avant pour former la nervure de l'aile, alors queles lames flesibles arrière sont disposées dans un entoilage; la surface souple ainsi constituée pouvant se déformer partiellement et automatiquement sous l'effet des actions aérodynamiques localisées qui s'exercent sur elles et qu'elles compensent par ses réactions internes ou être déformée par des actions mécaniques automatiques ou commandées, pour s'opposer aux a réaliser des ruptures de l'équilibre transversal de l'appareil;"
  • About the upper wing tank:
On page 97 there is a picture from Michel Marani collection, which sadly I cannot put here as Antoniu did not give the permission, showing a person reaching the top of the wing with a canister apparently pouring some kind of liquid in the top wing. This is the same picture, but the top part showing clearly the canister and the pouring in the wing is cut in this postcard.
On page 100 Antoniu translates the French patent (page 5 last paragraph) entry but without any further comments: "résevoir avant de l'aile supérieure, etc"

After the above personally I start to have doubts, who are the liars in the end? At least I can see the Gibbs-Smith and Winter did not really look into the patents. So what kind of analysis have they done in the end and what kind of "foremost aviation historian" will overlook critical evidence? This is anyway typical for Gibbs-Smith to leave out some critical evidence and just starting to "shout around" as a lion, behavior shared by Binskternet nowadays.--Lsorin (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The liquid in Marani's photo could be anything: motor oil, extra coolant water, champagne for toasts... and the man is at the top of the 1911 wing, not the 1910 wing. You are confusing the Coanda-1910 with the later aircraft, and further confusion exists between the aircraft as shown in Paris in October and the aircraft in December 1910 with its supposed improvements. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving writers around to different sections

I reverted a move of Garber to the Rebuttals section because he does not rebut Coanda; he merely writes down what Coanda said to him. The fact that my source for Garber is Winter does not change Garber's simple secretary work into a rebuttal.

I moved Antoniu's 2010 analysis of 1910 photographs down to the section after Coanda's death, as his analysis about the aircraft being unfinished, improvised, goes against all published accounts from 1910 and 1911. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I moved the Jet Propulsion Laboratory story to the section "Later claims" which I renamed as the chapter contains not only the motorjet claim. To make the whole article more readable this section should contain the jet age claims this is why I took the 1946 Jet Propulsion study to this section.--Lsorin (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking back at primary sources

(I made the "bold" move to start this new section with your proposal Andy. I hope it is Ok with you Binsternet as well that I moved your edit here.)--Lsorin (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I take a wiki-heretical view here. Faced with a number of conflicting secondary sources, each of impeccable authority, we should look more closely at the primary sources. In this case, that mostly means the patent diagrams. These are primary, but they're also clear, contemporary and pretty definitive as to what the patent claims, even if there is no literal patent for "the aircraft as either exhibited or flown". Primary sources are not popular on WP, second only to pure OR, but they're our only way past the impasse of conflicting authorities. We have to be careful not to descend into ad hoc OR though: we cannot simply claim "the patent does not show a motorjet", we must instead define motorjet (in terms of added fuel for combustion), note that the patent does not describe this, and only then claim that the patent is for a ducted fan but not a motorjet. The idea of sourcing "first jet aircraft" is obviously unworkable. We could even make an interesting List of claims for the first jet aircraft article and take each one to pieces individually. I've one here from Rolls-Royce that describes "the first jet aircraft" - the de Havilland Comet! Charitably I suspect a simple editing error for airliner, but there you have it in black & white with an R-R badge on the top (assume the usual Bristolian grumbling for why R-R were taking the credit for Ghosts anyway). I would also suggest that an email to Boyne, or at least the NASM, might be worthwhile. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I emailed Winter a month ago with no response. I'll send a note to Boyne to see if he will weigh in on the issue, or at least qualify his offhand bit about the engine having an afterburner (!!). Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I e-mailed to Romanian Museums( three of them with Coanda 1910 stuff ). One did not even bother to reply. One told that their are not interested in Wikipedia as it is a source which cannot be trusted. And another museum told me somebody from there edited the Romanian Wikipedia, but that looks like a mess right now anyway. If we reach some consensus here maybe I will start cleaning it a bit there ( even that I promised to myself that I will never touch or thrust Wikipedia again ).
Regarding the primary sources, we can try that. But I think that the investigation must start even deeper, like the definition of reactive propulsion and its relation to jet propulsion, with the attached devices the engines themselves. For instance the Reaction engine article is a joke in Wikipedia right now. Then in the main patent of Coanda and its relation to motorjet how do we threat this particular entry "In order to improve efficiency, the distribution conduits 6 are heated so as to bring about an increase of pressure of the fluid vein passing through them, which can be recovered by the movable blades 12. To that end, any thermic agent, for instance..." Coanda gives just examples of thermic agent to increase the jet pressure. All internal combustion engines work with increase of pressure in one phase and basically the most efficient thermic agent at the time was the burning gas. I suppose that we can agree that Coanda knew at least that in 1910. As well basically he is aware that the energy of the "fluid vein" is increased by such heating and for the airplane the usage of the exhaust gases will have in Coanda's description two roles to increase the pressure of the air jet for working according to third law of Newton and to work on the blades of the compressor according to second law of Newton. This hybrid nature is described as well "It can equally well act by traction or thrust..." So reading this patent I can find:
  • principles of motorjet: centrifugal compressor, increase of jet pressure by a heating agent
  • principles of turbofan: ducted fan and the iris controlling the flow in the engine
  • principles of propfan: using the jet kinetic energy to provide extra torque force for a normal propeller
  • principles of turbojet: increase of jet pressure by a heating agent, using the jet kinetic energy to provide torque to the compressor
Andy you are the best expert around so please correct, if wrote to much crap here :P
And one more tiny question question ( I suppose you already suspected it, so sorry I could not resist ;) ), if we take primary sources in account, which ones are more relevant Coanda articles and 1960's television interviews or its patents?--Lsorin (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I hold no special hope out that wiki editors can arrive at a better solution through an examination of primary sources. I emailed Winter to see if he could amplify on some points made in 1980, and I will email Boyne in a similar fashion, but for we wiki folk to analyze the patent descriptions and diagrams to make a determination... this seems unlikely. They are very complex, and there is little connection we can make from the paper applications to the construction of full-scale models supervised by Coanda. I think we should resign ourselves to writing the article from the point of view of several expert sources in conflict. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Let's see if Winter can amplify his lies and he was anyway ignored by the mainstream. And Boyne as a real historian will be able just to confirm what he's was writing in 2006. I understand you fear of looking into the patents as that will confirm more for you Binksternet that Gibbs-Smith and Winter did lie in a very biased fashion of facts that they did or did not know. So I changed the introduction to reflect you statement above "I think we should resign ourselves to writing the article from the point of view of several expert sources in conflict." = first jet-propelled aircraft debated by two liar historians Gibbs-Smith and Winter.--Lsorin (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You cannot claim Winter was ignored by the mainstream: if people believed him in thinking Coanda was a self-inflating character who had no important place in jet engine development, you would not be able to see the results. The invisible results would be the absence of Coanda in major aviation texts. The list which begins with Anderson, John David (2002), The airplane, a history of its technology AIAA, is a list of aviation books without any space devoted to Coanda. These are books that mention Lorin, Breguet, Voisin, Clerget... all of Coanda's contemporaries, but they don't mention Coanda. You can call Winter and Gibbs-Smith liars all day long but they will not become less expert as sources for this article. Binksternet (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Huyck Corp

Coandă prepared Coandă-1910 drawings and specs for presentation to NASM while he was engaged at Huyck Corporation in the early-to-mid-1960s. These are the documents that Winter examines and dismisses as later fabrications, not true representations of 1910 or 1911 patents. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this stated any were or is just your assumption? Are you "the" primary source nowadays?--Lsorin (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
What's the question? Binksternet (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed an internal pipe link to Coandă-1910#Rebuttals because it was hiding behind the words "aviation historians countered" making it an unpleasant surprise Easter egg. Furthermore, I do not see any need to link to another part of the article from its lead section. I consider this kind of cheat link to be a sign of poor writing, that the reader should be able to see clearly from the article where to go for what kind of quick information. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The introduction clearly states both positions:
  • once on one mainstream: "first jet-propelled aircraft"
  • twice on the opposite to the mainstream: "later argued" and "Some aviation historians countered Coandă's version of events, saying that the engine had no combustion in the air stream and that the aircraft never flew."--Lsorin (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
No, not at all. Your version of the introduction violates WP:NPOV where it says "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution and not as if they are facts." Your version states categorically that the aircraft was the first jet-propelled aircraft, but this statement ignores the experts who disagree. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Boyne email

Walter Boyne responded immediately to my email this morning, saying that he never saw the Frank Winter piece from 1980, and noting that Coanda's jet design was repeated in a more sophisticated manner in the later Caproni aircraft. He wrote:

I didn't see Frank's piece. Claims of a "flight" are a little exaggerated; it was more like a rocket on fourth of July than a flight. But his basic idea was correct for those times, and were they not repeated in the Italian Caproni but on a more sophisticated level?

I have taken out the article statement that Boyne did not consider Coanda an important part of jet engine development. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(Funny coda: 90 minutes after receiving a link to this talk page and the article page, Boyne wrote back with this jab: "I cannot imagine anyone devoting this much time and effort to the subject, but we all have our hobbies!" Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

Other jet inventors not mentioned

I am removing a list of other reactive propulsion pioneers that were missed by certain authors such as Rynin and Smith. People who are not Coanda are not important to this article. No expert source began any line of inquiry about these other pioneers. It is classic original research to try and muddy the waters by discussing other pioneers. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

1912 and later patents

I am removing any mention of the Wankel engine with regard to Coanda's later patents. The sources are only the patents or lists of patents, not expert analysis of these. A 1913 source cannot know that the design was like a Wankel. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

1968 Emde and Demande book

I took out this bit:

  • In their 1968 history book Conquerors of the Air - The Evolution of Aircraft 1903-1945, the authors Heiner Emde and Carlo Demand mention: "During the first trials with the turbine, it generated a traction force in a fixed point of 442 pounds (200 kg)"

It did not add anything to the text; instead, it took away from comprehension. The 1968 authors arrive at a different number than the one published by Coanda, a lesser number, so what is this doing in the article? Or, what is it doing at this point in the article? Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

First jet-propelled aircraft

I reverted Lsorin's change to the lead paragraph, one which gave Coanda credit for the first jet-propelled aircraft. This credit is not universally given to Coanda by experts, as the aircraft's flight capability has been seriously questioned. The first jet-propelled aircraft must be the first successful jet aircraft. What we have here is the first aircraft built for jet propulsion (though unsuccessful). Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

About the introduction. You change my introduction:

The Coandă-1910, designed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă, was the first jet-propelled aircraft. The early sesquiplane aircraft featured an experimental air-reactive propulsion system, which 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 driven by a conventional piston engine. The unconventional aircraft attracted attention at the Second International Aeronautical Exhibition in Paris in October 1910, being the only exhibit without a propeller. Coandă also used the same mechanism to drive a snow sled.

Let's analyze the key problems you continuously keep changing Binksternet. Antoniu in his book clearly describes that the plane presented in the exhibition was not ready and with serious design flows. But in his conclusion he clearly stated that the engine was the first jet engine ever build! What has the flying capability to do with the engine? You are using this weasel words like universally in your explanation again. What is universally? Is your personal understading universal? Give me even one reliable source which tells that Coanda-1910 was not the first jet-propelled aircraft or writes black on white that it was not the first but second or third. Explain as well please what you mean with "successful"? If we look a and the first aircraft flying with the Von Ohain's "turbojet" it was taking of with a normal propeller and then the engine was started in flying. As well it was not reliable at all basically, after less than 8 runs it had to be reconstructed. Imporantat was the concept which was put in paper by Whittle. Now looking back at Coanda's "turbo-propluseur" at least it is clear from the existing sources that is was tested. Maybe it was the same case here, maybe it was working 3-4 times on bench runs and than is was destroyed and had to be reconstructed. The same with the plane, we have to rely on Coanda's statements. An very expensive airplane which was the attraction of an exhibition, does not just disappear in thin air even that would had had been sold to the most known pilot of the time. Than you have really o problem understanding the term jet engine. If English is your native language that is suppose that you know the Oxford dictionary quite well. As you can notice is my introduction I remove any jet engine term to satisfy the native speakers of English for which the term jet engine is written in stone as equal to turbojet. You have added it back. I used the most commonly term used the in the existing literature about Coanda-1910 which is jet proplusion.--Lsorin (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Antoniu is a fine source, but he does not erase Gibbs-Smith and Winter. The article cannot say that a jet engine mounted on an aircraft, the engine too weak to make it fly, is the first jet-propelled aircraft. If the aircraft was intended only for taxiing, I would say yes, the engine was suitable. If the engine was for an aircraft which was supposed to fly in the air, we now have the very serious problem of the engine not being powerful enough to provide take-off power. The Coanda-1910 was not the first or the second or the third jet aircraft, it was a failure which predates the successes of Ohain and Whittle. It was only the first aircraft intended or designed or built to fly with a jet-propulsion system, not actually the first to do so. Binksternet (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I asked you to list those sources black on white stating that:
  • Coanda-1910 was inteded to fly...
  • Coanda-1910 was designed to fly...
  • Coanda-1910 was build to fly...
The majority of sources I found in the last 2 months of investigation, have more of less the same statement: "Coanda-1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft..."
Regarding Gibbs he changed his opinion from 1960 to 1970 and he uses the word attempt. Looking only only at that particular word, it is does not state if it was successful or not.
Winter's did leave the choice to the readers. Every other aviation historian except you Binksternet, did ignore his account. Your choice is that it was a sled. My choice was in sync with the mainstream, add that was to ignore what Winter, in a biased way, was trying to show in his article.
Antoniu lists the whole entry about Coanda from Gibbs 1960, in his book. So he is not erasing such a "fine" source. As well I would not remove or touched Gibbs and Winter "rebuttals" from the article either. Those are very good to show, exactly as Antoniu stated, that even notorious and knighted historians can be wrong, because they did not check all facts available and they based their rebuttals on wrong assumptions and technical misunderstandings.--Lsorin (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
So please come up with the reliable resources supporting your version.--Lsorin (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
These sources are in severe conflict with your assertion that the Coanda-1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Nice list of "firsts", but sorry again for you effort, and I will make the effort below to analyze your links. This article is about Coanda-1910, not all kind of test planes with all kind of jets. Again you are trying to divert the discussion in a different direction. My request was about Coanda-1910 assessment in the mainstream. In not about searching the truth. Antoniu, Winter stated in their account that the truth might never be found! Wikipedia is not the mirror of the truth either! Amatulic made this very clear to me: Another point you must keep in mind: Truth does not matter on Wikipedia. Read the first line of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Wikipedia works on verifiability and consensus.
So now coming back to your links:
So were is that "conflicting severity" that you state, Binksternet?
As well in the Modern assessment section you want to keep only sources after 1972. So how are this sources from 1945 for instance, more relevant than the 1911 source "La réaction produite en communiquant à une masse de gaz une certaine vitesse dans le sens de la marche de l'appareil. ...Leur unique représentant, à notre connaissance, est la turbine à air de M. Coanda." which tells that Coanda engine is the only "propulseur" know to the authors to have been build, at that time, for jet propulsion. Does that give more priority? --Lsorin (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
There are no sources you can find which will change the fact that some experts think the Coanda-1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft and some experts do not. Because some do not, we cannot state one side's determination as fact: we must present both sides. Binksternet (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
This is exactly why the phrase "Some aviation historians countered Coandă's version of events, saying that the engine had no combustion in the air stream and that the aircraft never flew." needs to remain in the introduction. The problem is that you cannot put only your side of the story in the introduction, supported by weekend and ghost story writers like you listed above.--Lsorin (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I changed the introduction to the mainstream listing Coanda-1910 as "first jet-propelled airplane". This can be change when somebody finds reliable sources saying or demonstrating otherwise.--Lsorin (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The sentence beginning "Some aviation historians countered Coandă's version" does not have a direct bearing on the statement of fact that the Coandă-1910 "was the first jet-propelled aircraft." We simply cannot state this as fact when there are experts who disagree. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact the Coanda-1910 is the first jet-propelled aircraft is not disputed in the specialized press. I agree that Winter asked some questions, with in a very biased and limited approach, but he never stated that Coanda-1910 was not the first jet-propelled aircraft.--Lsorin (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
This is getting tedious and repetitive. In general aviation history terms, Gibbs-Smith quotes Griffith Brewer who said "The meaning of the first flight is the first successful flight; otherwise it would include the first unsuccessful flight." In this manner, the first jet aircraft must be the first successful jet aircraft, otherwise it is the first experimental aircraft constructed with a jet engine in the front—an unsuccessful experiment. I have no problem saying the Coandă-1910 was the first constructed, or first built, or first experimental full-scale model, but saying simply "first jet aircraft" goes against Brewer's (and Gibbs-Smith's) admonition. "First jet aircraft" must mean "first successful jet aircraft".
Continuing in that vein, and answering your concerns about the early jets from the late 1930s, yes, Gibbs-Smith considers the Caproni Campini N.1 and the Heinkel He 178 successful, even though their flights were short, and the engines impractical. Gibbs-Smith wrote "You can get even a barn-door into the air if you put enough power behind it; the problem is, how to keep it up there." The Heinkel and Caproni planes stayed up on their own power. Gibbs-Smith wrote in 1960 (in the same book in which he dismissed the Coandă-1910): "...it was the Germans who produced the first successful jet aircraft of history". This single expert source from a highly praised aviation historian is enough to counter any claim that the Coandă-1910 was the first jet. In Gibbs-Smith's words from 1960, describing the Coanda-1910: "Although inevitably unsuccessful, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane." The article must have some kind of qualifying word such as attempt or unsuccessful or experimental because it was not successful. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Again about all mighty knighted Gibbs-Smith: in his 1970 ( the corrected! ) book he lists the the first jet aeroplane was designed in France, but not built (De Louvrie, 1865);. So is that the first jet aeroplane according to his own definition ( in the 1960 book this was no even listed )? About Heinkel He 178 he changed his statements once again in 1970 First jet aeroplane to fly, the Heinkel He 178 from the more correct 1960 version First turbojet aeroplane, the Heinkel He 178. Which one is the correct one? So your assumption of the "all might " correctness of Gibbs goes down the drain.

Then about the Gibbs-Smith statement in 1970 Although inevitably unsuccessful, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane. Gibbs-Smith does not make clear what is the unsuccesful about. Your personal assumption is that is about the flight! I consider that Gibbs-Smith talks about the failure as a business or practicality of such engine. So the phrase is open to interpretations. As well the word attempt does not help either. It might have been tested of not, with a crash or not. Who can know was ghosts were going in Gibbs-Smith brain, at the time of the writing.

The correct, neutral statement, taking into consideration Gibbs-Smith mess, is in the latest book of Antoniu conclusion: "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. Page 80, Henri Coanda and his technical work during 1906-1918. And what is the rule stating that one single source is enough? Especially an incorrect one? Antoniu stated very clearly about this so called single expert source from a highly praised aviation historian in his book Foreword on page 9. One single expert was not enough to analyze was Coanda-1910 was about. I need to copy again the statement: The text may cause come controversies due to the manner in which we approached the subject. We wish to mention that we only relied of confirmed official sources. For the "Coanda No. 1/ 1910" machine is particular, we sought to provide credible information, comments by specialist of the time as well as come of our contemporaries who researched the subject and reached the same final conclusions as us. Our research relating to the "Coanda Propeller" confirmed the fact that majority of those who commented or wrote in relation to this invention did not study or understand the description of this invention. The inventor describes very clearly the method of operation and the phenomena that is based on. However, it is also true that knowledge of hydraulics is necessary for better understanding of this propulsion device. One single expert was not enough to analyze was Coanda-1910 was about. Especially a ghosts believer like Gibbs-Smith. Gibbs is as well very well a very good WP:REDFLAG case. I will list what is listed there for you to understand: Exceptional claims require high-quality sources.[5] 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.

Gibbs-Smith high-quality source? No way. Even Winter has more data analyzed. Check the archive if you don't remember Binksternet. Is Gibbs-Smith the mainstream? He wrote a book about Aeroplane, not about the jet engine. Mainstream are Gunston, Boyne, Stine, Antoniu which are experts in jet engines. As already explained Gibbs-Smith nor Winter are netural in their approach to Coanda. Especially Gibbs-Smith fits to the statement against an interest they had previously defended as the entries in the 1970 is on a totally different tone than the one in 1960. The last one I don't even need to list it. Your views are completely against the relevant community...especially in science

On another line the tendentious becomes your reverts with out bringing any contemporary sources stating that Coanda-1910 was not the first-jet propelled aircraft. That is why I need the attention of some admin without any "problems" to take some action regarding your reverts.--Lsorin (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I feel we are careening off of discussion about the Coandă-1910, but I will answer your points one by one:
  • WP:TENDENTIOUS is about editors who are partisan, with a sustained bias. Before I investigated this aircraft I knew nothing about the man behind it or the airplane itself. Everything I believe about it now is from reading reliable sources, beginning 78 days ago on September 3. I can hardly be described as partisan or biased. I came to the article with no prejudices about it, and my stance has adjusted to each bit of new information that has surfaced. I have been flexible with regard to reliable sources and new data. What I cannot abide with is any factual assertions that have been challenged by another expert. Once we find ourselves in the situation where two or more experts disagree, we cannot throw one side out and settle upon the other as WP:The Truth. Instead, we must stick to facts that are agreed upon by both sides, and describe challenged material as opinion, with attribution.
  • I do not need to answer your request to find a source which specifically states that the Coanda-1910 was not the first jet aircraft. Instead, a discovery of another aircraft claimed to be the first jet is sufficient to challenge Coanda's claim.
  • Your hidden pipe link to WP:COI is 100% false. Try to find evidence that I have a conflict in this topic. Good luck!
  • Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith is as mainstream as they come. He was Britain's foremost early aviation expert in his day. His expertise includes all forms of propulsion present in early aviation. What is your source for determining that his expertise falls short in early jet propulsion?
  • Neither Gibbs-Smith nor Winter need to be shown to be neutral with regard to Coanda in order for their words and analysis to be quoted here. If they targeted Coanda for derision, so be it. Both men are highly regarded aviation historians.
  • I want a dollar for every time you throw in a pipe link to your hopelessly ineffective and non-neutral consensus proposition. That thing could not and did not gain traction.
  • Your repeated assertion that Gibbs-Smith changed his position from 1960 to 1970 is not supported by reading the two books involved. Gibbs-Smith remains just as dismissive in 1970 as he was in 1960, but with different wording. My native English comprehension skills are fairly well advanced and I do not see any significant change in Sir Charles' opinion in ten years. You say you see a change, but can you cite an expert who also sees such a change? No, there is none.
  • Gibbs-Smith a WP:REDFLAG case is ridiculous. You can take that opinion of yours as high as you can but it will not be supported. The man was one of Britain's foremost aviation historians for the last few decades of his life.
  • Antoniu writes "Our research relating to the "Coanda Propeller" confirmed the fact that majority of those who commented or wrote in relation to this invention did not study or understand the description of this invention", but this sentence does not name Winter or Gibbs-Smith.
  • Any attempt to put a positive spin on the following Gibbs-Smith quote cannot but fail: "Although inevitably unsuccessful, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane." The word attempt is not good; the word unsuccessful is not good. The word inevitably is especially dismissive as it describes a design which had no hope of achieving success.
  • At WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV it says that "biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution and not as if they are facts." The statement of opinion that the Coandă-1910 was the first jet aircraft cannot be presented as a fact, just as the similarly biased opinion that the aircraft was "inevitably" a failure. Both sides in the conflict of opinion must be given attribution. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. You have to get to understand that even it might not be true, Coanda-1910 is considered by the mainstream of aviation historians as the first jet-propelled airplane and that some historians are not believing it because of missing technical know-how or simply biased by the facts that the nationality of the inventor is the wrnog one or even because he was friend with the western states enemy Ceausescu. Nobody knows what was in their brain. What needs his article to reflect is the mainstream, not the biased view of one ghost-believer aviation historian.
  • Your are partisan to your biased view and for unknown reasons you cannot admit, that you were wrong since you learn for the first time 3 months ago about Coanda-1910. Some aviation historians spend many year of their life and personal money to investigate Coanda-1910 to come up with the right conclusions and you are not even trying to visit a museum, even that I personally, proposed to buy you myself the ticket! So who is the partisan and biased? If you give up you biased understanding and try visit those museums, that you don't even believe to do their job they are play for, according to your biased view than I will admit that your statement: "I can hardly be described as partisan or biased." is true. Otherwise is completely a lie. About the truth it is clear that you don't understand the basic principles of Wikipedia and you avoided the consensus build up! Wikipedia is not to list that Gibbs-Smith together with Binskternet are right. Wikpiedia is to list the mainstream consensus in a comprehensive form and to list the mistake of Gibbs-Smith, so that other do not repeat it or if they believe that the prove it right, to spend the rest of their life to search for it.
  • Ok. Find a reliable aviation history book that lists another plane than Coanda-1910, as the "first jet-propelled aircraft". The links you provided above are all garbage on the Coanda-1910 subject.
  • I don't even need to find it! It is in your blood. As a Brith you'll never accept that somekind of a "gypsy" from Romanian invented something a bit earlier than most of your own co-nationals.
  • The same as above, is with regards to Gibbs-Smith and Winter.
  • Highly regarded aviation historians? The discussions with your are really funny sometimes. That is why Stine regards Gibbs-Smith as one aviation historian and not as the the all mighty knighted aviation historian, the ultimate authority in aviation history like you are trying to push aover here for the last 3 mouth even that Andy told you to take a break with your beloved Gibbs-Smith, because that shows that are the biased partisan of only one single source? Come up with another source that supports Gibbs-Smith in his statements! I already listed the "support" , "the lion" was having from his own readers. And of course he falls very short on the early jet propulsion flights as he missed a lot of relevant information and he did not have any technical qualification to understand Coanda patents like Antoniu showed in his book. Sorry for the "magnificently roaring lion". Winter? He is not an aviation historian. He is a rocketry historian, which does not understand the basic principle of reaction according to third law of motion. His brain is hardwired to some kind of a "true jet", which might mean "turbojet", but never explained in that article as "turbojet". Maybe he does not understand even how a rocket engine works either, as he states the Coanda is the "first ... reactive-propelled machine" which means that Coanda applied for the first time a rocket engine to an airplane? So Coanda has done another first according to Winter, before BI-1 and Hienkel HE 176. As well Winter left to the readers to understand whatever they want, which basically left his article prey to ignorance of his fellow rocket historians and other historians as well ( except Binskternet ). And BTW a real historian ( I see that you did not touch that article, so probably is correct ) writes the events as they were happening, not like Gibbs-Smith which changes his mind every 10 years and Winter which adds freudian phsychoanalysis of dead people is a very biased view. At least Winter had the guts to to make any strong statements and let the reader to decide whatever. Antoniu from this respect, is a historian by definition.
  • Ok. I will give you a EURO whenever you'll try to build up consensus as Wikipedia requires. I feel you'll gather a lot of money to go visit a lot of museums about Coanda around the world. ;)--Lsorin (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If his 1960 statements about Coanda-1910 were perfect, why did he change them in 1970? Could you please translate from the pure British English to the Broken English I use the Gibbs-Smith statements from 1960: "There can be no doubt that the important source quoted in the [November] 1956 article [in Royal Air Force Flying Review] was either indulging in a friendly leg-pull, or was suffering from a faulty memory. However, the 'jet' Coanda was certainly remarkable in its way, and deserves a somewhat modest place amongst the ingenious ideas that were unworkable in practice." And explain me why did he still commented in 1970 on Coanda is it was not important to him. If my translation in my broken English is correct, could you please explain why you don't propose this article for deletion?
  • Gibbs-Smith might be the foremost "magnificently roaring lion" in your personal British library, but definitely you miss than some real foremost aviation historians.
  • Why would Antoniu would list any names there? All aviation historians were wrong in some aspect or another, until 1st of October 2010, when Antoniu published the most complete, technically correct and neutral work on Coanda-1910. Anyway he's entry about Gibbs-Smith at page 76 is: "In his book The Aeroplane - a historical survey of its origins and development, London 1960, Sir Charles Gibbs-Smith approached the subject of the Coanda machine in the chapter The Coanda 1910 Sesquiplane, pag. 220 and carried out a competent study of the history of this machine, making references to articles published regarding this subject since 1910: <<the whole chapter from Gibbs-Smith 1960 book is listed in here>>". I know that you'll jump around, but a you could notice it does not add anything more that Stine in regards to his rebuttal. This is what a historian should really do: list the materials as they are and retain themselves from wrong or incomplete conclusions! So I agree as well Gibbs-Smith must be listed, but definitely in not the authority in Coanda-1910 which dictates the Coanda-1910 must be deleted from Wikipedia or that the introduction of the article is according to his "ghostly" and wrong conclusion.
  • This is exactly what Antoniu states in his book as well: Coanda-1910 was definitely incomplete at the exhibition and Coanda definitely has done some changes and tested his 1 million Francs toy to be able to deliver it to its buyer, if it was really sold. Coanda stated as well that the plane "inevitably" did crash and burn during the tests.
  • Ok. According to that I wrote another introduction with link to Gibbs-Smith rebuttal.--Lsorin (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no need to provide a link from one part of the article to another. Your assertion that the 1910 machine "was the first jet-propelled aircraft" is a contentious one, and your re-insertion of that opinion as fact goes against WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. It fails to take all reliable expert sources into consideration; it ignores the experts who say that the first jet aircraft must be successful as a jet aircraft, and it ignores the experts who cite the Heinkel 178 as the first jet aircraft. The definition of "jet" has changed over time, so the phrase "first jet-propelled aircraft" has a different meaning now than earlier. The aircraft was the first jet aircraft experiment, or first attempt, or first unsuccessful full-scale model of a jet aircraft, but it was not the first jet aircraft as we know it today. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Man you really make me sick!!! Did you ever read Boyne's article? I will translate it for you, because I will not try again a consensus build up with you as you are to stubborn to admit that you are wrong!
That article is about the jet engine invention! Did you ever noticed the section titled A Concise History of Jet Propulsion Coanda-1910 is listed under there! I will rewrite the introduction exactly like that. That plane was jet propelled if you want it or not! You cannot remove that fact! If it was a jet engine=turbojet=true jet=Gibbs-Smith engine like in your brain that is another story. That is why in my version of the introduction there is no mention to your bloody "jet engine=turbojet=true jet=Gibbs-Smith engine". And stop calling Gibbs-Smith at plural as the "experts". Except Gibbs-Smith you don't have a single other reliable against Coanda being the first jet-propelled aircraft! So give me a break with your reverts!--Lsorin (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are upset about the article. It is not my intent to upset you, only to make the article reflect all sources.
I do not understand your attraction to Boyne, a prolific writer about the military usage of aircraft. Any such writer will ignore non-military aircraft in most of his writing. Boyne's little Coanda sidebar in the magazine does not stand as his only opinion about the 1910 aircraft; he did not see fit to include it in his book The Jet Age: Forty Years of Jet Aviation, the history of the jet engine in aircraft. He did not put the aircraft in The Smithsonian Book of Flight and he did not put it in the Time-Life book Flight. In The Leading Edge, he wrote "Professor Henri Coanda, whose scientific work was impeccable, designed and built a jet aircraft in 1910; it, like Martin's Kitten, was superbly built and technically advanced—and could not fly." Boyne is therefore dismissive of the aircraft, not supportive. Another magazine article on jets is found here; Boyne writes about early jet technology that it began in 1939, with no mention of 1910. Boyne wrote in The Best of Wings Magazine that "The first jet aircraft to fly successfully was this Heinkel 178..."; there is no mention of Coanda or 1910. Boyne is not your best source—Antoniu is.
Gibbs-Smith and Winter are the "plural" experts who do not think the Coanda-1910 was the first jet aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Than assuming your good faith, please make the effort to propose an introduction to reflect the mainstream plus Gibbs-Smith or at least try to reach some form of consensus! Winter is relevant only with sources, but for introduction cannot be used as he gives "freedom" to choose the sides, and we both know very well on which sides we are. Andy already said that twice! So forget Winter's. As well, Antoniu ignored Winter all together as he does not consider him a historian anyway. I can translate you the e-mail discussion I had with Antoniu... So don't tell me about the experts, until you don't come up with new credible references!--Lsorin (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
My good faith is demonstrated in the current introduction which reflects the opinions of Antoniu, Boyne, Gibbs-Smith and Winter, and the editing efforts of myself, Graeme Leggett, Andy Dingley, Romaniantruths, TransientVoyager, IdreamofJeanie and more, including yourself.
Your appreciation of Frank H. Winter is off-base; he would never have written a paper for the Royal Aeronautic Society about the discrepancies in the story of the Coanda-1910 if he thought Coanda was telling the truth. There is no question on which side he stands, regardless of the required scholarly neutrality that he begins and ends with. Winter's chosen words in the article reflect his personal position: "ill-disguised scepticism", "a huge 'blower', a super vacuum cleaner with wings", "still inadequate and was still not a true jet." Winter wrote: "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..." I could not care less what Antoniu thinks of Winter; Frank H. Winter had a fine career as aviation historian and curator at the National Air & Space Museum. Antoniu cannot erase that fact, and Winter will remain a major expert here on this page.
I don't understand what you are trying to say about Andy Dingley. In this edit on his talk page, he writes that the Winter assessment 'first full-scale reactive-propelled machine' is "plainly wrong" as it allows too many other examples such as the Wright Flyer. Nonetheless, Andy is a Wikipedia editor and Winter is a curator emeritus at NASM, so Winter is a higher source. Otherwise, I don't know what you think Andy said twice. You may remember that he recommended a long or indefinite block for you, for your lack of respect for consensus, which makes me wonder that you use him here as a friendly reference. Binksternet (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I changed the introduction to reflect the previous statements. In good faith, Binksternet propose an introduction to reflect what is the problem you have with the current introduction and to reach some consensus. The current introduction reflects all Coanda's scholars statements in order of their importance, weight and chronologic order related to Coanda-1910:

  • 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.
    reflected by The Coandă-1910,... was the first jet-propelled aircraft. ... Decades later, after the recognized development and demonstration of motorjets and turbojets
  • 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
    reflected by The early ... aircraft featured an experimental jet propulsion engine, ... the first motorjet engine ... centrifugal compressor propulsion system with rotary fan blades driven by a conventional piston engine. ... he had made a single brief flight in December 1910, crashing just after take-off, the aircraft destroyed by fire. ... after the recognized development and demonstration of ... turbojets ... was the first motorjet engine complete with fuel combustion in the air stream... Some aviation historians countered ... the aircraft never flew.
  • 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
    reflected by The ... aircraft featured an experimental jet propulsion engine, which was ... the first motorjet engine. ... a complex heat-augmented centrifugal compressor propulsion system with rotary fan blades driven by a conventional piston engine ... after the recognized development and demonstration of ... turbojets
  • 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
    reflected by The Coandă-1910, designed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă, was the first jet-propelled aircraft. , The Coandă-1910, designed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă, was the first jet-propelled aircraft. ... Decades later, after the recognized development and demonstration of motorjets and turbojets
  • 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.

    — G. Harry Stine , 1983 - The hopeful future
    reflected by The Coandă-1910,... was the first jet-propelled aircraft. The early ... aircraft featured an ... jet propulsion engine, .... the first motorjet engine.... Decades later, after the recognized development and demonstration of ... turbojets
  • 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. ... was his jet-­propelled ice sled.

    — Frank H. Winter, 1980 Ducted fan or the world's first jet plane? The Coanda claim re-examined
    reflected by The Coandă-1910, designed ..., was the first jet-propelled ... The ... aircraft featured an experimental jet propulsion engine, which was later argued ... Coandă used the similar mechanism to drive a snow sled...
  • 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.

    — Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith, 1970 The airplane: an historical survey of its origins and development
    reflected by The Coandă-1910, designed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă, was the first jet-propelled aircraft. The early sesquiplane aircraft featured an experimental jet propulsion engine, which was later argued as being the first motorjet engine. ... propulsion system with rotary fan blades driven by a conventional piston engine. The unconventional aircraft ... at Second International Aeronautical Exhibition in Paris in October 1910,... Coandă .. the .. mechanism to ..., but did not develop it further for aircraft.
  • Gibbs-Smith -

    ...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.

    — Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith, 1960 - The aeroplane: an historical survey of its origins and development
    reflected by The Coandă-1910, designed by Romanian inventor Henri Coandă, was the first jet-propelled aircraft. The early sesquiplane aircraft featured an experimental jet propulsion engine, which was later argued as being the first motorjet engine. Coandă used the term "turbo-propulseur" to describe this propulsion design, ... with rotary fan blades driven by a conventional piston engine. The unconventional aircraft attracted attention at the Second International Aeronautical Exhibition in Paris in October 1910 ... Decades later, ... Coandă claimed that his turbo-propulseur was the first motorjet engine ... He also said that he had made a single brief flight ... Some aviation historians countered Coandă's version of events, saying ... that the aircraft never flew.
  • Stine -

    In 1910, the first jet airplane was flown near Paris. ...

    — G._Harry_Stine, 1967 The prowling mind of Henri Coanda
    reflected by The Coandă-1910,... was the first jet-propelled aircraft. ... he had made a single brief flight
I've read Boyne. I hope it was badly edited after submission, even for a throwaway magazine piece, because otherwise it's a surprisingly shoddy piece for someone in such a position. It's very far from a credible source or serious secondary commentary. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Andy, what is then the sources credibility order according to you?--Lsorin (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith says the first jet aircraft design was conceived by De Louvrié in France in 1865 but not built. He says the Coanda-1910 was "the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane" (1970) and "the first full-size completed aeroplane designed for reaction propulsion" (1960), both opinions which are in conflict with the the Antoniu sentence "first jet-propelled aircraft". If unbuilt and unflown designs are taken into account, De Louvrié is the first. If unflown full-size designs are taken into account, Coanda is first. If only successfully flown designs are acknowledged, ones carrying a pilot, the Heinkel 178 wins. Gibbs-Smith assures us that the first jet-propelled aircraft is the Heinkel 178, as he requires success in flight as a prerequisite for being awarded an aviation 'first'. No amount of wiggling with words will give us the ability to state as bald fact that the Coanda-1910 was "the first jet-propelled aircraft". Such a statement requires an adjustment; that it was unsuccessful, or was an attempt, or was a full-scale experiment. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Did any of Coanda scholars, including Gibbs, managed to find what really happened to the plane after it was exhibited? The only one which can be trusted in this matter is Hartmann and the plaque at Issy at it was endorsed by the city hall of Issy and Aero club de France which was the real owner of the airfield at the time. A plane does not just disappear in thin air! According to the "perfect" Gibbs-Smith definition, if the plane really did really takeoff and crashed as stated by Coanda, adding Hartmann's analysis which said that would stay in the air even without the afterburners, then there absolutely no doubt, exactly like there was no doubt for the scientists to which Coanda presented his stuff during 50's and 60's. But coming now back to reality. Wikipedia in not a toll for showing the truth belived by you or by me. It is a tool for presenting the information according to the most reliable sources. Demonstrate please that Gibbs-Smith is more reliable than any other Coanda scholar!--Lsorin (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The plaque at Issy, and Gérard Hartmann, says nothing more than what Coanda said himself. This proves nothing.
I do not have to prove Gibbs-Smith more reliable. We see him as one of the most reliable experts, and as such his opinion derails any other expert who disagrees with him. What we do is decline to state disputed facts, and instead represent them as attributed opinions, per WP:NPOV where it says "biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution and not as if they are facts". It is Gibbs-Smith and Winter who put the lead section into this situation, and since Gibbs-Smith is dead there is no recourse. He will forever be the expert who says the aircraft was an obscure failure. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Hartmann said very clearly that the plane was tested at Issy. He did not use Coanda's words. We can only assume the Hartmann is right. The same for the plaque; it does no state that "according to Coanda" the plane did fly at Issy on December 1910.
So what about the reliability of an aviation historian that lie bluntly and forever in his account?--Lsorin (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Not a joke. I advise you to remove that last bit as it is not funny, and names a legal outcome. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Removed.--Lsorin (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Winter did not "lie bluntly". He published his research in a scholarly journal in 1980 after it was peer-reviewed. There was nothing he needed to hide or lie about—he had no horse in the race. Instead, he was putting his reputation on the line, going against a respected inventor and fluidics pioneer. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I am once again restoring the paragraph which states that the machine was the first full-sized construction, not the first jet-propelled aircraft. I will begin a Request for Comment on the topic, as there has been an incessant back and forth about it. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Again, I have restored the lead section. Its recent change to motorjet was wrong; the Coandă-1910 was not a motorjet with combustion in the air stream, per some expert sources, and we cannot make the blanket statement that it was. Binksternet (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Size

Looking at the photo with a man in it which gives a sense of scale, it seems a very big aeroplane, was it noticeably different in size to contemporary designs.?

The upper wing span was not smaller than for instance Wright Flyer but definitely much longer. Maybe it was looking so weird because in was the first jet airplane ;) The aspect ratio fits the current jet airplanes where the wing span is much smaller that then the length of the fuselage. To compare the length you have to look at the most common airplane An-2 Basically the fuselage was just 2 meters (about 6 feet) shorter,but with the upper wing span a bit more that half of the wing span of AN-2 and of course not so tall. By the way this is a picture, how Coanda's motorjet would have looked during take-off. Sadly Gibbs-Smith was not able to see it, as it was still breastfeed in London the in a middle of a storm which scared him so much, that he become the foremost liar of the aviation history.--Lsorin (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
There is a nice picture at page 76 from Antoniu's book of two guys sitting in the cockpit, giving as well the scale appreciation of the controlling wheels from the cockpit sides, with a diameter somewhere between the steering wheel of a normal car and a bus. The problem is that it is from the Romanian Aviation Museum collection and I cannot show it as Antoniu didn't give us the permission :(. Anyway this is another reason why you need to go visit museums from time to time ;)--Lsorin (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification requests moved from the article to talk

I commented out a number of clarification requests, but more have been added since then. I am realizing that these should all be taken to talk, not hidden in the article. There is a very active conversation taking place about this aircraft, so no need to tag the article. Discussion about the article should be here, not buried in templates in the article body. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Popular and academic books on jet aircraft development such as Gas Turbines and Jet Propulsion for Aircraft, published in 1946, chronicled the development of the aircraft jet engine but did not mention Coandă.

  • clarify: This whole paragraph is already contained in the "After Coanda's death section. Why is it needed twice? Lsorin, November 2010.
    • This is about the historiography of Coanda before his death, not after his death. It is about how he was not represented in mainstream major texts on jet engines. No part of the paragraph is repeated. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As well according to the same investigation, the Soviet engineer Nikolai Rynin did not mention Coandă at all in his exhaustive nine-volume encyclopedia on jet and rocket engines, written in the late 1920s and early '30s. F. Alexander Magoun's classic A History of Aircraft, published in 1931, does not include any description of Coandă or his inventions.

  • clarify: The jet engine was not even considered practical at the time. So what is the relevance of this link? This sounds again as Binskternet personal synthesis. Lsorin, November 2010.
    • This is an expansion on the Gibbs-Smith and Winter idea that early aviation texts did not mention Coanda. Both of the above-listed texts should have included him, as they include Coanda's contemporaries. They do not, however. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Modern reference books about aviation history represent the Coandă-1910 in various ways, though many do not mention the machine

The aviation history books not mentioning Henri Coandă or the Coandă-1910 are too numerous to list

Popular and academic books on jet aircraft development such as Gas Turbines and Jet Propulsion for Aircraft, published in 1946, chronicled the development of the aircraft jet engine but did not mention Coandă.

  • clarify: Why is this relevant?Coanda did not invent the gas turbine based jet engine. Lsorin, November 2010.
    • This is relevant because Coanda's engine did not affect other jet designers. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Is what you wrote above supported by any published material? I consider this as your personal synthesis which is against Wikipedia policies. Lsorin, November 2010.
        • This is an extension of the Gibbs-Smith and Winter arguments about Coanda not being included in early aviation texts, and not being an influence on Whittle or von Ohain. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Same as above.
I will add the templates back in those relevant places, as they are important to lead any new reader of the article to the Talk page, otherwise this is giving the impression of a unbiased and equilibrated article. We are still far from that as you already noted.--Lsorin (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
At Template:Clarify, the instructions describe how the template is to be used as a request to other editors to clarify text, not as a sign to readers that the article is biased. With daily participation by editors, a clarification request should not be placed in the article, it should be brought to the talk page. Templates are not to be used as a badge of shame, as stated at Template:POV. We can work this out. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

1RR lifted

I am gratified that the involved editors here have strived valiantly to adhere to the 1RR restriction I placed on this article some weeks ago. I think the edits have been constructive (if hotly debated), and the restriction has served its purpose, so I have removed it. As you have probably discovered for yourselves, it is possible to engage with each other and make constructive improvements to this article without edit-warring. Because it has worked well, I encourage all of you to proceed as you were doing when 1RR was in place. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for easing us back into good faith editing following the article lockdown. I very much appreciated your assumption of the ensuing work load, keeping track of the many changes here. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Due and undue weight

What about this rule of Wikipedia Binskternet? WP:UNDUE explained by this guy in the picture above. Just a shoot in the dark of course I don't believe that you will ever follow any rules of Wikipedia, even explained plainly to you by the GOD of your favorite tool for publishing lies in the internet. Can you list it for us here?--Lsorin (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the question? Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
What is the mainstream, then the short list of majority supporters and the list of the minority supporters? ( (Please remove the examples I gave as brackets and replace them with the stuff) Thanks in advance for you effort.
  • Point of view of the majority

First jet-propelled aircraft is Coanda-1910. [3]

  • The majority

Antoniu Stine Official aviation proceedings [4] [5] Several museum around the world

  • Point of view of the minority

Unsuccessful attempt to jet-propelled aircraft Minority supporters Gibbs-Smith Winter --Lsorin (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The majority and minority supporters of what? Binksternet (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I gave an example above as per Jimbo.
Has the RFC finished ? MilborneOne (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Just stated again. I don't even understand that RFC. Per Wikipedia policies consensus shall be tried, polls are evil as per same Wikipedia policies. But that never proposed or followed by Binksternet with puts his position in this context:
Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process. Issues that are settled by stubbornness never last, because someone more pigheaded will eventually arrive; only pages that have the support of the community survive in the long run.--Lsorin (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
If you are saying that my editing here has been tendentious, I recommend a clear and objective look in the mirror. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep I looked in the mirror and I did not see any Wikipedia medals in my chest or Gibbs-Smith forever written on my forehead. The paragraph is very clear. It it about consensus, you are using [6] against the Wikipedia policies. You last RfC is example of that. I gave you a chance to do it here according to Jimbo. Your reaction: What's the question?,The majority and minority supporters of what? So look in the mirror yourself and tell us what you find.--Lsorin (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not Wikipedia policy that polls are evil, it is a user essay in your link. The polls I've seen on Wikipedia are not so polarized as the essayist writes against; they include discussion which brings up nuanced positions and alternate options. The action I took, initiating a Request for Comment, is an essential part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. One of the disputing parties goes to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment through talk pages and grabs one of the templates there, placing it on the article talk page. Discussion ensues. Only if consensus is not clear from discussion is a headcount taken, following instructions at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Conduct a survey. At no time did I try to stifle conversation or discussion to create a polarized atmosphere where only two options were possible... the point of the user essay in your link.
You say you gave me "a chance to do it here according to Jimbo" but I did not understand what you were after; I did not understand that you wished me to repeat the RfC but with some kind of change in style, or to start a new RfC. At this point, with a satisfactory "first jet" RfC winding down, I don't see the need to follow your directions. You are free to start one yourself. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Absent from early literature

I returned to an earlier chronology the paragraph beginning "Coandă and his 1910 aircraft were absent from much of aviation literature of the day." I feel that this information helps the reader understand how the aircraft was not widely known in its day, or in the several decades following its construction. Both Gibbs-Smith and Winter describe how the aircraft was absent from major works, encyclopedias of aviation. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you a historian? I already explained your biased edits are pure WP:ORIGINAL SYN against the Wikipedia policies: Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below.. It there any kind of admin, to see how much crap is going around here?--Lsorin (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
If Gibbs-Smith and Winter say it is absent from the literature of a certain period (i'm presuming roughly 1910s - 1940s) - and we can cite the page they said it on then it is a sourced item. What does Winter say specifically on its lack of appearance? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
You can read Winter's article from 10 JPG images with links found at User talk:Binksternet#Winter's account on Coanda-1910. The first image is just the table of contents of the scholarly journal, for citing purposes. The second image is the first article page, where Winter says that "not one shred of evidence has come to light to show that the flight was ever made."
Winter lists the following sources as having no mention at all of Coanda's 1910 experimental jet plane:
  • Jane's All the World's Aircraft (1910, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1916, etc.)
  • Nikolai Rynin's Interplanetary Flight (1928–1932), a nine-volume compendium of reaction propulsion experiments and devices.
Winter lists these sources as saying nothing about a notional December 1910 flight test:
  • Rapport officiel sur la Deuxieme Exposition Internationale de Locomotion Aerienne (1911)
  • L'Aerophile magazine (1910 to 1912)
  • Le Figaro (December 1910)
  • La Technique Aeronautique
  • Flight
  • Flug und Motor-Technik
  • Zeitschrift fur Flugtechnik
  • Flugsport
  • Aircraft
  • The Aero
  • L'Aeronaute
  • Aero Mechanique
Winter mentions that Issy shut down due to bad weather all through mid-December when the flight was supposed to have taken place.
Gibbs-Smith wrote in 1960 about some favorable comments about the experimental aircraft as exhibited in Paris. Then he writes, "Apart from that, there was next to no comment over the years until 1956. Incidentally, the 'jet' Coanda is not even mentioned in any history of flying that I know of." Because of his respected stature as a leading British historian, this last statement would have to include all major English language aviation histories written before the mid-1950s, and the leading French ones. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It is correct to list all what Winter and Gibbs-Smith said, what I'm against as you already know, is the sources you added by yourself without any regards to the WP:SYNTH rules, even that the whole article was having the {{synthesis}} template for a while. I by the way another rule that I should have followed from the {{syn}} template is: This tag provides a good faith means for editors to allow given text of fellow editors to remain temporarily in a given article until such time as the text's previously researched origins are supported. In the event that researched origins for the text are not produced after a relatively small passage of time (ie: no more than a few days), the tagging editor would generally be right in assuming that it could be edited or otherwise removed from the article to comply with Wikipedia:No original research. So in WP:GF please remove all the stuff which is not directly and explicitly stating that Coanda was not present in the literature up to mid 50'. Examples F. Alexander Magoun's A History of Aircraft, the whole nb 3 note.--Lsorin (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is to tell the reader that there was nothing about Coanda's 1910 experiment in aviation literature until the mid-1950s, and that expert sources have disagreed about how to represent him afterward. To conform with WP:NPOV where we are encouraged to "accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views", the amount of text given to pro-Coanda texts must not be larger than anti-Coanda texts. The absence of the Coanda-1910 from aviation literature for 45+ years, and the continued absence from further important texts published since then, indicates that NPOV would be satisfied by having around 70% of our article say that Coanda is/was absent from much literature, and 30% say that he was present in some literature.

If we quote Gibbs-Smith saying "there was next to no comment" followed by a full listing of books in which the Coanda-1910 was mentioned, we give the reader the wrong impression, overwhelming him with evidence showing that Coanda was indeed mentioned, and we fail NPOV. Winter and Gibbs-Smith tried to tell us that the Coanda-1910 was not influential or foundational, and their opinions have since been represented only by the absence of evidence, an impossible proof. Typically, authors who believe Gibbs-Smith and Winter don't mention Coanda; they don't state their position plainly by dismissing him. The only ones with visible evidence of belief are people like Bill Gunston who followed one path for a while in his books then changed his mind and followed another path afterward.

  • problem for you is that Winter and Gibbs are not very reliable and in no way are the only one "we" need to quote, there are lot more others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.28 (talk • contribs)

I see two ways to satisfy NPOV: the first is to delete a great number of book mentions (and non-mentions) from the article, keeping track of relevance and historical proportion, preventing books which mention the aircraft from overwhelming the ones that do not. The second is to list the books which are without the Coanda-1910 at the same time as listing books with it, the path I took in the sandbox edition of this page, the framework we are now working with. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  • there almost 100 books and articles mention Coanda in various archives here so it will took too much to show them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.28 (talk • contribs)

Gibbs-Smith 1960 vs 1970

The two Gibbs-Smith books which discuss Coanda, published one in 1960 and the other in 1970, have much the same text, which is a datum I added to the article. The following block of text appears in both books:

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 50 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'.

The 1960 version ends with "There has recently arisen some controversy about the Coanda, which is discussed on page 220", with much more detail dedicated to a section on page 220 entitled "The Coanda Sesquiplane of 1910".

The 1970 version continues with "Although inevitably earth-bound, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane", without a section devoted to Coanda. I don't see any real need to quote the 1970 book except for the final statement about being an attempt, as this is new wording. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  • i propose that 1960 part of the article to be removed, because is redundant and was modified in the last Gibbs work, the one from 1970. Its just make the page too bulky with no reason, since the last one (from 1970) say other thing, and Gibbs seem to agree that the plane was the first "attempt" of a jet aircraft. As well i added the fact that neither Gibbs nor Winter have any engineering or technical qualifications, so the reader make their own ideas about them as reliable source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.129.28 (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Construction

I'm confused over the structure of the aircraft; we have both The aircraft construction was a novelty for the time, having a steel frame covered with heat-shaped plywood ... and The fuselage with its triangular cross-section and convex walls had a very light wooden skeleton, strengthened by the molded plywood covering ... in the same paragraph of the 1910s section. One statement should be removed because the information is repetetive and in part contradictory, but which is correct?--TransientVoyager (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

From the pictures in Antoniu's book is clear that the wings and fuselage skeleton is wooden. Can be seen as well in this pictures but they are not so good :( In the same leaflet Coanda said: Ailes brevete: armature interieur en acier. translated as: The patented wings: [have] internal steel reinforcement. About the fuselage there is not description in the leaflet. That statement comes from the magazines [7] but in reality Antoniu describes that basically the fuselage had wooden skeleton but is was reinforced on the sides with some steel strips. On those strips the vertical tubular struts are connected. I will try to scan that 3D reconstruction from the book showing that as well. But let's see, I'm so sick of this biased Wikipedia that I tend to follow what Boyne did reply to Binskternet by e-mail. I'll just stop "fighting" in vain and I will just give a link to Coanda-1910 article to everyone I know as an example of how bad Wikipedia is. BTW thank you a lot for correcting the stuff I added, my English is very poor.--Lsorin (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Lsorin, I've had a look at the pdf pictures – as you say they are not so good, and it's not clear whether the framework is of steel or wood. However, if those in Antoniu's book clearly indicate a wooden structure then we should stick with that statement. A scanned 3D reconstruction from the book (with permission) would be ideal as long as you can get it past the image tagging "Gestapo"! As for the prose and grammar tweaks, no problem; and your English is not as poor as you might think – you've been getting plenty of practise on the Talk Page. ;-p --TransientVoyager (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I'm really disgusted by the current way the article is written. It is basically a rebuttal written by its WP:OWNER and whatever changes are done from any IP address outside UK is removed immediately by the owner. How can somebody be constructive in this way?--Lsorin (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I've reworked the paragraph accordingly – I think (hope) I've put the cites in the right places, but really I'd like to have cited Antoniu's book at the relevant points (page No. for photos etc). --TransientVoyager (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
We ought to go with what the sources say the structure was, and if they disagree give the attribution eg "Coanda's contemporary pamphlet described the construction as X and Y", magazine articles of the time said "it was made of P and Q", the replica used "L, M and N". GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's quite right. As per the original entries, I attributed the steel frame mention to The Technical World magazine and the wooden one to Antoniu, but to reinforce the point I have added an additional Antoniu cite immediately after the statement rather than just relying on the one that additionally covers the next couple of sentences. Could do with page numbers ideally, but not having added this info myself I can't be more specific. --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive_9&oldid=1145401423"