Talk:Coandă-1910/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Sandbox version

Please see what I've been working on at Talk:Coandă-1910/Binksternet, a sandbox version that attempts to use only 1910s-era sources for the early description, then uses 1950s and '60s sources for Coandă's description of the first jet flight. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Now that looks like a wikipedia article. The aircraft itself could do with some more description (the sesquiplane element and that the only control surfaces were in the tailplane) . Couple of other points 1) Gibbs-Smith is quoted as saying the machine did not have slots nor retractable undercarriage but their presence has not been mentioned. 2) "According to a patent applied for in May 1911 the compressor had no provision for the introduction or combustion of fuel" - does the patent actually state that or is it an inference from its absence in the patent (a primary source?) 3) the lede where the various terms for the engine are given - would it work with the refs next to the actual quoted terms.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If more description will be involved, how about that third wing just ahead of the tail? That might preclude it actually qualifying as a sesquiplane. Doesn't that make it more like a triplane with a really ridiculous wing-stagger? (Extraneous comment:I didn't notice the bit about no wing-flaps; I wonder if that tail really had enough leverage to do their job.)Romaniantruths (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You've got reciprocal for reciprocating in the lead, but I think piston engine is a more widely understood term to the layman anyway(or maybe reciprocating piston engine).

As to the "no provision for the introduction or combustion.." line; how about wording it something like:"the patent does not mention the introduction ,or combustion, of fuel in the propulsuer" maybe this would be found more acceptable? I believe It says in the primary source guidelines that we may read it but not draw any conclusions from it an average reader couldn't draw. I think an average reader could determine if the patent doesn't mention combustion just as he'd be able to determine if it does. I'll check for a reference to this in any case.

And maybe the snow-sled thing should just be left to the Coanda page(I'm Iffy on this either way). But if this is mentioned, the article says he actually built one for Grand Duke Cyril. Romaniantruths (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Romaniantruths (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The '1950's and later' section should perhaps be re-named to something like 'later developements', or whatever else works. The section covers pre-50's things.Romaniantruths (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And I realize you put in a lot of work on this and perhaps deserve some recognition, but don't you think putting your name in the title is a little over the top? :) Romaniantruths (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of your criticisms: because of time constraints, I could not put my desired finishing touches on the sandbox version. Your desired changes and mine are ones I hope to work into it in the next few days. Also, I would really like to find various versions of Coanda telling his story to this and that audience or interviewer, quoted in aviation magazines and newspapers. I would like to chart out the progression of the details, but perhaps I should just wait until I read Frank H. Winter's 1980 article where he summarizes this stuff. Regarding the WWII contract, I put that in because I see in it an inability in Coanda to see anything but a clever ducted fan in his old 1910 turbo-propulseur design. Even when he is given a new chance in 1944, with fresh funds and a motivated client, he does not develop it into a jet, with fuel combustion in the airstream. Binksternet (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In the various versions of Coandă's story I expect to find his assertion that the Coandă-1910 was also the first aircraft with retractable undercarriage and with wing slots for extra lift. Binksternet (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In the light of the to-and-fro over the current version. I think we should discuss this sandbox more, both on its talk page and here. I personally believe it is superior to the current version in presenting what is known about the construction of the aircraft as well as the opinions as to whether it flew or not and the exact nature of its powerplant. maybe not ideal but certainly better. To that end it would be a good idea to replace the current version now.

Is anyone in agreement on this - yes or no? GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a fine Idea. I don't know how long it will be before Lsorin is re-writing it to suit himself, or what we can do about that. However I agree with your assessment of the sandbox version, and with the propriety of substituting it forthwith.Romaniantruths (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett I will agree with your proposal once you stop ignoring the consensus build-up.

Any article in Wikipedia needs to be edited within consensus. I was trying to build consensus. It was completely ignored. "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here." Please answer my very simple question before you start reverting the article once again. --Lsorin (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you agree with the proposal that the sandbox version is a good description of the aircraft construction, contemporary reporting of its appearance at the Paris salon, and the post-War disagreements over whether it flew or not and what propelled it, then we have a new consensus. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand English language? I said: "I will agree with your proposal,once you stop ignoring the consensus build-up." Do you need translation in your "native" language? Wikipedia works with consensus not personal opinions which you try to impose to the whole world. Please make your one site about Coanda-1910 pink aeroplane and what ever you want, but don't consider Wikipedia your personal site.

--Lsorin (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you think my native language is? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have some doubts of what your native language is! But let's make a little test:

Your beloved Wikipedia definition: "A jet engine is a reaction engine that discharges a fast moving jet of fluid to generate thrust by jet propulsion and in accordance with Newton's laws of motion." Do you agree with this definition? If you don't please change the the definition in Jet Engine. What was wrong with my entry, that Coanda 1910 was the first jet-propelled airplane, according to the above definition? If you don't understand my question, please let me know and I will try to translate it from English to your native language. --Lsorin (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am working on the basis of what the sources describe the engine as - and they are of differing opinions. Since the classification is contested I can't just assume that it meets the definition you quoted. Nor do I hold it to be "beloved". (For the reacord I am a native English speaker, though I do lapse into elements of dialect in casual conversation) GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Explain please what is contested regarding the classification? Is the definition of the Jet Engine contested? If so please move your discussion in that article. --Lsorin (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I feel I have reached a plateau at the sandbox version of the article, now that recently borrowed Winter and Stine library references have been added. Please comment on the results. Any input is welcome! Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus proposition

Let's build up the consensus step be step.

Step 1. Do we all agree that Coanda 1910 thing is not important for the history of aviation as per Gibbs-Smith statement: "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." – Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith (1960). The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development, pages 220–221. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. As well, the plane is not listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica which implies that is not important.

--Lsorin (talk) 09:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sorine, please stop presenting Gibbs as something like a very important and ultimate authority. He is just one among many others, more qualified then him and with other opinions. He deserve maybe just to be barely mentioned, as a source of secondary opinion in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.47 (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Than means we cannot reach consensus on Step 1. Could you 79.116.208.47 propose Step 2? --Lsorin (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• i think the best way is to look at each source in part, and see who is more qualified, and present them in this order of importance. Saying Gibbs is somewhat important is like asking a generalist doctor who had too a musical collection aranged by years and who believe in levitation based on the power of his mind about a complicated surgery and not taking in consideration the opinion of much more qualified surgeon doctors who have as job precisely the surgery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.47 (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a consensus build-up. If you cannot propose the next step, let's wait for somebody else to propose the next step if you don't agree with step one.

--Lsorin (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• that what i said above is the next step, only logical one i must say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.47 (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I will try to reformulate my step 1 main question to agree on: Do you 79.116.208.47 agree that Coanda 1910 is not relevant to the history of aviation?. If you don't agree than I propose the next step 2 to agree as such:

Step 2. According to the consensus on Step 1 results that Coanda 1910 is an important part of the aviation history and Gibbs-Smith statements are not relevant any longer in the discussions or if they are they can be used as documentation only!. Can we agree on this?

--Lsorin (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• yes, i agree with step 2. Coanda-1910 was a marvelous plane not just regarding the propulsion sistem but by other standards too, even if the propulsion sistem is the most known, famous or discused —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.47 (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a loaded question above. That the aircraft is notable for wikipedia is not mutually exclusive with any author meeting Reliable Source requirements. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. GraemeLeggett. Do I understand that you disagree with step 1? Step 1 must come from somewhere! I started with a reference. Do you have another proposal as reference to start with? --Lsorin (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody else disagree with Step 2? --Lsorin (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, the choices you offer do not include the Wikipedia standard response to disputed facts: tell both versions and give attribution to notable persons. Gibbs-Smith and Winter compared old records to modern claims, and they do not think the aircraft had any kind of combustion in the air stream. Coanda said that it did in the 1950s and '60s, which was enough for Boyne and Stine to give him credit for the first jet engine. Boyne and Stine do not cite documents from the 1910s. Binksternet (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Bisksternet you proposed not to vote but to build up consensus! I understand that you disagree with Step 1, right?!! Propose the step 2! Consensus means one version, not ten!

--Lsorin (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been asking people's opinion on this version: Talk:Coandă-1910/Binksternet. Discussion of it is taking place at Talk:Coandă-1910#Sandbox version. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand your position regarding the step 1. Do I understand that you disagree with Step 1? --Lsorin (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept your Step 1 as a valid question, so I do not have an answer for it. Binksternet (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We will never be able to achieve any kind of consensus with such attitude Binksternet. You really have some kind of problems. I challenge you to to come with the Step 1. --Lsorin (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Your Step 1 was tied to Gibbs-Smith and the Encyclopedia Britannica. I disagree with the wording, tying any one conclusion to certain sources. At the most basic, I disagree with Step 1's assertion that the aircraft is unimportant. I disagree with Step 2's assertion that Gibbs-Smith should be thrown out if the aircraft is determined to be important enough for an article on Wikipedia. What is needed is a Step 3 that offers this: Both versions should be told following a straight, undisputed account which is sourced solely from 1910s materials. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We can start from square one. Step 1: Do you Binksternet agree that Coanda 1910 is not relevant to the history of aviation?. If you disagree, than step 2: Do you agree that jet engine term did not exist in 1910 as we know it today?

--Lsorin (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Lsorin, I'll take a shot at composing a simple step 1 for you: Do you agree with the Gibbs-Smith statement,"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 it's way, and deserves a somewhat modest place amongst the ingenious Ideas that were unworkable in practice."-Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith (1960) The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of Its Origins and Development, pages 220-221. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Agree? or disagree? Romaniantruths (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Why?

• if we agree with Gibbs-Smith statement, the airplane will become irelevant for Wikipedia and most of the editors do not agree with removal of this article. (This was already tried)
• Gibbs-Smith approach to this topic is , sadly', not very netural, as an aviation historian shall be (I will repaste my expalantion from [Talk:1910_in_aviation]] in here):

"With all respect for Gibbs-Smith work there is some problems ( in this case is Wikipedia's terms ) related especially to his book The aeroplane: an historical survey of its origins and development, 1960 book by Charles Gibbs-Smith with section entitled "The Coanda Sesquiplane of 1910" which are doubtful as a source and the sequent articles published related to that information.

• it is clear that Gibbs-Smith does not take a neutral position in his attack in the book and the previous article from Flight magazine in this try to minimize the importance of Coanda-1910 in the history of aviation and especially jet engine
• the press at the time (1910) shows the clear message that Coanda's plane was the attraction on the Paris exhibition especially because of the odd looking powerplant and the thrust listed - 220Kg. This very important detail is ,very sadly , ever touched in any of Gibbs-Smith work.
• as well he is using the Flight, 29 October 1910 information that Charles Terres Weymann has purchased the airplane, but sadly once again, without any other confirmation from Weymann himself (he dies in 1976 in France according to the "trusted" Wikipedia)
• this adds even more mystery to Gibbs-Smith investigation as he does not mention anything about the sudden disappearance of the attraction of 1910 Paris Exhibition, Coanda-1910, from the press of 1910-1911. In accordance to the bullet above used by Gibbs-Smith, if Weymann has an incapable to fly aeroplane because of the powerplant, the logical expected move will be to change the powerplant to a more classical ( with propeler for instance ) and try to fly it again and this will be all over the news of that time again. The assumption that the plane was scraped by Weymann will not stand as the plane was the attraction of the exhibition and definitely had a good price tag on it. So Gibbs-Smith, in a neutral approach would have had all the interest to contact Weymann to find the fate of an incapable to fly airplane. This Romanian Air Force link ( sorry is in Romanian ) lists that Weymann had only the intention to buy the plane which will be the most plausible case.
• this adds even more mystery to Gibbs-Smith investigation as he does not mention anything about the sudden disappearance of the attraction of 1910 Paris Exhibition, Coanda-1910, from the press of 1910-1911. In accordance to the bullet above used by Gibbs-Smith, if Weymann has an incapable to fly aeroplane because of the powerplant, the logical expected move will be to change the powerplant to a more classical ( with propeler for instance ) and try to fly it again and this will be all over the news of that time again. The assumption that the plane was scraped by Weymann will not stand as the plane was the attraction of the exhibition and definitely had a good price tag on it. So Gibbs-Smith, in a neutral approach would have had all the interest to contact Weymann to find the fate of an incapable to fly airplane. This Romanian Air Force link ( sorry is in Romanian ) lists that Weymann had only the intention to buy the plane which will be the most plausible case.
• on the key topic the powerplant. Every single attack against Coanda's powerplant for others authors before Gibbs-Smith are referring to the [http:/jet100.com patents] (a lot of them in that site) published by Coanda during 1910-1911. Coanda never declared that he patented the jet engine ( this means the whole system: the internal combustion engine + compressor or "ducted fan" in Gibbs-Smith words + injectors and burners ). Coanda patented only the compressor part or 'turbine' capable of producing power jets of air. Why he would even patent fuel injectors and burners which where already in use in the normal piston engines and they were already patented long ago? In this case in make very much sense the probability that the injectors and the burners to have been added during the experiments of October-December 1910 with a small, add possible dangerous ( from Coanda's own descriptions ) and just experimental and they did not belong to the patents of 1911 addressed by Gibb-Smith and the others before him. This particular important aspect is, sadly again, not described at all by Gibbs-Smith and the others before him: an airplane does not fly with one patent. It is noted by them still that it is 'sad' that Coanda did not list the injectors and burners in that patent, as that would have been the only missing piece in the puzzle. Again Coanda would not be able to write an patent on existing things. Again the patents from March 1911 already explain the "heat exchangers" importance, which clearly address the very relevant topic of the temperature of the air jets in the whole system using the compressor as one part. So Gibb-Smith should have at least asked himself if a very inventive mind like Coanda did try to change the temperature of air jets with a simple existing system like injector+burner. In the end we talk about a engineer specialist with doctorate at Sorbone and a knighted writer, talking about the work of a specialist.
• to add the the above topic in the period 1910-1913 Coanda published very many patent all over the world (France, Switzerland, England etc) in very many areas which means that is was a period of extensive experiments (some linked to [1]) Sadly once again, Gibbs-Smith is addressing one single patent published in England ( the same one in Switzerland is already having different drawings and they have be published in the same time )
• a celebrated historian like Gibbs-Smith working from a neutral position would have searched all the archives (at least the English ones) of that time to find that of the "Motor Sleight" with same type of prowerplant Popular Mechanics, March 1911. As well, sadly, he is not mentioning anything about his previous work in Romania on same topics, like the experiments (sadly again just in Romanian) with jet models from 1906 from Dealul Mitropoliei, Bucharest.
• finally ( maybe not ;) ) Why Gibbs-Smith did not ever get in contact with Coanda at the time of his investigations? Was the problem of caliber ( a Knight to address to a minor importance engineer )? For the neutrality?

Personally I think, very sadly, that Gibbs-Smith is not very neutral in his approach on the topic of Coanda's plane and he did not do extensive enough research on the topic especially in the years before 1910 and after 1910. This is as well is very sadly reflected by the actions of his documents supporters in Wikipedia. " --Lsorin (talk) 09:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did you propose that we should agree with this quote at the top of this section if you don't agree with it personally? How does this not make this whole consensus proposition of yours a stupendous waste of time?Romaniantruths (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The main attraction of the Paris exhibition

A minor point: Lsorin asserts that "Coanda's plane was the attraction on the Paris exhibition". This is not true, though many photos were taken of it because of its unusual shape. The Coanda was exhibited upstairs in the gallery, next to a wacky looking floatplane. The gallery was not easily accessible, and the two aircraft up there were not expected to fly. All the aircraft on the exhibit floor were the main attractions. Strangely enough, the floatplane later flew, but it was not practical, and not developed further. Binksternet (talk) 07:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A personal minor question: How did you get to know about the "2e Exposition de la Locomotion Aérienne" from Paris 1910? That were those sources writing about?--Lsorin (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it a bit major: extract from "Technical World Magazine" Volume 15 from 1911 <<At the international aerial locomotion exposition in Paris, Coanda was without doubt the principal attraction.>>--Lsorin (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Funny that Technical World would not choose to run a photo of the aircraft in their very short promotional piece on the Coanda-1910. Instead they ran images of a guinea pig being hooked to a parachute, and a large organ keyboard. The short piece is clearly not about the 1910 Paris Salon, it is about the Coanda only—it discusses no other aircraft at all. It's a public relations piece and no more. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Again you are misleading the readers: What has the caption of a picture do with the text?--Lsorin (talk) 19:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It belittles it. The short text about Coanda-1910 is supposedly about the whole Paris exhibition, but instead it is about only one aircraft; one which Flight does not think worthy of listing as a highlight of the show. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Again Flight material was published to early into the exhibition. The later material in the French, English , American and German magazines are more relevant. For instance snippet from "La Technique Aéronautique", George Espitalier, nr. 21 in 1910 <<The Coanda airplane is one of the rare machines in which everything is new. The sensible and rational way in which its inventor leaves the beaten track in this field to face the risks of absolute novelty is a strong enough...>>

Convetti's words as well in "L'Aerophile" from 15th December 1911: <<The apperance of the Coanda turbine at the Salon of Aviation in Paris in 1910 called general attention to these questions>> --Lsorin (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And here the full article from "Technical World Magazine" Volume 15 from 1911:

Exposition of aerial locomotion

"At the international aerial locomotion exposition in Paris, the biplane Coanda was without doubt the principal attraction. It is built of wood, including the wings; the interior frame work is of steel, two uprights only, uniting the lower planes ; and passive resistance is very greatly diminished. It seems by its structure to be capable of greater speed than the monoplane. The efforts in the biplane are about the same from one end of the wing to the other. The greater part of the carrying surfaces are reinforced toward the forward part and taper toward the rear. The slender end has a certain suppleness, and consequently under the effort of propulsion the extremity of the wing will inflect upward like that of a bird's wing. This effect has been accentuated in the Coanda biplane. This machine presents another remarkable peculiarity: the screw propeller is replaced by a turbine, drawing the air at the front and rejecting it at the rear. When ready for flight the Coanda weighs about 925 pounds. The many improvements in the construction of this biplane may very well place it on an equality with its competitors."

I'm still wondering how is that text belittles Coanda airplane? Maybe again, I have some problems with my English language knowledge. Please point me that word or phrase doing that "belittling" that you said about?--Lsorin (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant that I was belittling the article you quote. It is very clear that the article has no intention of covering the Paris show at all—its only purpose is to promote the Coanda. I consider the quoted piece to be worthless as a comparison of aircraft at the Paris Salon of 1910. No other aircraft are discussed. Binksternet (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the 22 October issue of Flight: A report published a week after the show began is not too early at all. Repeated from the reliable sources noticeboard: Even today, with a century of hindsight, Flight Global says of the 1910 Salon that its highlights were machines from Aéroplanes Voisin and Sloan. Otherwise, Flight Global assesses the 1910 show as demonstrating an incremental increase in engine development over the previous year, an assessment which ignores the Coanda entirely.

A December 1910 report of the exhibition in Aircraft, taken from The Aero in London, gave little prominence to Coanda. Instead, it put Maurice Farman and Henry Farman on the first page, and Paulhan, Nieuport, Esnault-Pelterie, Liore, Turcat-Mery and Rougier, Audineau, Goupy, Regy, and Compagnie Aerienne on the second page. The third page is composed of 15 illustrations, none of which is the Coanda machine. The fourth page is where Coanda is listed, after Avia, Breguet, C.I.N.A., Chantiers Tellier, Koechlin, and Clerget. The article agrees with Flight that the Sloan Bicurve was one of the show's curiosities, and says that the Voisin box shape was indicative of the classic biplane shape to come.

Of the Coanda, it reports: "The Coanda biplane is certainly more than something of a freak. It is built entirely of wood, even to the planes, except for the uprights and the chassis, though this alone is certainly not enough to stamp it as impracticable; in fact, the general effect is rather taking than otherwise. The tail arrangements consist of an empennage in form of a St. Andrew's cross, and at the end of each surface is a triangular flap arranged so as to give a corkscrew action to the tail. These flaps are controlled by side wheels in the manner of the Antoinette controls. The real feature of the machine, however, is the replacement of the propeller by a turbine which is fitted in a huge nozzle at the bow of the machine. This is claimed to give an enormous wind velocity, but over such a small area it does not necessarily mean thrust, and it also appears as if enormous power would be necessary to drive it. The chassis is decidedly original also, and has points of worth." It is clear the reviewer doubts the ability of the powerplant to drive the aircraft; he was looking for "enormous power" not seen in the little Clerget.

Aircraft continued their Paris show coverage in January 1911, saying that Bleriot was "rightly" given the place of honor near the entrance. Coanda's aircraft is finally shown in a sketch along with nine other aircraft sketches and a detail of an empennage. The Coanda is drawn fairly small, smaller than some other aircraft that received more attention. A number of details are shown of the Paulhan biplane in thirteen sketches, the most 'ink' given to any of the exhibitors by Aircraft. In the previous month's issue, Aircraft had said of the Paulhan: "There is no disputing the fact that the Paulhan machine á voler is the most original in the whole show." It is likely the writer weighed the presence of the Coanda machine which appears in the same report, but assigned it a lesser stature because of the doubts about its engine. Binksternet (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This are all snippets chosen carefully by you, using Winter's accounts, ignoring the rest of the material proving the contrary like the French magazines "L'Aerophile", "La Technique Aéronautique" and other sources which I listed above.--Lsorin (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the Aircraft review I just shared is a general impression of the Paris Salon, one in which Coanda does not look so good. This is from a Google search I performed, not from Winter's accounts. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lsorin, 2 October 2010

{{edit protected}} For the Specification section and updated according to the reference ( the reference is the original leaflet from the Paris exhibition in 1910 ):

Edit request from Lsorin, 6 October 2010

{{edit protected}} According to the all the references listed, Coanda-1910 it was the first jet-propelled| aircraft. This is a request for introduction of the article.

---

The Coandă-1910, also referred to in some sources as the 1910 Coanda Jet, was the first jet-propelled aircraft, powered by a primitive jet engine which included a turbine driven from a conventional engine.

It was constructed by the Romanian inventor Henri Coandă working in France and exhibited by him at the Second International Aeronautical Exhibition in Paris around October 1910. It was believed by some historians to be incapable of flight. Post World War II, after the invention of the turbojet engine, Coanda claimed that this aircraft's powerplant was a motorjet, and that it flew in December 1910.

---

Lsorin (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree.

I can't help noticing that quite a few of these references, when clicked on, reveal text which says nothing about the Coanda plane being a jet. Are we expected to sort these out for you, Lsorin? And if It's just a contest to see who can find the most references as to wether the 1910 Coanda was the first jet, I'll get right on it. There are a huge number of references available which describe either Von Ohain, or Campini, as the builder of the first jet and quite a few which describe the 1910 Coanda as a ducted fan. However I somewhat doubt that such a contest is how Wikipedia disputes should be settled.Romaniantruths (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you never commented the entries in this section showing that Coanda's turbine is not a ducted-fan or hair dryer or what ever "specialists" like Gibbs-Smith and other suggest. Coanda himself explains in the patent that is not a ducted fan.

I did. He didn'tRomaniantruths (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What you did is this all mess going on since July. Coanda explained in the patent: I said: "If you read carefully the English patent (same in the French and Swiss one) you will realize that his turbine was not just a simple one as the air jets were straitened at the exit from the turbine. This was never done before and explains as well the his personal statements, about the test of the plane, that lead to the Coanda effect studies. As well he is stating very clearly in the patent: "which can be compared to the constituent elements of a turbine or fan, but differ from the same by the fluid which is compressed in the said propeller, having to transmit its kinetic energy to the apparatus in form of an axial reaction and to escape from the diffusing apparatus."

Why you did not comment anything there? Coanda make is very clear that his powerplant in not a "turbine" or "fan" just parts can be compared! So Coanda did something, you did a mess!--192.100.130.228 (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The references to Von Ohain or Campini are relevant of the history of the jet engine, but this article is about Coanda-1910. After fixing this article we will start the fight for the history of the jet engine as well. Keep in mind that Campini "motorjet" was based of Coanda's tests from 1910. Coanda and Campini were friends and the develpoments and tests of the 1910 powerplant were done in Paris in Campini's workshop.

References to Von Ohain and Campini are relevant. For obvious reasons.

Keep in mind that claiming Campini motorjet was based on Coanda's tests from 1910 doesn't make it true. Coanda tried after WWII to steal credit from Campini. Just like he tried in 1910 to steal credit from Canovetti. Besides, everyone knows that Traian Vuia built the jet engine before Coanda because the propeller on his plane made a 'jet' of air blow backwards behind the plane.Romaniantruths (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

[2] show again you ignorance and your non-existing knowledge of aircraft propulsion and engineering. Coanda patents and all the material around the powerplant of his 1910 is about the usage of [3] instead of propellers for propulsion! And regarding Coanda, Campini and Caprioni, they were friends long before any statements from knighted "historians" came in. --Lsorin (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to put scare quotes around the word historian in an attempt to cut down Gibbs-Smith. Links to propeller and jet articles in Britannica do not help make your point. In fact, it does the opposite! Britannica says about the jet engine that "The first to incorporate a turbine design was conceived as early as 1921, and the essentials of the modern turbojet were contained in a patent in 1930 by Frank Whittle in England." The article does not mention Coanda at all, or any 1910 engine designs. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

--Lsorin (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I've only looked at some of these references, I found the book THE WRONG STUFF listed twice as separate references. And I am curious why you consider a book about entomology to be a reliable source about jet engines.Romaniantruths (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Gibbs more reliable even that he "corrected" his own statements later <Gibb-Smith (1970). "Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II". HMSO. pp. 156 and 160.>? Please explain why THE WRONG STUFF is not relevant? What do you personally know about jet engines? Are you an expert in jet engines? Are you an expert in entomology or biology? --Lsorin (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. The presence of a mass of sources saying one thing does not erase the presence of a mass of sources saying another thing. We cannot change the lead section to reflect only one of the two disputed views. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead section reflect both views as you wanted according to Amatulic comment: "A Wikipedia article can report only what reliable sources report. If you find some that describe the Coanda-1910's powerplant as a jet engine, then it's fine to state that in the article. If other sources disagree, then the article should fairly represent the views from the different sources. What we can't do here is synthesize a conclusion based on available information, no matter how logical the deduced conclusion may appear."

What is the mass of sources saying another thing?--Lsorin (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected disabled. Come back when there's consensus. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request - change of Gibbs statement in the article

Since the last statement of Gibbs regarding Coanda-1910 aircraft is this [4] where he said that <<<Another unsuccessful, but prophetic, machine was the Coanda biplane ... Although inevitably earth-bound, this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane.>>>

• so, this clarify his final opinion and since is the last one made about the plane (in 1970) the older versions must be edited and replaced with this. I still dont think Gibbs as a source cn be put not even close to Stine (or Boyne), but at least his most recent statement need to be put there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.209.87 (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• • It's important to be careful not to inadvertently take quotes out of context. Here's what Gibbs-Smith has to say about the Coanda 1910's propulseur in this book: "...it was equipped with a reaction propulsion unit consisting of a 50-h.p. Clerget engine driving a large ducted fan in front of it, the latter enclosed in a cowling which covered the nose of the machine and part of the engine: the fan was a simple air-fan driving back the air to form the propulsive 'Jet'." Also notice the 'scare' quotes used around the word jet. These mean it wasn't really a jet, but was called one and the author is using that term as well for brevity.Romaniantruths (talk) 01:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Though Gibbs-Smith says that the aircraft is the first attempt at a jet aircraft, it does not make it the "first jet aircraft". I am perfectly fine with having this quote from Gibbs-Smith in the article. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• well, Gibbs said "this aircraft stands as the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane", for disperation of Romaniantruths (hope he wouldnt cut his veins now haha), Gibbs didnt use the 'scare' quotes around the jet here. And "first attempt" doesnt mean something as first proof, first test, first experiment.etc, of a jet-propelled aircraft? This fits very well in what Stine said (an experimental jet) and Boyne said (a primitive jet). And we all know that they are much more qualified then Gibbs anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.208.158 (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Gibbs-Smith was never a reliable source for this article as I explained already in the Consensus section. As well Gibbs-Smith was never a reliable source in the history of early aviation as he constantly was taking the non-neutral approach at any topic and we was forcibly was keeping ignoring facts against his arguments. Please read and see by yourselves:

I still wonder how is more close to really the people having access to Coanda's documents or a knighted historian which was contested by his own readers link1, link2, link3, link4, link5, link6, link7, link8.

Reading all this articles you can see that Gibbs-Smith, exactly like his supporters today, Binksternet and Romaniantruths was forcibly ignoring all the sources showing him that his statements were incorrect." --Lsorin (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ri-i-ight. Charles Harvard Gibbs-Smith was a well-respected aviation historian at the pinnacle of scholarly achievement on the topic of early aircraft. If you do not think his word is reliable, take your concern to WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. I imagine they'll say much the same thing as I have, which will end the useless carping about him here. Note that an expert source is not under any Wikipedia editor requirement to be neutral. We are free to use expert sources that speak out against an idea.

I think you have more to fear from Frank H. Winter, whose 1980 article covers new territory in the Coanda saga; Winter is not a simple follower of Gibbs-Smith, parroting his conclusions. Once I get access to a copy of his article at the local university library, I will be bringing his very specific conclusions here. Winter looks over not just the aviation journals that Gibbs-Smith studied, but popular newspapers of December 1910, and military reports. Winter compares Coanda's 1910s drawings with the Stine/Coanda re-drawings of 1965, and blasts the 1965 versions as wishful fakes. Go ahead and try to sink Gibbs-Smith at the reliable sources noticeboard: you'll need the practice for when Winter's full strength is directed at Coanda. Binksternet (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• it was already established that even one unreliable as Gibbs agree that Coanda-1910 was first jet propelled airplane. The former journalist with a degree in history Winter is neither qualified to talk about jet engines, as is Stine, who had the same documents, and even more then him, and who is obviously more qualified then him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.78 (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• see as well this <<< What you did is this all mess going on since July. Coanda explained in the patent: I said: "If you read carefully the English patent (same in the French and Swiss one) you will realize that his turbine was not just a simple one as the air jets were straitened at the exit from the turbine. This was never done before and explains as well the his personal statements, about the test of the plane, that lead to the Coanda effect studies. As well he is stating very clearly in the patent: "which can be compared to the constituent elements of a turbine or fan, but differ from the same by the fluid which is compressed in the said propeller, having to transmit its kinetic energy to the apparatus in form of an axial reaction and to escape from the diffusing apparatus."

Why you did not comment anything there? Coanda make is very clear that his powerplant in not a "turbine" or "fan" just parts can be compared! So Coanda did something, you did a mess! >>> a quite correct and common sense post by editor "192.100.130.228"

• so stop with your silly bias and relying on journalists and keepers of public relations, and look at profesional and qualified sources as Stine or Boyne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.78 (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No kidding, man, if you don't like Gibbs-Smith or Winter, take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Simply stating that these experts are not reliable is not going to work. Binksternet (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for Winter

I am going to get a copy of Frank H. Winter's 1980 article in The Aeronautical Journal, "Ducted Fan or the World's First Jet Plane? The Coanda claim re-examined". After that, I will be able to put the finishing touches on my sandbox version of the article. Winter has a ton of detailed arguments to support his contention that Coanda expanded his version of aviation history beyond its actuality. That is why I am not busy trying to rewrite the current version of the article, why I am not suggesting edits to be made. Binksternet (talk) 12:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• well, i must say that your waiting wouldnt change anything, since Winter, as a former journalist with a degree in history is still way less reliable then Stine, Boyne, Antoniu or Craciunoiu, all reputed aviation historians and qualified in aviation technology as well. Gosh, even some nut as Gibbs agreed that the prophetic Coanda-1910 was first the jet propelled airplane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.206.20 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The current version of the article is based on a early account of Gibbs-Smith corrected by himself later in 1980 and some parts of Winter's article? This sounds like this two references are completely incorrect and incomplete for the current version(WP:FRINGE) of the article!--Lsorin (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Bold text does not make it true. A Wikipedia editor saying these experts are better than those experts is not a valid argument. Do you know who is an expert better than Queen Elizabeth, who knighted Gibbs-Smith for his aviation history expertise? Do you know experts better than the National Air and Space Museum who have listed Winter as an expert historian for three decades, and continue to keep him as historian emeritus? No, Winter and Gibbs-Smith are perfectly acceptable sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is to add to your relevance of knighting of Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth: Did you know that Nicolae Ceausescu was knighted as well? Than "79.116.206.20" explained already that Gibbs-Smith changed his position in 1980 which basically renders all his articles irrelevant, especially the early accounts, for Coanda-1910 subject! For Winter you don't even have the whole material. So basically your position is based on your personal guesses which is not according to Wikipedia policies WP:NPOV.--Lsorin (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• queen Elizabeth is an aviation and technical engineer expert now ?hahahaha, this is the most funny (and no offence, stupid) POV i ever saw, and is disqualify any serious discussion with you. No wonder why wikipedia is saw as an unreliable source, if you come with such "prouves". I wonder as well why some admin still keep unchanged the protected version, and even the correct Gibbs statement isnt put there?

I think you don't need to wait for the article. One entry at the end of it:

---

"If it never flew, Coanda did at least build, so far as we know, the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine."

---

[5] With a careful examination of Winter's account one could see that he was carefully choosing his words:

• <<If it never flew>> which means the he was missing accounts or sources to make sure that the flight of 16 of December did not take place.
• <<first full-scale reactive-propelled>> where his admits that is the first ever build aircraft to be propeller by airbreathing reaction engine which in today's understanding is a jet-engine in fact (rocket engines are not airbreathing). Winter is aware that "moteur à réaction" is translated [6] from French to English as Jet Engine so that his last statement does not actually go against the general understanding of the English ( airbreathing reaction-propelled = jet-propelled ) experts ( like Stine and Boyne ) and against the French ( or French speaking ) ( "reaction engine" or "engine with reaction" translates [7] [8] to "moteur à réaction" in French) experts (like Carafoli, Antonescu) . So Winter's account can be considered just another wording of the same fact: Coanda-1910 was the <<<first full-scale jet(airbreathing reactive)-propelled>> aircraft build.

--Lsorin (talk) 12:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As well the whole Winter's reliability is questionable when you have his article listed next to the "Apollo" hoax stories. Please see for yourself. --Lsorin (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That page linked looks like it is the bibliography section of the journal. Presumably the article listed above is also one he wrote. Frau in Mond was a 1929 scifi film by Fritz Lang; I'm guessing that Winter was comparing the portrayal of the science of it with Apollo - but don't quote me. Here is Frank Winter's bibliography. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Trying to put Winter's reliability in question by this neighboring connection on a bibliography list is ridiculous. Many articles appear in the Smithsonian publications; many writers are expert in other topics. We are not concerned with other articles, just the one about Coanda. As well, pointing to Ceausescu as being knighted by Queen Elizabeth does nothing for our early aviation concerns.

Gibbs-Smith changed nothing about his position from 1960 to 1970. In both books, he said the aircraft did not fly and did not have fuel combustion in the air stream. In 1960 he wrote "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." If an engine which produces a "propulsive 'jet'" (Gibbs-Smith used quotes around the word jet) does not actually propel an aircraft in flight, then the aircraft cannot be called a jet aircraft. When Gibbs-Smith says that the Coanda-1910 was "the first full-size attempt at a jet-propelled aeroplane" he is not saying that it was the first jet-propelled aircraft, he is saying that it was the first attempt—a failed attempt. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought this section is about Winter not Gibbs-Smith. For Gibbs-Smith check WP:RS/N. So combat my edits from this section don't copy past from one page to another just to mix up the administrators or other editors which can influence you personal ignorance.--Lsorin (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You have mis-represented winters by selectively quoting him the sane way you did with Gibbs-Smith. The line about it being the first full-scale reactive propelled machine is immediately followed by his saying that this isn't true either because Canovetti was the constructor of the first full-scale one. I have already posted that part of the article as a link on this page. you read it, and commented on it. This again shows that Coanda invented neither the jet, nor the ducted fan. He just made many lies as an old man with no prouve! Romaniantruths (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A real historian, not a "freelance writer" like Winter will not leave space for misinterpretations. So this again proves the irrelevance of Winter's accounts on Coanda-1910. About my personal comments, I did never comment on Winter's account until now. So don't try to twist my entries. I did respond to all your entries since, I noticed the mess, with xenophobic tent, that you started in July this year. You did not respond to my Consensus proposals nor the Jet Engine definitions, because of your clear ignorance to the facts.--Lsorin (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment "A real historian, not a 'freelance writer' like Winter" is a cheap shot at a man who now serves as historian emeritus at the National Air and Space Museum, and has been on staff there for thirty years. Comments like that will get none of your goals accomplished. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I copied the 'freelance writer' from his own personal page. You can interpret that fact as you wish.--Lsorin (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I interpret it as you saying he is not a real historian. He is one. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't find the word "historian" in that http://frankhwinter.com/bibliography.html page. So that is why personally, I cannot share your personal belief that he is a historian, especially an aviation historian. I can find just Specialties: Early Space Travel/Rocket History, which doesn't make him aviation historian, especially Coanda scholar.--Lsorin (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You will find the word 'historian' at http://www.nasm.si.edu/staffDetail.cfm?staffID=56 where the Smithsonian Institution describes him as having worked with them at the National Air & Space Museum since 1970 as a historical research clerk and since 1980 as a full historian. They say he regularly presented scholarly papers. Now he serves as historian emeritus, following his retirement. Because of the regular scholarly papers he presented, his aviation research is considered not of the popular variety, but of the scholarly variety. He is more important as a source than popular or self-published authors.

I assumed you understood this about Winter, because I posted this same URL link on September 19 and also on October 9 when I started this thread. I have repeatedly said Winter was a historian with NASM. Harping on his early career as a journalist does nobody any credit. Binksternet (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I did not wanted to comment before as I did not consider your link as relevant. But again I cannot share your personal view once again. There is not a single phrase in http://www.nasm.si.edu/staffDetail.cfm?staffID=56 page supporting your position. I could find "researching and writing on the history of space flight and rocketry" in the entry. This does not make him a historian and especially and aviation historian. I see that he became a "historian in 1980", but the rest of the paragraph talks about the rocketry.--Lsorin (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Supporting what position of mine? The NASM biography is what it is... it says one time that Winter served as historian at NASM from 1980. How many times do you need it said? It says he is now "Curator Emeritus", an honor given to the best retired curators. The man's ability is top level. Binksternet (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes historian in Early Space Travel and Rocket History. Coanda did not build a Rocket and was not planning yet to travel in Space in 1910. And I agree man's ability is top level in rocketry not Coanda-1910.--Lsorin (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

So, obviously that means that you now accept that Stine's rocketry background is not pertinent to this article and he has no expertise pertinent to judging Coanda's ducted fan stories(other than his experience in science fiction, of course). Glad to see you've decided to admit this. I guess now we can agree that Stine is not a reliable source.17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths if you 'agree that Frank H. Winter account in the Royal Aeronautical Society's The Aeronautical Journal: 1980, as a rocket/space travel historian is not relevant to Coanda-1910 than I will immediately admit than Stine's account in (August/September 1989). "The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda", Air & Space Smithsonian, volume 4, with his rocketry background, even that it was a scholar of Coanda, is not relevant to the Coanda-1910 subject.--Lsorin (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths' was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion, no doubt. Rocketry and jet engine expertise are not the same, but they are similar. Stine wrote in 1989 "The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda" that Coanda built a 1908 model airplane powered by a skyrocket, but that the model crashed on its first flight near Bucharest. Clearly, Coanda was interested in all propulsion methods, especially ones that did not use propellers. I'm sure that both rocket and jet experts who choose to study Coanda will have something useful to say. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Right now I have the Winter reference borrowed for one day only (draconian rules at the Kresge Engineering Library nearby) and I will work the information into the sandbox article. I will also scan the reference so that I can look at it later and check facts. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for you effort (WP:AGF), but Andy just explained to both of us that Winter's account is wrong: "the first full-scale reactive-propelled machine" is plainly wrong, because if you weaken the definition to that level, it now incorporates the Wright Flyer too.--Lsorin (talk) 18:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Winter says it wasn't necessarily the first reactive propelled machine. He credits Canovetti with being earlier.(This may be where Coanda stole the Idea.) Romaniantruths (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Biases, Biases

I've read just about all the talks on this page, and it's pretty obvious that this argument turned a long time ago from "let's make a correct, neutral article" into "I'm right and you're wrong". Furthermore, I've also read the long debated article, and disregarding any personal opinions on it's content, it's just not what it should be.

So here's my proposition: The article is about a piece of history, so we should limit to presenting here just that - any debates and controversies so much debated should be moved to a separate article about the "first jet airplane debate", where we can fully outline each claim with examples and counter-examples and so on, as this problem isn't just about this particular airplane. This article should talk about the story behind the airplane, and should be written in a historic manner, so I propose we replace it with the Talk:Coandă-1910/Binksternet article which at the moment is much less biased and also presents more information, instead of trying to cover the story with doubt every two phrases like the current article does.

Kaly J. (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely support your proposal and was already made. Basically all this debates can be much better supported in an independent article which can be linked from each aircraft article with such controversies. This was rejected by Romaniantruths and Binskternet as you could see.--Lsorin (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You completely miss Kaly J.'s proposal, substituting it for one of yours. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe again I don't understand well enough English. Let's see Kaly J. opinion if I misunderstood the proposal.--Lsorin (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if you guys stop fighting each other for once... My proposal was in two parts, one about moving all controversies and debates to a separate article, as this isn't the scope of the current one, and the other was about replacing the current article's content with the one on Talk:Coandă-1910/Binksternet as it's much more detailed as a historic article, and lacks all the biases in the current one. In the article currently online here, you can read every two phrases or so that 'the engine was ... but some claim to be different', 'some say he didn't fly, although his own claim states otherwise', etc., and this isn't the place for such debates. In addition, I find quite annoying the fact that Coanda's own story of the plane, it's construction and flight are viewed with disbelief, since the man discovered the Coanda Effect, and furthermore invented and patented stuff throughout all his life in so many domains. If we continue in this manner, next thing would be to also give credit to claims such as that Einstein stole the relativity theory, and so on. [[User: |Kaly J.]] (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Putting the controversy in a separate article does not seem like a good direction to me, as there is room in this article for the controversy, and as the controversy is one of the things that makes the aircraft notable. If we present an aircraft article without controversy, and the aircraft is the subject of fierce debate, then we have not delivered what the reader should see. Your second proposal is the one I favor, of course. Thanks for your endorsement! Binksternet (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Binksternet's version should be substituted for this one as it would be a definite improvement. But I wouldn't mind putting the controversial claims that the 1910 Coanda was a jet in a separate article either, it's really too poorly documented a claim to belong in this article other than perhaps a brief paragraph mentioning that he made such wacky claims in later life.Romaniantruths (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, Kaly J. If someone shows up tomorrow claiming his grandfather invented Relativity Theory 30 years before Einstein, but only has a few recordings and interviews of his grandfather from after WWII where he says he thought up Relativity decades earlier, should we believe him? What if he has a picture from 1870 of a piece of paper that might, or might not, have eqautions similar to the Lorentz transformations written on it? Does this scenario remind you of anything?Romaniantruths (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving content to a separate article could be construed as a POV Fork see WP:Criticism "separate articles devoted to criticism" here. So that would be a no go. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I really wonder how an article in this case Apollo 11 and the Hoax article from the See also section breaking this kind of POV Wikipedia rule is a Featured Article? Since this mess was started by Romaniantruths in July, this article was never stable, like it was previously for the last 7 years, more or less. It is explained very clearly: "For example, "Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics", has over 200 references that cover substantial sourced information. The main article is very long and there is no simple way to integrate the content of the "concerns and controversies" in accordance with the summary style guideline, so a summary section is included in the main article with a link to the sub-article.". There is so much material and contra and pro arguments on each side that I really personally believe that this article will never get in a decent shape as Kaly J. wished.--Lsorin (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

that is addressed in the section you have quoted from - "There are times when a separate "criticism" article makes sense, but they are rare." This article is never going to be so large in the short term as to need to hive off the concerns and the extensive referencing as was the case with the 2008 Olympics article you mention. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Show me please a shorter debate in WP:RSN. If we start congesting all possible material ( we could find mostly the English related ones present in the internet, not the books and other papers in different languages from different museums and archives ) related Coanda 1910, in one article I suppose the length will be non-encyclopedic. As I noticed you have followed the discussions from the beginning, and they are very difficult, especially the technical aspects in which non of us is an expert, and the difficulty to be followed by any new comers, including administrators as well. So please consider it again, if you want to have this article featured ever. I suppose this is what Kaly J. meant with creating this new section.--Lsorin (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And not to forget. There are several different aspects debated here including Coanda's personal biography. Again the complexity of implications ( muzeums, airports, credibility of historians and aviation historians accounts, magazines, books, air forces, aviation institutes and other institutes ) of having everything put in one article is huge which make it "rare" or at least special.--Lsorin (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The point at which to spin off is when the section becomes too big and unwieldy for the article itself, not before the article is even halfway started - so I think that its a case of jumping the gun at this point. There would need to be a summary of the spun off article within a section of this article so it may be better to think smaller and concentrate on the best sources to generate the consideration of those points rather than work up a large article and summarize. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I will agree with you if Kaly J. who started the section agrees. Regarding the best sources, can we start building a list of those first, after Gibbs-Smith and Winter references are treated correctly from discussion point of view?--Lsorin (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the point, I am happy with using the sandbox version of the article as a replacement for the article as it currently stands. Work can then continue to agree modifications to cover the debated points and get a fully rounded article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if we use the sandbox version of the article, we keep it locked until we decide what other changes to make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.113.124.125 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree! We cannot remove the tags in front of the article and unlock it. Non of the versions, the article or the sandbox reflect the correct version supported by all relevant references, which was basically the most stable version until Romaniantruths realized that he is a Romanian aviation historian.--Lsorin (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Tag: Expert needed

{{edit protected}} I would like a template removed from the article, the one that results in a note reading "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject." Expert editors here include Binksternet who is on the Aviation WikiProject, GraemeLeggett who has written many aviation-related articles, Lsorin who is involved in only aviation subjects, Andy Dingley who is expert on engines, and Rlandmann who is expert on aviation engines. At no time in the last two years has the article been lacking expert attention. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Until Andy Dingley, the author of the last stable version and Rlandmann will not start participate in the discussions, I cannot agree with the removal of the expert template. I don't consider Binskternet and myself able to continue working on this subject, without starting to build up some consensus. This was tried and failed as one of the sides refused to participate.--Lsorin (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't describe myself as an expert, personally. And, not to disparage others who are involved, leaving the tag there it is more likely that experienced editors in the aviation area who have not been involved to date in the aviation area may stop by and help. Have you considered approaching the editors mentioned to ask if they wish to get involved? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I started the engine task force some two years ago, a small band of enthusiastic and I believe, level-headed, editors. I have aero engine qualifications. Not sure if this tag is useful, at the same time it does no harm. How many experts do we have alive today who are fully conversant with 1910 aircraft technology and events?!! We can all read the varying sources (and form our own opinions). I believe a note was posted at the task force talk page but nobody has been brave enough to venture forward except myself! I have searched my own references (a fair sized library of quality aviation books) and can't even find Coanda's name. I had the same result with researching the debate that is raging over Gustave Whitehead in Aviation history and his first powered flight claims.

There seems to be two broad views here, one that Coanda developed a jet-propelled aircraft and flew it and one that he did neither. If the truth can not be determined then both sets of reports have to be featured, the weight appears to be that it was not a 'jet engine' and I have grave doubts about the claims myself (irrelevant personal opinion I know). By the way, using our own Jet engine article for definitions is a trap that I've been caught out with before, we can not use another Wikipedia article as a reference, possibly a guide or a lead for other reference sources but that's about it. One day this situation might change. I do hope that all this warring calms down soon. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done, as not only has the aviation project been notified but there's plenty of active discussion here by people who are familiar with the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain us, Chris Cunningham why the {Expert tag} was removed? There have been several Administrators joining and leaving the discussion because of missing expertise. Could you please tell me who is expert on the subject as required by the tag: "This article needs attention from an expert on the subject."? Are you? --Lsorin (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the question for which an expert is required? From recent traffic at my talk:, particularly in relation to the Binksternet draft, I'm seeing confusion from one editor but not unclear technical issues. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you refer to me as editor. First I did not touch Binksternet sandbox, so please don't consider me as editor of Binksternet draft. I already explained why I cannot support that draft in the WP:RSN board so I will not repeat myself. I had a question in your talk page which I would like you to answer as you are the expert on Coanda-1910: In which type of reaction engine the Coanda-1910 "turbopropulseur" fits to?--Lsorin (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that in 1900's period there wasn't a clear definition of what a jet engine was, in fact, there were debates about everything concerning air flight, and everyone looked at other's innovation with disbelief and irony. It's not a wonder that Coanda's airplane wasn't received well and wasn't given serious thought by the public, reporters, etc. ... Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that just because the airplane was a flop at the Paris Expo (Coanda's own story says in short that he barely lifted from the ground, the plain caught fire from the engine, and he crash-landed) that doesn't mean the engine wasn't a precursor of the jet engine. Simply calling Coanda a liar, like I noticed in this noticeboard, doesn't seem adequate to me personally as the man was a de facto inventor, not a fraud trying to claim some spot light - the story about the airplane actually surfaced when Coanda started being asked about how he found the Coanda Effect and he responded that he first noticed the effect when the plane caught fire at the paris expo. Kaly J. (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with almost every comment you have made regarding the reliability of sources. I do not share all of Binksternet's faith in Gibbs-Smith, as I see that reasoning to be too much of a proof by authority. This is not to say that I disagree with either of them, merely that I'd want better evidence to back it up. Fortunately Coanda's own writings and patents are IMHO adequate here. He describes a complex turbopropulseur in such detail that we can see what it is: a ducted fan, with an unusual amount of effort paid to flow straightening (it's illustrative to compare it to 1950s British work in centrifugal compressors for gas turbines). It is not however a gas turbine (there is no turbine driven by gas flow), nor is it a motorjet (there is no fuel burning to increase the energy of the exhaust).

It is pointless to try and categorize this engine and its propulseur according to a taxonomy from Wikipedia. WP is not a reliable source. If we do categorize it, we should describe it as a ducted fan. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word turbine in his patent comes from early 20th century ventilation technology. Squirrel-cage blowers were referred to as turbines then. I've seen this phrase used in a 1909 encyclopedia of engineering under an illustration of a squirrel-cage blower. Since many modern sources define a turbine as a device which extracts power from fluid-flow this has led to some confusion.

I am in complete agreement with Andy Dingly that the patents clearly show a ducted fan. I also feel that this description is sufficiently clear that a layman could satisfy himself that this is the case by reading the patent. This is the standard set by wikipedia for using primary sources: They may not be interprited, but they may be used if they are understandable to a non-expert.

The patents are detailed explanations of the turbopropulseur's function in Coanda's own words and are filed with governmental agencies so that Coanda did not have the opportunity to practice historical revisionism on them. This makes them the most reliable descriptions of this device. Any arguement that he added provisions for fuel injection and ignition for his claimed Dec 10th (or 16th) flight are belied by the fact that he continued to file the Original patent after this date, and filed no patents showing any such claimed innovations. That even Coanda himself realized this is shown by his crude attempt at historical revisionism by drawing up diagrams in the post-WWII era showing these elements which his patents lacked, as described by Winters.Romaniantruths (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What about this extras from Coanda's patent: "But, more particularly in case of aerial propellers the exhaust gases from the engine which are supplied to the socket 4 forming the hollow point of the propeller. These gases collected by the semi-spherical body 3, are distributed by the hollow radil extentsion 5 between the walls of the conduits 6, so that, in addition to the exchange of heat obtained; these hot gases under pressure act also on the movable blades 12 and produce a depression which assist the escape of the fluid at the orifice of the distributor." Andy is this "turbine driven by gas flow"?--Lsorin (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Coanda clearly recognised that there was energy in the hot engine exhaust and so wished to use this to increase the energy in the propulsive jet efflux (which wasn't novel, Lorin had designed an engine based solely on this two years earlier). It's worth noting that engines of this period used low compression ratios - as well as making combustion chemistry less effective, this also made them much less efficient as expansion engines. The exhaust from these early engines was very hot indeed, enough to burn valves.

It could be argued (and Lsorin will almost inevitably do so) that this heat injection makes the engine a thermojet. I would dispute this, as the energy injected is still minor, relative to that of the mechanical fan.

As to whether this energy then makes the (mechanically driven) fan into a (gasflow driven) turbine, then of course not. There is only one element to this fan, and that element is still being driven by the engine. _If_ the injected heat was sufficient to drive the fan as a turbine (which would also require some neat multi-purpose blading), the engine would then be no more than a gas generator driving a turbine - a configuration that has indeed been studied (look under free-piston engine), but as a means of generating output shaft power. Coanda had no such output shaft to drive. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use Coanda's own words to describe the aircraft his pamphlet use the phrase "sans helices" which I interpret as "without propellers". You could say it was an attempt at a propellerless aircraft - though perhaps choosing phrasing so as not to cause confusion with a glider. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett I would think in a different way. From the leaflet Coanda "sans helices" is trying to point out that his airplane was propelled by the reaction of jets of air axial reaction which gives rise to propulsion[9] and the claims section jets of fluid towards the back of the turbine and parallel to their direction of inlet into the distributor, instead of propellers which he is discussing in the entry of the patent.

Andy did you check the pictures from the French and Swiss patents and the additions [10]? There are some addition with the explantion from Coanda that is not one "single element to this fan" but several and contra-rotating propellers ( drawings ). Is it still a fan? And in the claim section his entry about the heating is 3 A propeller of the kind set forth in Claim 1 in which the distributor is constituted by a series of boxes with helical walls leaving between their respective partitions, passages for the circulation of a heating agent such as... Do you agree that Coanda just give examples of heating agents with the phrase such as leaving open the possibility to inject for instance ignited gas?--Lsorin (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The patents still only describe a single element in this sense: there is one rotating fan and there is no burner or heat injection within the boundaries of this element.

Coanda may well have "left the possibility open" for all manner of things, but that still wouldn't indicate that the 1910 aircraft included them, or that Coanda's later works included them. Apart from which, as Whittle discovered, it's one thing to invent the principle of the gas turbine, quite another to solve the materials engineering problems of building it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Coanda never said that he invented the turbojet which is correctly attributed to Whittle and Von Ohain. But the technical challenges of building a termojet are of different magnitude, as demonstrated later by Campini-Caproni termojet.--Lsorin (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For Coanda to have built a thermojet or motorjet, you would have to show evidence that fuel was burned after an initial fan stage. There is still no evidence for this, no matter how sophisticated that fan becomes. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Military

Why is there a MILHIST banner on this page? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You got me there! I guess I never noticed them. I am removing the military history project banners as irrelevant. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The airplane is important for the history of Romanian Air Force. I know that Binkstenter is avoiding that fact since this mess started and he denies that that institution does even exist as he never comments on that.--Lsorin (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The tag is only relevant if the Coanda 1910 was a military aircraft. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, how about some AGF, Lsorin! I removed the tag simply because the aircraft was never armed nor was ever considered for war duties. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Binksternet if you took my action as not following your good faith. If you agree that a airplane was important for the Romanian Air Force then the MILHIST tag is relevant, at least according to 6. Military historiography, publications, and historians[11] or even 8. Depictions of military history in all media, such as video games, painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose[12].--Lsorin (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I see your quotes, thanks for the links, but I understand that this single experimental aircraft was never part of any military endeavor. Binksternet (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is outside the scope of the military history project in my view because it was an experimental and unarmed aircraft with no indication of future military use. There are many other tagged aircraft articles that should not have this banner. I suggest that the banner on this page is removed (again?!). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Mere potential does not qualify as military importance, especially when unfulfilled. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources ranked by quality

Can we all agree to build a list of the sources in order of their quality according to Wikipedia rules?--Lsorin (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure! How about the following? Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources by quality, version 1

Printed scholarly sources with cites, directly describing Coanda Winter, Frank H. (1980). "Ducted Fan or the World's First Jet Plane? The Coanda claim re-examined". The Aeronautical Journal. 84. Royal Aeronautical Society: 408–416. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Gibbs-Smith, Charles Harvard (1960). The Aeroplane: An Historical Survey of its Origins and Development. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Stine, G. Harry (1989). "The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda". Air & Space Smithsonian. 4 (3). Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution: 90–95. ISSN 0886-2257. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Reference-level sources describing Coanda in passing Brady, Tim (2000), The American aviation experience: a history, SIU Press, p. 168, Fuel was injected into the vent and ignited. On a trial run when Coanda ignited the fuel, the aircraft rapidly gained speed, lifted off the ground and, and flew for about a thousand feet before crashing into a wall. Coanda was not injured, but he gave up further development of the power plant. Christy, Joe; Cook, LeRoy (1994). American Aviation. McGraw-Hill Professional. pp. 337–338, 477. ISBN 007022014X. The first jet aircraft was a 1910 biplane powered by a centrifugal compressor driven by a small... Christy, Joe (1984). The Illustrated Handbook of Aviation and Aerospace Facts. TAB Books. pp. 87, 408. ISBN 0830623973. The jet aircraft engine? Well, Henri Coanda designed, built, and briefly flew a jet airplane... Boyne, Walter J. (2002). Air warfare: an international encyclopedia, Volume 1. Warfare Series. Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 118. ISBN 1576073459. Stine, George Harry (1983). The Hopeful Future. Macmillan. p. 54. ISBN 0026147904. Gunston, Bill (1995). The Development of Jet and Turbine Aero Engines. p. 118. Scholars in correspondence Gibbs-Smith, Charles Harvard (14 October 1960). "Correspondence: 'Coanda's 1910 Jet Experiments'". Flight: 619. The extraordinary claim was not made until 1956 ... There was never any idea of injecting fuel; the machine never flew; it was never destroyed on test; and Flight noted that it was soon sold to a Mr Weymann. Respected web sources Sultan, Cornel I. "Coanda-1910". Henri Marie Coanda. Allstar Network. Retrieved 6 October 2010. Journal editors "World News: Dr Henri Coanda". Flight: 76. 18 January 1973. "Augmented Flow". Flight. 15 August 1946. p. 174. Magazine articles by reporters Oiseau (October 29, 1910). "Impressions of the Paris Show—(continued)". Flight: 883. "Features of the Paris Air Show: From "The Aero," London". Aircraft. 1: 367. December 1910. King, H. F. (11 December 1953). "The First Fifty Years". Flight: 755. Popular sources "Suction Turbines Serve As Air Propellers". Popular Mechanics: 359. 1911. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Houart, Victor (1957). L'Histoire de l'aviation recontée à mon fils (in French). Société Cherisienne de Publications at d'Editions Casablanca. Primary sources Coanda, Henri, Seuls Aeroplanes sans helices avec turbo-propulseur (pdf), Aeroplanes Coanda, p. 1, retrieved 2 October 2010 French patent 416541 Propulseur, filed 9 August 1910, published 22 October 1910 Swiss patent CH58232(A) British Patent GB191112740(A) applied for May 26, 1911 US Patent 1104963 Propeller. Filing date: 29 May 1911. Issue date: July 1914. Unsigned texts "Henri Coanda: The Facts" (PDF). Retrieved 22 September 2010.

I thought that a discussion on sources was going on at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Coanda-1910_sources - no point in duplicating effort. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Let's wait for the last entries of Hans Adler.--Lsorin (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Heat exchanger

Andy Dingley questioned the presence in the article of "heat exchanger" related to the engine:

• Small {{cn}} on the use of a "heat exchanger". I've seen evidence for the exhaust being injected into the gasflow, but not an exchanger. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

TransientVoyager responded:

• Re Andy's concern over the use of "heat-exchanger-augmented rotary compressor propulsion system" in the Binksternet lead, could it not just be simplified to "heat-augmented ..."? --TransientVoyager (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In 1980, Frank H. Winter quoted the article Coanda wrote for the 1911 printing of L'Annuaire de l'Air (Air Annual) in which he described his 1910 aircraft engine. Coanda wrote, "In the center, forward, is the distributing heat recuperator of the exhaust gases, then the wheel, the blades of which are formed of three curves..." Winter further quotes an article published in La Technique Aeronautique on 1 November 1910 which describes the engine in the aircraft at the exhibition: "His propulseur is founded on the employment of an air turbine. The provisions therefore are composed of three parts: a forward distributor, the turbine and the rear diffuser. Of the three parts, the turbine alone is mobile. The cone of the distributor is furnished with scoop paddles and the inventor utilises the heat of the exhaust gases of the motor which are introduced in the hollow interiors of the fixed paddles for pushing the sucked-in air through the turbine; this is an ingenious manner of compensating in advance the cooling produced by the expansion to the exit of the diffuser..."

The British patent applied for on 29 May 1911 is quoted by Winter: "In order to improve the efficiency, the distributing conduits are heated so as to bring about an increase of pressure of the fluid vein passing through them, which can be recovered on the movable blades. To that end, any thermic agent, for instance cooling water of the engine, can be circulated round the distributing conduits, thus avoiding the use of the radiator. But, more particularly in the case of aerial propellers, it is preferable to utilise the exhaust gases from the engine, which are supplied to the socket forming the hollow point of the propeller. These gases collected by the semi-spherical body are distributed by the hollow radial extensions between the walls of the conduits so that, in addition to the exchange of heat obtained, these hot gases under pressure act also on the moveable blades and produce a depression which assists the escape of the fluid at the orifice of the distributor." Winter wrote that the exhaust gases performing heat exchange duties and also reducing pressure through the distributor was a feature "merely for additional efficiency or added power. But it was still inadequate and it was still not a true jet."

Though not a true jet per Winter, the engine certainly appears to have included a heat exchange mechanism incorporating exhaust gases routed through channels in fixed scoops. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The air is being heated before compression. this doesn't augment the thrust, it decreases it! This is obvious, and that Coanda didn't understand it speaks very poorly for his 'expertise' in this area.Romaniantruths (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It is what it is... Some experts today think it was sufficiently powerful to fly a thousand feet (300 m) before crashing. Me, I doubt it. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Again the Romanian truths expert comes in. Please check Coanda's patent more carefully. The compression of the air is done before the heating in the diffusers for increase of kinetic energy. It is true that in the distributor part the pressure of the exhaust gases are used to move the blades as well I think in form of some kind of turbocharger or following that kind of principles. Please read this article written by an expert. And I'm very sure that even that we talk about 100 year ago stuff, those guys were more experts than you will ever be Romaniantruths ( Ok I will admit not in manipulation like you).

Binskternet I did not start any fight about the flying! Yet, I thought that at least we try to clarify in which category the powerplant or prototype can be put in first!--Lsorin (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The "expert" you quoted is not an expert. He's just some guy who wrote a letter to the Editor. This has been explained to you time after time after time. It even says at the top of the page you linked that his view is not endorsed by the magazine. In addition User:Andy Dingley has explained to you why this letter is incorrect in it's assertions.Romaniantruths (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, what about it Lsorin? Do you still think this guy meets your definition of an expert?Romaniantruths (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

TransientVoyager and Andy Dingley, I changed "heat-exchanger-augmented" in the lead section to "heat-augmented", because the heat augmentation was dual: heat exchange ducts and heat from the direct addition of exhaust gases. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes good sense, I doubt anyone will argue with that, but then again ... ;-p --TransientVoyager (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Andy is this more encyclopedic? My first entry in Google to "heat-augmented": http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5110758.html. I'm wondering what kind of propulsion was Coanda looking for. Throwing cold resistors back to his cart provided with umbrellas? ( sorry TransientVoyager, nothing personal. I hope that you take it as a joke!)

No worries; life's too short, and a bit of humour helps keep things in perspective. :-) --TransientVoyager (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I did reply to your and Romaniantruths discussion in the section above. I hope you have access to the patent.--Lsorin (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did see your reply, thankyou Lsorin. --TransientVoyager (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The descriptions quoted above in this section still have the heat exchanger before the compressor. And the exhaust gasses coming out of the heat-exchanger enter the engine before the compressor. This means less dense air at the blower intake and ,consequently, less mass flow to propel the craft. How can less thrust be augmentation?Romaniantruths (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that the engine was intended to have heat augmentation, as it is so described in the patent. Whether it did, or was effective, is another question. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Romaniantruths again your expertise puzzles me. Could you please check as well the pictures attached to the patent? Before the distributor the air is already compressed by forward movement. The shape of the intake is conic towards the distributor chamber. It is the same shape as in the pulse jet engine[13] intake. After that the heating is done with the exhaust gas from the normal reciprocal engine. The ducts towards the compressor chamber are a bit larger towards the end as Coanda explained in the patent, basically creating an expansion and the ducts are insulated, so that not to mush thermal energy is lost, before the kinetic energy is used as well on the compressor blades. So basically Coanda engine cycle would be very close to Lenoir cycle. Of course I admit that the heat addition is not very spectacular as exploding some injected fuel but still the cycle is the same. Please check the pictures with the shape of the intake.--Lsorin (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Coanda would not have experienced the compression by forward movement unless the engine was in motion. At idle, or on the test bench, the engine's air intake cone would not compress the air before it hit the multi-bladed scoops. Did Coanda put the engine on his train truck test rig, and fire it up at speed? Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lsorin, again your inability to make accurate claims puzzles me. The distributor lays across the intake opening of the conic profile you refer to, not after it. It also, of course, blocks a portion of this intake cone's area and creates turbulence so that in addition to heating the air at the beginning of this cone, it restricts it's flow through the cone. This would cancel out the 'compression' you're hoping for, even if it were otherwise real. However the rounded taper you refer to is a common feature on suction air intakes for a purpose which has nothing to do with a 'ram effect'. It is to prevent air from flowing into the intake in a direction perpendicular to the desired fluid-flow as this would cause excessive turbulence along with it's concomitant restriction. In addition, you really should understand that the turbopropulseur sucks..... literally. The intake produces a depression when running(Vuia concedes this in the very patent you claim to have read and understood, remember the section where he talks about the exhaust being sucked into the blower to reduce the back-pressure engendered by his cicuitous exhaust heat exchanger system?). In order to achieve even ambient conditions in the inlet it would be necessary to have an intake flow caused by it's forward motion which would equal the rate of flow the centrifugal blower requires. Considering the restriction caused by the distributor, this zero boost condition would only obtain at a considerable forward speed. Besides, the amount of 'compression' produced by forward motion at speeds under 100MPH under even the best conditions is trivial for these purposes. Although considering the general dimensions and proportions of the parts of this "compressor", and the fact that it's only turning 4000RPM, it wouldn't really be increasing the pressure much anyway. It has been compared to a hair-dryer by some editors here, but it really has a lot more in common with a leaf-blower; another device designed to move rather than compress air.Romaniantruths (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you even tried to read Coanda's patent? The distributor ("5" in Coanda's picture) does not lie and the opening of the intake but at the end of it, in the lowest part. The exhaust gases are sent to the distributor, before the air mixed with, is sent through ducts 6 into the compressor chamber. To answer to Binksternet questions as well, when the compressor blades are put in motion by the normal reciprocal engine the whole system will start moving forwards because of the reaction produced of air mass pushed out through the diffusers placed at the back of the powerplant. Basically Coanda was trying to increase the pressure at distributor with the exhaust gases, as according to the Bernoulli's principle the pressure and the fluid's potential energy will drop as the speed of the fluid increases.--Lsorin (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained to you why the bell-mouth does not produce pressure for a variety of reasons. These reasons are fairly simple. I would think anyone with such technical expertese as you claim to have would be able to understand them. They're much simpler than Betz's law, which you used with such devastating effect to teach Andy Dingley how a jet works. The 5-inch diameter should tell you something as well. It's not all that much larger than the typical leaf-blower I compared it to, and the rate of rotation is also similar to a gas-powered leaf-blower as well. Maybe it wasn't really meant to be an airplane at all. Maybe Coanda built it to perform the public service of keeping stay leaves off the airfield!Romaniantruths (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Discuss sources, not concepts. Conjecture is not helpful. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)